1. Copyright © 2009 National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. All rights reserved. Models of Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems Laura Goe, Ph.D. Research Scientist, ETS Principal Investigator, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality June/July 2010

2. www.tqsource.org Minnesota  Enacted by Minnesota Legislature in July 2005 Voluntary program that allows local districts and exclusive representatives of the teachers to design and collectively bargain a plan that meets the five components of the law Five components under Q Comp include: Career ladder/Advancement Options, Job-embedded Professional Development, Teacher Evaluation, Performance Pay, and an Alternative Salary Schedule  St Francis Independent School District Each annual review based on  4 observations  Teacher-generated evidence of improved student performance 2

3. www.tqsource.org Austin Independent School District Student Learning Objectives:  Teachers determine two SLOs for the semester/year  One SLO must address all students, other may be targeted  Use broad array of assessments  Assess student needs more directly  Align classroom, campus, and district expectations  Aligned to state standards/campus improvement plans  Based on multiple sources of student data  Assessed with pre and post assessment  Targets of student growth  Peer collaboration

4. 4 Rubric for student learning objectives

5. 5 Rubric for student learning objectives (cont’d)

6. www.tqsource.org Washington DC’s IMPACT (an example of a CTES)  The recently implemented IMPACT outlines 3 ways it will improve teaching: Clear expectations that detail exactly what is expected in terms of teacher performance Clear feedback  Three assessment cycles for maximum feedback  In-person assessment conferences  Web-based (can review ratings & written comments) Growth plans noting strengths, growth areas, and next steps for professional development 6

7. www.tqsource.org IMPACT sorts teachers into groups that are evaluated differently  Group 1: general ed teachers for whom value-added data can be generated  Group 2: general ed teachers for whom value-added data cannot be generated  Group 3: special education teachers  Group 4: non-itinerant English Language Learner (ELL) teachers and bilingual teachers  Group 5: itinerant ELL teachers  Etc… 7

8. www.tqsource.org IMPACT components for Group 1  Individual Value-Added (IVA) = 50% of score  Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF) (measure of instructional expertise) = 40% of score  Commitment to the School Community (CSC) (measure of the extent to which you support your colleagues and your school’s local initiatives) = 5% of score 8

9. www.tqsource.org IMPACT components for Group 2  Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF) (measure of instructional expertise) = 80% of score  Non-Value-Added Student Achievement Growth (NVA) = 10%  Commitment to the School Community (CSC) (measure of the extent to which you support your colleagues and your school’s local initiatives) = 5% of score 9

10. www.tqsource.org School Value-Added (SVA)  “A sophisticated statistical measure of your school’s impact on student achievement, as measured by the DC CAS” = 5% of score  Schools receive an SVA score based on how well the students in the school performed overall compared with how they were predicted to performed (based on previous test scores)  Calculated using student factors 10

11. www.tqsource.org Factors used in calculating School Value-Added (SVA) Student factors Previous year’s test scores Free or reduced price lunch status Special education status English language learner status 11

12. www.tqsource.org Core Professionalism  Core Professionalism (CP) “a measure of four basic professional requirements” 1.No unexcused absences 2.No unexcused late arrivals 3.Following the policies and procedures of your school (or program) and the school system 4.Interacting with colleagues, students, families, and community members in a respectful manner 12

13. www.tqsource.org Group 2 assessment rubric  3 “cycles” of data collected & averaged/year  Highest level of rubric: “Teacher has at least 1 high-quality source of evidence (i.e., one that is rigorous and reliable) demonstrating that approximately 90% or more of her/his students are on track to make significant learning growth (i.e., at least a year’s worth) towards mastery of the DCPS content standards over the course of the year.” 13

14. www.tqsource.org Explanation for 10% for test scores for Group 2 and others  “As a school system, we recognize that we still have a significant amount of work to do to establish norms for student achievement growth outside of the DC CAS grades and subjects. In recognition of this fact, we have decided to limit this component to just 10% of the overall assessment. As we develop clearer norms, we plan to increase this percentage.” 14

15. www.tqsource.org 15 Georgia KEYS

16. 16 Artifacts Benchmark assessments Common assessments Diagnostic assessments Individual-level teacher results based on roster of students taught by the teacher for a semester or school year in the current school year. Data needed are the group pass rate (percent of teacher’s students who passed/met or exceeded state standards) on state-mandated academic achievement tests for appropriate grade level and subject taught. State- and district-level student data on percent who meet/exceed state standards at grade level and in subject areas tested by state-mandated student achievement measure (e.g., CRCT results, EOCT results, GHSGT results for first-time test takers in grade 11, Georgia Writing Assessment, etc.) NOTES: Using multiple assessments to evaluate student achievement is encouraged. Due to a discrepancy between availability of state-mandated test data (May/June) and the legal date for completing the annual performance review (April), this element rating may need to be completed as an addendum to the annual performance review and added to the teacher’s evaluation file for the next school year. Examples of Data Sources Georgia Data Sources

17. www.tqsource.org 17 Non-tested subjects

18. www.tqsource.org Colorado’s Legislation (Senate Bill 191)  Under the bill passed in May All teachers would be evaluated each year (instead of every 3 years for tenured teachers) 50% of their performance on supervisors' reviews and the other half on student growth on standardized tests and other measures Teachers could lose tenure Johnson says “tests to evaluate non-CSAP subjects could be built or bought by the state”

19. www.tqsource.org Colorado (cont’d)  “An amendment to the legislation would allow districts to rate student growth differently in certain classrooms, including ones where students are highly mobile or where 95 percent of kids meet the definition of "high-risk." The exception also would apply to special-education classes.” Denver Post, 5/10/10 http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14953971 http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14953971

20. www.tqsource.org Contact Information 20 Laura Goe, Ph.D. P: 609-734-1076 E-Mail: lgoe@ets.org National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality 1100 17th Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036-4632 877-322-8700 > www.tqsource.org