S.B Implementation: Professional Practice for Higher Education Leaders September 13, :30 pm – 1:45 pm

WELCOME from today’s featured presenters… Jenny Arzberger, Educator Preparation Project Manager Courtney Cabrera, Principal Consultant, Colorado Department of Education Dawn Pare, Principal Consultant, Colorado Department of Education

Introductions When we call on you, be prepared to introduce yourself and share your affiliation and role.

How do you feel about Senate Bill ? Please identify a Beatles song title that best describes how you are feeling about S.B  Help!  We Can Work It Out  8 Days a Week  With a Little Help from My Friends  Be prepared to share:  What made you choose this song title?

Successful students Prepare students to thrive in their education and in a globally competitive workforce.  Ensure every student is on track to graduate postsecondary and workforce ready.  Increase achievement for all students and close achievement gaps.  Ensure students graduate ready for success in postsecondary education and the workforce.  Increase national and international competitiveness for all students. Great teachers and leaders Ensure effective educators for every student and effective leaders for every school and district.  Increase and support the effectiveness of all educators.  Optimize the preparation, retention, and effectiveness of new educators.  Eliminate the educator equity gap. Outstanding schools and districts Build the capacity of schools and districts to meet the needs of Colorado students and their families.  Increase school and district performance.  Turnaround the state’s lowest performing districts and schools.  Foster innovation and expand access to a rich array of high quality school choices for students. Best education system in the nation Build the best education system in the nation.  Lead the nation in policy, innovation, and positive outcomes for students.  Operate with excellence, efficiency, and effectiveness to become the best SEA in the nation.  Attract and retain outstanding talent to CDE. Goals Students Educators Schools/ Districts State

 …out of 178 school districts and 19 BOCES  160 districts/12 BOCES are using the State Model System for teachers and principals  10 districts are using a hybrid system that includes the State Model for evaluating teachers OR principals and a local system for the other group  7 districts have developed their own evaluation systems for teachers and principals  For more information: It’s important because...

Training Objectives  By the end of this webinar:  You will understand the State Model Evaluation System, which includes:  Teacher and Principal Quality Standards  the evaluation process  components of the rubric, and  how to score the rubric  You will be able to envision how you can incorporate components of the State Model Evaluation System in your courses.

 Senate Bill Information  Purposes and Critical Effects  Priorities of Implementation  Educator Quality Standards – Teacher and Principal  Educator Quality Standards  Evaluation Process  Rubric Structure and Scoring  Simulation  Analyzing for professional development Agenda

Purposes of S.B  A system to evaluate the effectiveness of licensed personnel and continually improve the quality of education and student outcomes.  Provide meaningful feedback for professional growth and continuous improvement.  Provide a basis for making decisions in the areas of hiring, compensation, promotion, assignment, professional development, earning and retaining non-probationary status, dismissal, and nonrenewal of contract.

Critical Effects of S.B  Requires statewide minimum standards for what it means to be an _________ teacher or principal  Requires ______ evaluation of all teachers and principals  Requires that all teachers and principals be evaluated at least ____% on the academic ______ of their students annual “effective” 50 growth

Critical Effects of S.B  Changes non-probationary status from one that is ______ based upon years of ______ to one that is ______ based upon three consecutive years of demonstrated ___________  Provides that non-probationary status may be ___ based upon two consecutive years of ____________  Makes non-probationary status ________  Prohibits _____ placement of teachers forced “portable” lost ineffectiveness earned effectiveness service

Priorities of Implementation  Human judgment  Data should inform decisions, but human judgment will always be a part of the process  Processes and techniques are recommended to improve individual judgment and minimize errors and bias  Embodiment of continuous improvement by monitoring  Data from pilot and rollout intended to capture what works and what doesn’t  Changes in assessment practices and tools  Emerging research and best practices

 Providing credible and meaningful feedback with:  Actionable information  Opportunities for improvement  Idea that this is a process and not an event  Involves all stakeholders in a collaborative process  Families, teachers, related service providers, administration, school board, etc.  Educators involved throughout development process Priorities of Implementation

 Takes place within a larger, aligned and supportive system  All components of the system must focus on increasing the number of educators and students who are successful  Take a poll!  Which priority do you think is the most important? Be prepared to share your thinking. Priorities of Implementation

Timeline for Implementation of New Requirements for Personnel Evaluation Systems :  New performance evaluation system based on Quality Standards will be implemented statewide per State Board rule.  Teachers will be evaluated based on quality standards.  Demonstrated effectiveness will begin to be considered in the acquisition of non-probationary status :  Continued implementation.  Demonstrated effectiveness or ineffectiveness will be considered in the acquisition or loss of non-probationary status :  First year that non-probationary status can be lost based on 2 consecutive years of demonstrated ineffectiveness.

