1. In partnership with
Thank you for joining us today for the overview of the Teacher Performance Evaluation System or TPES for short. As you can see from the logo, it is based on the Stronge Evaluation System. This model is based on the extant research related to the qualities of effective teachers.

2. Background Legislated by Act 166
Federal push: part of ESEA flexibility waiver
Fully functional performance-based evaluation system in place for
50% on process/practice and 50% on product
Equivalency option for process/practice
CESA 6/Dr. James Stronge
6 Performance Standards

3. Educator Evaluation DPI Framework Process Product Teachers Principals
InTASC standards;
Danielson’s 4 domains and 22 components
Principals
ISLLC standards
CESA 6 Model
6 performance standards for teachers, ed specialists, and principals
Aligned to Danielson & national standards
Potential Data Sources:
Statewide assessments
Districtwide assessments
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
Graduation data
Other
50%
50%
The product side of the evaluation system is based on state’s preliminary recommendations. Details released by the state includes 15% of the state assessment; 15% of the district standardized assessment; 15% is through Student Learning Objectives (SLO’s); 2.5% for school wide reading for elementary and middle school students or the graduation rates for high schools; and 2.5% district choice. The process side is currently developed through the components we have just reviewed. The national standards for teachers and principals are the basis for the system and we have completed the crosswalk of standards between InTASC and ISLLC and the Effectiveness Project in order to insure the equivalency process.
Know that the product side will be designed over the next year in conjunction with Stronge and Associates and CESA 6.
DPI Framework
Models of Practice
Student Outcomes

4. The Research
Research on effective vs. ineffective teachers and leaders clearly indicates there is a great cost to student learning as a result of having ineffective teachers and leaders in our school.

5. What factor has the largest effect on student achievement?
Mixed Ability Grouping?
Class Size?
Prior Achievement?
The Teacher?
Let’s take a look at a quick quiz. I’d like for you to prioritize these four items in terms of their relative influence on student achievement. Which do you think has the largest effect?

6. What factor had the largest effect on student achievement?
Mixed Ability Grouping? 4
Class Size? 3
Prior Achievement? 2
The Teacher? 1
As you can see, the teacher has the largest effect on student achievement.

7. Dallas Research: Teacher Quality
4th Grade Math Achievement
Let me show you what happens when a child is placed with a highly effective teacher for three years in a row. This chart shows U.S. students who started out at about the same level in their math achievement. You can see that there is an almost 50 percentile point difference in their math achievement based on whether they had an effective or ineffective teacher for three years.
You may ask whether it is ethical to be assigned to an ineffective teacher for three years in a row. Just know that these studies were conducted after completing the yearly education and later determining there was an ineffective teacher with these students.
Dallas, Texas data: students per cohort
Comparison of 3 “highly effective” & 3 “ineffective” teachers (Jordan, Mendro, & Weerasinghe, 1997)

8. Dallas Research: Teacher Quality
4th Grade Reading Achievement
The same thing is found in reading. This is called an interaction effect, where students start on top, but after three years of ineffective teachers, they fall far behind their peers who were placed in effective teachers’ classes. Again, this is approximately a 40 percentile point difference based on the influence--the cumulative effect--of having those teachers over a period of time.
Dallas, Texas data: students per cohort
Comparison of 3 “highly effective” & 3 “ineffective” teachers (Jordan, Mendro, & Weerasinghe, 1997)

9. Sequence of Effective Teachers
Low
High
52-54
percentile
points difference over 3 years
Look at the difference a series of ineffective teachers can have on a student’s achievement.
Sanders & Rivers (1996)

10. Sequence of Effective Teachers
Low
Low
High 13
percentile
points difference
High
High
High
Consider the case where we place a child with a highly effective teacher for three years in a row versus if we place that child with two ineffective teachers and then an effective teacher. That effective teacher will not be able to compensate for the residual effects from the poor teachers.
Sanders & Rivers (1996)

