PUSD Teacher Evaluation SY12/13 Governing Board Presentation May 10, 2012

Presentation Overview  Requirements of ARS  New Legislative Developments  PD and Communication  Survey Response  Revisions  PUSD Data Input Process  Data Requirement  PUSD Next Steps

Arizona Revised Statutes § (A)(38)  The State Board of Education shall…”on or before December 15, 2011 adopt and maintain a model framework for a teacher and principal evaluation instrument that includes quantitative data on student academic progress that accounts for between thirty-three percent and fifty percent of the evaluation outcomes and best practices for professional development and evaluator training. School districts and charter schools shall use an instrument that meets the data requirements established by the State Board of Education to annually evaluate individual teachers and principals beginning in school year 2012 – 2013.”

HB 2823  Effective June, 2012  Allows governing boards to delay the implementation of the Teacher and Principal Evaluation data component until SY13-14  Administration recommends we move forward

Framework Requirements  ADE Adopted Model Framework for Educator Effectiveness April, 2011  Classroom observation tool must be:  Rubric-based  Tied to Arizona Teaching Standards  33% to 50% of the evaluation must be based on student achievement data  PUSD began to make the shift in evaluation practices this year  Bringing revisions to current process forward tonight

Professional Development and Communication  Professional Development:  Over 50 hours of training for administrators  Teachers trained on the four different modules  Teachers and Administrators surveyed to solicit feedback on the process and the instrument  Site visits to every school by Deputy Superintendent and Human Resources to every school to help provide understanding around the Framework, the data component, the law, and PUSD processes

PUSD Plans for Continuous Improvement for Current Evaluation Process  Reconvened Governing Board appointed Certified Teacher Evaluation Committee (CTEC) to look at current evaluation tool and system  Committee:  Analyzed survey data from both teachers and administrators  Administration is bringing back CTEC’s recommended changes to the tools and process to the Governing Board for approval this evening

Response to Survey Concern - Length  Minor wording changes based on current research  Deletes Components 3e, 3f, and 3h  Assesses the three reflections written by teachers based on their goals using Component 4a, Reflection on Teaching

Response to Survey Concern - TIME  Non-Continuing Teacher  Minimum of TWO classroom observations – one scheduled, one unscheduled – each semester  Continuing Teacher  Minimum of 80 minutes of observation  Minimum of TWO observations  Added a mid-year conference to collect evidence on Domains 1 and 4 to be completed prior to February 1st.

Response to Survey Concern- TIME  IMT On-Line Application Development  Exploring the use of Technology  Pilot to began on April 28 th  Efficiencies gained

Data Model

PUSD Data Input Process  November, 2011 – Administration Formed Teacher Evaluation Data Committee  80 participants district-wide participated in 5 meetings  Developed understanding around the Framework and the requirements of ARS Group A and Group B Valid and Reliable Data Classroom-level Data Data Mining  Made recommendations for percentages for Group A and Group B teachers

Data Percentage Recommendation  Committee Recommendation for Data  Group A  Group B Instructional Practices Classroom- level Data School-level Data

Teacher Evaluation: Data Component Next Steps  Created a PUSD Standing Data Committee  Committee comprised mostly of teachers  Reviewed the Data Committee’s work and formalized it for Governing Board approval Formulate the data points and process needed to satisfy ARS and the Framework Fair and equitable data components Recommendation regarding use of data in employment decision making

Data Model Guiding Principles  Collaborative thinking  Guiding principles  Equity  Comprehensive  Manageable  Choice – Menu Driven  Balance  Transparency  First Year’s Needs  Spirit of the Law

Putting it All Together – Group A

Group A – 33/7/40  6 Overall Data Points  33%  4 Choices  2 are mandatory  7% - Surveys  Pick 2 1 Survey Mandatory Parent Student  Choices are made at the end of the year  60%- Professional Practices  Danielson/PUSD Framework

Putting It All Together – Group B

Group B – 33/67  5 Overall data points  33%  1 Mandatory – Survey Parent Student  If a valid and reliable data point exists, that is mandatory  Choices are made at the end of the year  67% Professional Practices- Danielson/PUSD Framework

How is This Data Used?  Administration recommends no employment decisions be made using the data component of teacher evaluation in SY 12-13

Development of Classroom-level Data  This Summer – K-12 Curriculum Work  English/Language Arts  Math  CTE (selected pathways)  Arts  Assessment Development  Math Focus  SY  Science, Social Studies, Arts, CTE (selected pathways), Special Areas

How Will This Change Things?  This is a journey for PUSD  Developing a common vocabulary about what excellent instruction looks like  A common focus and vision for curriculum, instruction and assessment

Final Thoughts “Every profession establishes a language of practice, one that captures the important concepts and understandings shared by members of the profession. Similarly, a framework for teaching offers educators a means of communicating about excellence. …A uniform framework allows those conversations to guide novices as well as to enhance the performance of veterans.” Charlotte Danielson

Questions on Teacher Evaluation