Definition of Teacher Effectiveness Effective Teachers in the state of Colorado have the knowledge, skills, and commitments needed to provide excellent and equitable learning opportunities and growth for all students. They strive to support growth and development, close achievement gaps and to prepare diverse student populations for postsecondary and workforce success. Effective Teachers facilitate mastery of content and skill development, and employ and adjust evidence-based strategies and approaches for students who are not achieving mastery and students who need acceleration. They also develop in students the skills, interests and abilities necessary to be lifelong learners, as well as for democratic and civic participation. Effective Teachers communicate high expectations to students and their families and utilize diverse strategies to engage them in a mutually supportive teaching and learning environment. Because effective Teachers understand that the work of ensuring meaningful learning opportunities for all students cannot happen in isolation, they engage in collaboration, continuous reflection, on- going learning and leadership within the profession.

STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS Framework for System to Evaluate Teachers Definition of Teacher Effectiveness I. Know Content 50% Professional Practice Standards 50% Student Growth Measures Weighting: How Much Does Each Standard Count Towards Overall Performance? Observations of Other Measures Teaching Aligned with CDE Guidelines State Other Assessments Other Measures Summative for Non-tested Aligned with Assessments Areas CDE Guidelines Match of test to teaching assignments Weighting: Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards Result in a Determination of Individual Performance? Performance Standards IneffectivePartially EffectiveEffectiveHighly Effective Quality Standards II. Establish Environment III. Facilitate Learning IV. Reflect on Practice V. Demonstrate Leadership VI. Student Growth Appeals Process

Definition of Principal Effectiveness Effective Principals in the state of Colorado are responsible for the collective success of their schools, including the learning, growth and achievement of both students and staff. As schools’ primary instructional leaders, effective Principals enable critical discourse and data-driven reflection about curriculum, assessment, instruction, and student progress, and create structures to facilitate improvement. Effective Principals are adept at creating systems that maximize the utilization of resources and human capital, foster collaboration, and facilitate constructive change. By creating a common vision and articulating shared values, effective Principals lead and manage their schools in a manner that supports schools’ ability to promote equity and to continually improve their positive impact on students and families.

STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS Framework for System to Evaluate Principals Definition of Principal Effectiveness I. StrategyII. Instruction III. Culture V. Management IV. Human Resources VI. External Development VII. Student Growth 50% Professional Practice Standards50% Student Growth Measures Weighting: How Much Does Each Standard Count Towards Overall Performance? Number and Percentage Other Measures of TeachersAligned with CDE Guidelines School Performance Other Measures Framework Aligned with CDE Guidelines Weighting: Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards Result in a Determination of Individual Performance? Performance Standards IneffectivePartially EffectiveEffectiveHighly Effective Quality Standards

Aligning Principal and Teacher Quality Standards What do you notice about the alignment between the Principal and Teacher Quality Standards?

2. Annual Orientation 3. Self- Assessment 4. Review of Annual Goals and Performance Plan 5. Mid-Year Review 6. Evaluator Assessment 7. End-of-Year Review 8. Final Ratings 9. Goal-Setting and Performance Planning 1. Training 1. Training Evaluation Process Principal/Assistant Principals and Teachers May 15 End of September. Prior to the beginning of Spring Semester Train: Prior to the beginning of School. Orient: Within the first week of School. End of May Mid-June End of June

Rubric Structure and Rating Level Focus The focus of the Basic rating is the educator whose performance does not meet state quality standards. The educator rated as Basic is typically performing at a foundational level. Every educator is expected to perform Basic professional practices in their day-to-day work. The focus of Partially Proficient and Proficient levels is what educators do on a day-to-day basis to achieve state performance standards and assure that students are achieving at expected levels. The focus of Accomplished and Exemplary ratings shifts to the outcomes of the educator’s practices, including expectations for staff, students, parents and community members, as a result of practices exhibited under rating levels 2 and 3.

Teacher Quality Standard Performance Rating Levels Element of the Standard Professional Practice is Not Observable Professional Practice is Observable Components of the Rubric

State Model Rubric Basics  Cumulative in content  Each level of the rubric represents an increase in the quality, intensity, consistency, breadth, depth, and complexity of practice  Effectiveness marked by the addition of practices that improve the overall performance of the educator and drives to student outcomes  Standards based  Outlines the practices that you must meet to be at standard

 What’s changed in the rubric?  The current rubrics have been shortened in response to feedback from nearly all participants that it felt overwhelming and intimidating due to its size.  The language of the professional practices has been made more specific in order to be clearer and more concise in setting performance expectations.  Redundancies have been eliminated.  Most non-observable professional practices (in the teacher rubric) have been eliminated from Standards 1, 2, and 3 because many of the pilot site participants indicated they believed them to be biased or unfair.  The lowest category on the rubric has been changed to “Basic.” Revised Teacher Rubric

Scoring the Rubric Determining the teacher’s professional practices rating is a three-step process that involves rating the individual elements and standards and using those to determine the overall rating on professional practices. 1. Rating the Elements 2. Rating the Standards 3. Determining the Overall Professional Practices Rating

Reading the Rubric

Look for the first unchecked professional practice. Move one column back to identify the rating for the element. Understanding the Scoring “Business” Rule

Look for the first unchecked professional practice. Move one column back to identify the rating for the element. Determining the Element Rating

Look for the first unchecked professional practice. Move one column back to identify the rating for the element. Determining the Element Rating

Rubric Rating Levels Standard Basic Partially Proficient ProficientAccomplishedExemplary Element Professional Practices 0 Educator’s performance on professional practices is significantly below the state Quality Standard. 1 Educator’s performance on professional practices is below the state Quality Standard. 3 Educator’s performance on professional practices exceeds state Quality Standard. 2 Educator’s performance on professional practices meets state Quality Standard. 4 Educator’s performance on professional practices significantly exceeds state Quality Standard.