11. Residual Effect
Two years of effective teachers could not remediate the achievement loss caused by one year with a poor teacher.
We call that the residual effect.
It is essential then to insure that our students have an effective teacher each and every year of their education.
Mendro, Jordan, Gomez, Anderson, & Bembry (1998)

12. Time in the School Year Needed to Achieve the Same Amount of Learning
75th Percentile Teacher
25th Percentile Teacher
1/4
1/2
3/4 1
If we place a child in a bottom quartile teacher’s class--an ineffective teacher’s class--and it takes that child a full academic year to learn the knowledge and skills that he or she will learn...if we place that same child in a top quartile teacher’s class--a high performing teacher’s class--we find that that child learns the same knowledge and skills in three-quarters of the time.
Years Needed
Leigh, Economics of Education Review (2010)

13. Time in the School Year Needed to Achieve the Same Amount of Learning
90th Percentile Teacher
10th Percentile Teacher
1/4
1/2
3/4 1
Comparing two greater extremes...whatever it is that a teacher in the bottom 10th percentile can teach in a year, a teacher in the top 10th percentile can teach in just a half of year.
Years Needed
Leigh, Economics of Education Review (2010)

14. Annual Student Achievement Gains
Class Size Reduction:
24:1 to 15:1
Teacher Quality Improvement:
25th vs. 75th percentile
Consider this comparison. If we reduce class size in a primary grade—say for students who are 6, 7, or 8 years old—and if we reduce that class size from a 24:1 ratio to a 15:1 student-teacher ratio, we can expect achievement to increase about 7-8 percentile points. On the other hand, if we put a student in a class with a 75th percentile teacher versus a 25th percentile teacher, we can expect achievement to increase about 30 percentile points.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Company; Stronge, J.H., Ward, T.J., Tucker, P.D., & Grant, L.W.; Retrieved from: Education_report.pdf

15. Spillover Effect
Student achievement rises across a grade when a high-quality teacher comes on board: one-tenth to one-fifth the impact of replacing the students’ own teacher!
Another important issue to consider is the spillover effect. It means that when you hire a highly-able teacher, not only does achievement go up in that teacher’s classroom, but it also goes up in surrounding teachers’ classes who are working with that highly effective teacher. It goes up as much as 10-20% of the amount that would be occurring in that effective teacher’s class. That’s a spillover effect.
Jackon & Bruegmann, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (2009)

16. Effectiveness is the goal. Evaluation is merely the means.
Effectiveness Project
Effectiveness is the goal.
Evaluation is merely the means.
In fact, the goal of this system is to help educators become more effective. The evaluation system is just the means to help achieve that goal. You have seen the presentation on why effective teachers are so important. Now we will look at the evaluation system, itself.

17. Teachers Educational Specialists School Administrators (principals)
Who Will Be Involved?
Teachers
Educational Specialists
School Administrators (principals)
In fact, the goal of this system is to help educators become more effective. The evaluation system is just the means to help achieve that goal. You have seen the presentation on why effective teachers are so important. Now we will look at the evaluation system, itself.

18. Effectiveness Project
What is the basis of the evaluation?
How will performance be documented?
How will performance be rated?
Today we will look at three different questions:
What is the basis for teachers’ evaluation?
How will teacher performance be documented?
How will teacher performance be rated?

19. What is the basis of the evaluation?
Question 1
What is the basis of the evaluation?
Let’s first look at the basis of the teachers’ evaluation.

20. Performance Standards
Teacher
Educational Specialist
Professional Knowledge
Instructional Planning
Instructional Delivery
Assessment for/of Learning
Learning Environment
Professionalism
Professional Knowledge
Communication & Collaboration
Assessment
Program Planning & Management
Program Delivery
Professionalism

21. How will performance be documented?
Question 2
How will performance be documented?
Now let’s take a look at how teacher performance will be documented.

