EE Exchange – Data Retreat 2018 Making sense of the data

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model Webinar for Washington State Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project.
Advertisements

Summary of Results from Spring 2014 Presented: 11/5/14.
September 2013 The Teacher Evaluation and Professional Growth Program Module 2: Student Learning Objectives.
Philip Parker Administrator Training and Certification.
Introduction to GREAT for ELs Office of Student Assessment Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (608)
1 Title 1 Parent Meeting Title 1 Parent Meeting March 8, 2011 District 211 Academy-North.
February 8, 2012 Session 3: Performance Management Systems 1.
LSE 2009 Staff Survey – Presentation to Staff Briefings 15 th /16 th March 2010.
Teacher Engagement Survey 2014
Student Engagement Survey Results and Analysis June 2011.
Summer Non-effective School Districts district staff issue a plethora of uncoordinated and often contradictory directives while presiding over resource.
1 Differentiated Accountability. 2 Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model On July 28, 2008, Florida was named one of six states to pilot a differentiated.
Laying the Groundwork for the New Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System TPGES.
Overview of Title I Part A Farwell ISD. The Intent of Title I Part A The intent is to help all children to have the opportunity to obtain a high quality.
Teacher Evaluation and Professional Growth Program Module 4: Reflecting and Adjusting December 2013.
Introduction to GREAT for ELs Office of Student Assessment Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (608)
Educator Growth & Evaluation Marshall Public Schools.
Teacher Engagement Survey Results and Analysis June 2011.
Overview of Title I Part A Prepared by: Title I Staff - Office of Superintendent of Instruction OSPI Dr. Bill Wadlington, Superintendent/Principal and.
School Improvement Partnership Programme: Summary of interim findings March 2014.
© 2009, CSSR Inc. All Rights Reserved. Personalization for College and Career Readiness Presented by Joe DiMartino July 7, 2013 Presented by Joe DiMartino.
The Teacher Evaluation and Professional Growth Program Module 6: Reflecting and Planning for Next Year December 2013.
EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS IN WISCONSIN: FEEDBACK FROM RURAL SCHOOLS 1.
© 2014 K12 Insight Results and Analysis Campus Climate Survey – Boswell High School Eagle Mountain-Saginaw ISD January 27 - February 7, 2014.
AchieveNJ: Principal and Assistant/ Vice Principal Evaluation Scoring Guide
AchieveNJ: Principal and Assistant/ Vice Principal Evaluation Scoring Guide
Human Resources Office of 1 Summary of Results College of Design Dean’s Reports.
Educator Effectiveness Liaison Network Informational Webinar October 17, 2014.
EVALUATIONS Evaluations are regulated and required by KDE (KAR’s and KRS’s) All Certified staff are held accountable to job specific domains and standards.
EVALUATIONS Evaluations are regulated and required by KDE (KAR’s and KRS’s) All Certified staff are held accountable to job specific domains and standards.
Peer Consultancy: Observation, Debrief, Analysis.
APPR 2.0 (based on CR 3012-d) NSCSD Goals The NSCSD District Goals Can be evidenced in planning, classroom instruction, assessment and teacher’s.
© 2016 Results and Analysis: Elementary Schools Only 2016 School Quality Survey Spring ISD January 19 – 31, 2016.
Should Ofsted hold schools to account for teacher workload and development? Peter Sellen November
Alexandria City Public Schools Preliminary Results of the 2016 Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) Survey. Dawn Shephard Associate Director, Teaching,
DATA SNAPSHOT Part II Prepared by Cori Herbst-Loehr
Well Trained International
Sue Reynolds Elementary Title I Annual Parent Meeting
Evaluations (TPGES) All Certified staff are held accountable to job specific domains and standards. SB 1 Changes The Process Starts with the PGP. Bourbon.
Hillingdon CCG CCG 360o stakeholder survey 2014 Summary report.
Equitable Access to Excellent Educators
Campus Climate Survey – Chisholm Ridge Elementary School
Annual Title I Meeting Jones Valley Middle School
Campus Climate Survey – Northbrook Elementary School
Changes to the Educator Evaluation System
Evaluation of the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System Pilot: Results of the Teacher Practice Rating System Pilot Curtis Jones, UW Milwaukee Steve.
Overview This presentation provides information on how districts compile evaluation ratings for principals, assistant principals (APs), and vice principals.
Annual Title I, Part A Meeting
Parent & Staff Survey Results
The Call for Action: Coaching and Supporting Mathematics Instruction
This presentation will include:
Evaluations Evaluations are regulated and required by KDE (KAR’s and KRS’s) All Certified staff are held accountable to job specific domains and standards.
Kim Miller Oregon Department of Education
Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT)
School Performance Measure Calculations SY
Measuring perceptions of safety climate in primary care
Administrator Evaluation Orientation
By: Steven, Austin, Ryan, & Kendal
Overview This presentation provides information on how districts compile evaluation ratings for principals, assistant principals (APs), and vice principals.
Harrow CCG CCG 360o stakeholder survey 2014 Summary report.
Thanks for the reports…
Schoolwide Programs.
Employee Engagement Defined
Title I Annual Meeting Pinewood Elementary, August 30, 2018.
Title I Information for Parents
Roadmap November 2011 Revised March 2012
Kentucky’s Professional Growth and Effectiveness System
State Examples and Follow-up Data Requests for SOQ Proposals
Student Growth Measures
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Presentation transcript:

EE Exchange – Data Retreat 2018 Making sense of the data Curtis Jones & Leon Gilman, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee

Background As part of the state-wide evaluation of the Educator Effectiveness Process, the Office of Socially Responsible Evaluation in Education (SREed) at UWM, surveyed all Wisconsin teachers from March until the end of May Contact information was obtained from either MLP or from the district Over 24,000 teachers completed a survey This is an overall 44% response rate Only schools and districts with at least 5 responses and a 39% response rate receive reports. 955 schools and 274 districts met this requirement

Instruments A number of validated instruments, and developed ones for the evaluation, were used in our survey to measure: EE implementation: The number of times teachers were observed, were provided written feedback, and were provided face-to-face feedback. The adequacy of support and time provided to teachers to complete the EE process. Aspects of feedback provided: Use feedback to improve, opportunity to use feedback, accuracy of feedback, and usefulness of feedback. Principal effectiveness: The trust teachers have with their principal, principal leadership, and evaluator qualifications to provide feedback. Teacher perceptions of their job: Job satisfaction and commitment to their school Other measures: Trust and collaboration between teachers, SLO engagement, and other aspects of EE implementation

Reports Each school or district receives two reports: The first report provides data on: the amount and type of feedback provides to teachers, time and support to complete EE, the quality of performance feedback, teacher perceptions of their principal, and teacher satisfaction with their job. The second supplement report provides data about: other aspects of the implementation of EE, teacher collaboration with other teachers, the SLO process, and teacher trust in other teachers.

Interpreting the Results Overall results for a district or school are presented as floating bar charts. These charts put the results of a school or district in the context of the results of all schools or districts across the state. The shaded areas reflect the range of ratings for other schools across the state. The school’s score (an orange dot) reflects the average of teacher ratings on the questions that comprise that domain. Since all survey questions have four answer choices, the lowest response (Disagree) is coded as a 1, while the highest response (Agree) is coded as a 4. Thus, higher scores reflect more organized schools.

Interpreting the Results Additional figures present your school/district results for each of the specific questions that comprise each domain measured in the survey. These figures show the percentage of your teachers that chose each of possible answers to the questions. In addition, these figures show the average school/district percentage of teachers across Wisconsin that chose each of the possible answers to the questions. These figures will help you understand what is driving your school/district results and provide direction for improving your implementation of teacher evaluation and support processes.

The Connection Between Feedback, Principal Effectiveness, and Teacher Job Satisfaction Recent research funded by IES (Garet, et. al., 2017), and our own research in Wisconsin, shows that providing teachers with ongoing feedback improves teacher perceptions of principal leadership and trust, and their job satisfaction.

Report Organization: From EE implementation to Teacher Job Satisfaction The number of feedback meetings and the time provided to teachers to complete the steps of EE Teacher perceptions of the quality and accuracy of feedback Teacher perceptions of the leadership of and trust in their principal Teacher satisfaction with their job

Report Organization: From EE implementation to Teacher Job Satisfaction

Report Organization: From EE implementation to Teacher Job Satisfaction

Report Organization: From EE implementation to Teacher Job Satisfaction Teachers in districts that provide them enough time and support to complete the steps of EE and are organized to provide teachers face-to-face 2 feedback at least 2 times report the feedback they receive is much more useful and accurate. The percent of teachers who have at least 2 face-to- face feedback meetings and the amount of time and support provided to teachers to complete EE combine to explain most (56%) of the differences between districts regarding the usefulness and accuracy of feedback provided to teachers.

Report Organization: From EE implementation to Teacher Job Satisfaction EE implementation and the usefulness and accuracy of performance feedback combine to explain most of the differences between districts regarding teacher perceptions of principal leadership (62%), teacher trust in their principal (56%), and teacher perceptions of how qualified their evaluator is to provide them performance feedback (71%).

Report Organization: From EE implementation to Teacher Job Satisfaction EE implementation, the usefulness and accuracy of performance feedback, principal leadership, teacher trust in their principal, and teacher perceptions of how qualified their evaluator is to provide them performance feedback combine to explain the majority of differences between districts in teacher commitment to their school (58%) and about half the differences in job satisfaction (48%).

Report Organization: From EE implementation to Teacher Job Satisfaction Improving the EE process and the quality of performance feedback provided to teachers improves principal effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction.

From EE implementation to Teacher Job Satisfaction in Your District or School

How to get more information? To view full reports of the results presented today go to www.uwm.edu/sreed For questions about this presentation, the evaluation of EE, to read the full reports of these studies, or to request reports of results for your educators, please contact Curtis Jones jones554@uwm.edu For questions about Educator Effectiveness and how to use the results presented here to inform your own Educator Effectiveness processes, please contact Katharine Rainey at Katharine.Rainey@dpi.wi.gov