Scoring the Rubric

 Formula for determining the contribution of each standard to the final Professional Practice rating: (Standard weight [ex. 20% =.20]) X 540 X (Total Points Earned for the Standard) = Weighted Standard points Scoring the Rubric

 Determining the overall rating for Professional Practices when standards are weighted equally Scoring the Rubric Standard (Ex: 20% =.20) Std. 1 Weight determined by the school district Multiply by 540 Column 1 times Column 2 Equals Total Points Earned for Standard Column 3 times Column 4 Equals Divide by Total Points Possible for Standard Column 5 divided by Column 6 – Weighted Points Calculated for the Standard I. Know Content II. Establish Environment III. Facilitate Learning IV. Reflect on Practice V. Leadership Total Points Earned for this Evaluation

 Translating the total points received for Professional Practices to an overall Professional Practices rating Calculating the Overall Score Total Number of Points Received Rating for Number of Points Received Total Number of Points Received for this evaluation: 259 Overall Professional Practices Rating = Proficient 0 to 108 PointsBasic 109 to 216 PointsPartially Proficient 217 to 324 PointsProficient 325 to 432 PointsAccomplished 433 to 540 PointsExemplary

 What questions do you have? Questions

Simulation Activity  Consider the following Professional Practices report  Decide what professional development opportunities you might provide to support this teacher

Supporting Inter-Rater Agreement is a FREE educator calibration & professional development system available for all school districts  Fall 2013 – Master scored videos for evaluators to calibrate on the professional practices in the rubric  – Master scored Teaching Cases created to include multiple videos of a teacher and supporting artifacts that mimics the evaluation cycle  Video clips aligned to the rubric for professional development for all educators

STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS Framework for System to Evaluate Teachers Definition of Teacher Effectiveness I. Know Content 50% Professional Practice Standards 50% Student Learning Outcome Measures Weighting: How Much Does Each Standard Count Towards Overall Performance? Observations of Other Measures Teaching Aligned with CDE Guidelines State Other Assessments Other Measures Summative for Non-tested Aligned with Assessments Areas CDE Guidelines Match of test to teaching assignments Weighting: Decision Matrix: How Do Measures of Quality Standards Result in a Determination of Individual Performance? Performance Ratings IneffectivePartially EffectiveEffectiveHighly Effective Quality Standards II. Establish Environment III. Facilitate Learning IV. Reflect on Practice V. Demonstrate Leadership VI. Student Growth Appeals Process

Reflection Choose a picture from below that best reflects your feelings regarding SB Why did you select the picture you did?

Resources to Support Your Work  Fact Sheets  Training Webinars  Training Tools  Power Point Presentations  Videos  How-To/Guides

Resources to Support Your Work

 CDE Educator Effectiveness e-newsletter  Newsletter.asp Newsletter.asp  Stay informed by signing up for this monthly newsletter Additional Resources

C OLORADO D EPARTMENT OF H IGHER E DUCATION C OLORADO D EPARTMENT OF E DUCATION STATE OF COLORADO Webinar TopicsDate/TimeFeatured Presenters Counselor Info (Graduation Guidelines, endorsed diploma, ICAP’s,) August 9, :00-2:30 pm Emmy Glancy, Academic Policy Officer Misti Ruthven, Manager of the Office of Postsecondary Readiness Colorado READ ActAugust 23, :00-12:30 pm Pati Montgomery, Executive Director of the Office of Literacy Dian Prestwich, Assistant Director of the Office of Literacy Jenny Arzberger, Educator Preparation Project Manager Colorado Academic Standards & Curriculum Samples September 9, :30-1:45 pm Brian Sevier, Standards Project Director Jenny Arzberger, Educator Preparation Project Manager SB Implementation: Professional Practice DATE CHANGE: September 13, :30-1:45 pm Courtney Cabrera, Educator Effectiveness Unit Dawn Pare, Educator Effectiveness Unit Jenny Arzberger, Educator Preparation Project Manager SB Implementation: Student Growth September 23, :30-1:45 pm Sed Keller, Educator Effectiveness Unit Jenny Arzberger, Educator Preparation Project Manager CDE / DHE Collaborative Webinar Series For up to date information including agendas, login information, and recorded webinars, locate our website, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. websiteFacebookTwitter

Contact Us EE Leadership  Katy Anthes: Executive Director   Toby King: Director   Jean Williams: Rubric Evaluation Specialist  Colorado Legacy Foundation  Mike Gradoz: Director  Communications  Amy Skinner   Katie Lams:   Britt Wilkenfeld: Data Fellow   Tricia Majors: Project Mgr. 

Implementation Support and Development Colorado  Courtney Cabrera   Sed Keller   Dawn Pare   Bob Snead   Chris Vance  Contact Us Colorado Department of Higher Education  Jennifer Arzberger 