22. Multiple Data Sources at-a-glance
Observations
Documentation Log
Student Surveys
Self-Assessment of Professional Practice
Student Learning Objectives
Everything is housed in an electronic database: OASYS

23. Data Management My Learning Plan OASYS

24. Data Collection Responsibilities
Data Collection Procedure
Evaluator
Teacher/Ed Specialist
Observation
(formal/informal) X
Documentation Log
Student Surveys
Self Assessment of Professional Practice
Student Learning Objectives

25. Observations May take a variety of forms
Formal observation
Informal observation
Walk-through observation
Announced or unannounced
May occur in a variety of settings
Classroom environment
Non-classroom settings
Observations can be conducted in a variety of settings and take on a variety of forms, including quick, drop-by classroom visits, to more formal, pre-planned observational reviews using validated instruments for documenting observations.

26. Formal Observations Directly focused on teacher performance standards
Announced or unannounced
at least 20 minutes in duration
Teachers observed at least twice per year
Additional observations at evaluator’s discretion
At least one pre-observation conference for teachers during their first year in district
Evaluator feedback during post-observation conference
Observation forms kept in OASYS database
In a formal observation, the evaluator conducts a structured or semi-structured, planned observation -- either announced or unannounced -- typically of a teacher who is presenting a lesson to or interacting with students. During this observation, the evaluator may not see all of the performance standards and may wish to review various teacher and student artifacts to provide a more complete picture.
Each formal observation must be of at least 20 minutes duration. All teachers should be observed at least twice per year. Probationary teachers are observed by the end of the first grading period and again by January 15. Continuing contract teachers are observed by January 15 and again by May 1. Additional observations are at the evaluator’s discretion. At least one pre-observation conference is required for teachers in first year in the district. The evaluator provides feedback during a post-observation conference, typically within five working days.
Additional observations may be conducted for any teacher at the discretion of the evaluator. These informal observations may be of shorter duration and may be documented using an appropriate observation form. Evaluators will provide feedback from informal observations through any appropriate means.

27. Documentation Log
Evidence of performance related to specific standards
Educator’s voice in the process
Complements classroom observation
Includes both specific required artifacts and teacher- selected artifacts
Emphasis is on quality, not quantity
Collected throughout the year
Reviewed by evaluator by mid-year for probationary teachers; by early May for all teachers
Artifacts uploaded into OASYS database
Artifacts of a teacher’s performance can serve as valuable and insightful data source for documenting the work that teachers actually do. They give the teacher an opportunity to demonstrate evidence of meeting the performance standards. The items included provide evaluators with information they likely would not observe during the course of a typical classroom visit.
We have provided a list of examples of documentation that might be used to demonstrate evidence of meeting the standards. School districts may modify this list and may make some items required or leave them as optional.
The emphasis is on the quality of work, not the quantity of materials presented. Teachers should not be creating artifacts specifically for the documentation log; rather, they including artifacts they create in their normal day-to-day operations. It is important for school districts to make their expectations for the documentation log clear.

28. Teacher Artifact Examples
Professionalism
Transcript
PD certificate
Instructional Planning
Differentiation in lesson plan
Instructional Delivery
Video/audio of instructional unit
Sample work
Assessment
Sample of baseline and periodic assessments*
Learning Environment
Student survey information*
Schedule of daily routine
Professionalism
PD log*
Parent communication log*
* Required artifact

29. Student Surveys
Provide students’ perceptions of how teacher is performing -- direct knowledge of classroom practices
All teachers survey students twice per year
Age considerations for survey
Surveys are anonymous
Actual responses seen only by individual teacher
Teachers fill out Student Survey Growth Plan and Student Survey Analysis and include in documentation log
Student surveys represent an additional source of information regarding teacher performance. The purpose of a student survey is to collect information that will help the teacher set goals for continuous improvement (i.e., for formative evaluation).
There are four different surveys that teachers can administer: Grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and The surveys are aligned to the performance standards.
All teachers survey students prior to October 15th. Probationary teachers survey same cohort by December 15th; continuing contract teachers survey same cohort by February 15th. The surveys are anonymous and the actual responses are seen only by individual teacher. Following the first survey, teachers fill out the Student Survey Growth Plan; after the second, the fill out the Student Survey Analysis and include both in their documentation log

30. Self-Assessment of Professional Practice
Reflect on effectiveness and adequacy of practice
Based on each performance standard
Consider performance indicators for examples of behaviors exemplifying each standard
One area of strength per standard
One area of growth, along with strategies for growth, per standard

31. Student Learning Objectives
Detailed, measureable goals for student academic growth
Set at the beginning of the year
Based on SMART goal format
Individual teacher or group goals
Classroom or subsets of students
Approved by principal/supervisor
Mid-year check point
End-of-year evaluation – how did we do?

32. How will teacher performance be rated?
Question 3
How will teacher performance be rated?
Now let’s take a look at how teacher performance will be rated.

33. Evaluations All probationary teachers/educational specialists
Interim Evaluation
All probationary teachers/educational specialists
Used to document evidence of meeting standards
Does NOT include rating of performance
Summative Evaluation
Comes at end of evaluation cycle
Four point rating scale
Performance rubric for every standard
Rating based on “preponderance of evidence”
Summative evaluation form in OASYS
There are two types of evaluations—an interim evaluation and a summative evaluation.
Probationary teachers will receive an interim evaluation to provide feedback on whether there is evidence that they are meeting the standards. During the conference, evaluators should also provide mid-year feedback on the Documentation Log (including survey results) and the progress students are making toward the goal identified in the Goal Setting for Student Progress Form.
All teachers receive a summative evaluation at the end of their evaluation cycle. They will be rated using a four point rating scale and the performance appraisal rubric for each standard that we previously discussed.

34. Terms used in Rating Scale
Enhancing Teacher Quality: Questioning
Terms used in Rating Scale
Category
Description
Definition
Distinguished
The teacher maintains performance, accomplishments, and behaviors that consistently surpass the established standard.
Sustains high performance over period of time
Behaviors have strong positive impact on learners and school climate
May serve as role model to others
Effective
The teacher meets the standard in a manner that is consistent with the school’s mission and goals.
Meets the requirements contained in job description as expressed in evaluation criteria
Behaviors have positive impact on learners and school climate
Willing to learn and apply new skills
Developing/ Needs Improvement
The teacher is inconsistent in meeting standards and/or in working toward the school’s missions and goals.
Requires support in meeting the standards
Results in less than quality work performance
Leads to areas for teacher improvement being jointly identified and planned between teacher and evaluator
These are the terms used in the rating scale. Teachers only receive an actual rating using these terms during the summative evaluation. Using the Blue Ribbon and traffic light metaphor the ratings are:
Teachers who are distinguished consistently surpass the performance standard. These teachers serve as role models to others.
Teachers who are effective are high quality teachers. They consistently meet the standard.
Teachers who are developing/need improvement are inconsistent meeting the standards. These may be teachers who are new to the profession and have not developed the skill set needed, or they may be teachers who are more experienced, but need improvement in a particular area. In either case, these teachers do not demonstrate the level of proficiency required of them.
Teachers who are ineffective consistently perform below the standard.
Unacceptable
The teacher consistently performs below the established standards or in a manner that is inconsistent with the school’s missions and goals.
Does not meet requirements contained in job description as expressed in evaluation criteria
Results in minimal student learning
May contribute to recommendation for teacher not being considered for continued employment
TQR Teacher Quality Resources, LLC (c) 2005

35. Questions on the process?

36. Look Fors & Red Flags “Look Fors” “Red Flags”
What do we WANT to see in each standard?
Exemplary behaviors
“Red Flags”
What should we NOT see?
What is cause for alarm or concern?

37. ACTIVITY Groups of 6 – one group per standard Identify a recorder
2 minutes at each standard
Document look fors AND red flags
Rotate to the next standard
Last reporter at each standard will report out to the large group

38. Additional Questions?
Thank you!