1. Mississippi Teacher Evaluation System (MTES) Updates
The Teacher Center is the office charged with the design and implementation of the statewide teacher evaluation system. The goal of this session is to address the updates to the teacher evaluation system that were approved by the State Board of Education in May. During the field test, we gathered feed back from teachers, principals, and other stakeholders from around the state. The purpose of the field test was to use the instrument and the process statewide, and gather feedback to make this system better. Based on the feedback that we received, we went to the State Board of Education with proposed modifications to the system. Last month, the Board approved the modifications that I am about to address.

2. Federal and State Theory of Action
Improved Evaluation System
Improved Educator Quality
Improved Student Outcomes
A major reason for the implementation of the statewide teacher evaluation system is to satisfy one of the requirements of the ESEA Flexibility Waiver. However, the most important reason is to improve student achievement. The research and data are clear - teacher quality is the single most important school level variable impacting student achievement. An improved teacher evaluation system will positively impact educator quality. And improved educator quality will lead to improved student outcomes. At its core, the purpose of M-STAR is aid in the identification of specific areas of growth so that teachers can be provided with targeted, job embedded, and relevant professional learning to improve their practice.

3. 2014-2015 State Tested Teachers Non-State Tested Teachers M-STAR: 50%
Individual Growth: 30%
Schoolwide Growth: 20%
Non-State Tested Teachers
Schoolwide Growth: 50%
As this side indicates, during school year, M-STAR will account for 50% of a state tested teachers’ effectives rating, individual growth will be 30% of the rating, and school wide growth will account for 20%.
For teachers of non tested grade levels and subject areas, teachers, M-STAR will be 50% of their effectiveness rating and school wide growth will account for the other 50%.
M-STAR/MPES Updates

4. Modification 1
Remove the use of Professional Growth Goals (PGGs) as a separate component
Modification 1 - Remove Professional Growth Goals as a separate component in the teacher evaluation system.
M-STAR/MPES Updates

5. 2015-2016 State Tested Teachers M-STAR: 30% PGGs: 20%
Individual Growth: 30%
Schoolwide: 20%
Non-State Tested Teachers
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs): 30%
According to the approved ESEA flexibility waiver, PGGs were to count as 20% of a teacher’s effectiveness rating by the school year. Professional Growth Goals (PGGs) are annual individualized goals designed to direct a teacher’s path in professional learning activities that enhance their teaching performance and promote student achievement. This component would have required a process with forms and quantification – increasing the workload for teachers and administrators.
M-STAR/MPES Updates

6. M-STAR Standard 17
Engages in continuous professional learning and applies new information learned in the classroom
Standard 17 of domain 5 already addresses how well a teacher incorporates professional learning into his or her instruction. So, it would have been unnecessarily burdensome and repetitive to teachers and administrators to also measure a teachers application of professional learning in the PGG process.
M-STAR/MPES Updates

7. Modified 2015-2016 State Tested Teachers M-STAR: 50%
Individual Growth: 30%
Schoolwide: 20%
Non-State Tested Teachers
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs): 30%
So, the Board approved the elimination of PGGs as a separate component. This slide shows teacher evaluation implementation in As you can see, with the elimination of PGGs, M-STAR will account for 50% of a teacher’s effectiveness rating and student outcomes will be 50% . Student outcomes include both individual growth for state tested teachers or Student learning Objectives for non-tested teachers and school wide growth for both.
M-STAR/MPES Updates

8. Modification 2
Streamline the teacher observation cycle to allow for school district discretion based on the performance of the teachers
Modification 2 - Streamline the teacher observation cycle to allow for school district discretion based on the performance of the teacher
Much of the feedback we received during the field test year was in response to the requirements of the teacher observation cycle. Previously, the M-STAR cycle required five walk-throughs, and two formal observations (each including and pre observation conference and a post observation conference). What we heard from the field is that the time required to complete the cycle for each teacher was problematic. Therefore modifications were made to the cycle to allow school districts discretion.
M-STAR/MPES Updates

9. The Teacher Observation Cycle
1. Teacher Self-Assessment
Based on the M-STAR standards
2. Walk-through Observations
A minimum of two are required
Beyond the two required, the frequency and length of time of the walk-through visits are at the discretion of the school district.
1. Teacher Self-Assessment
Research has shown that there is real value in teacher self-assessment. Although the Self-assessment is recommended as a part of the M-STAR observation cycle, it is at the discretion of the district.
2. Walk through Observations or informal observations are used by the evaluator to provide quick checks of teacher performance so that feedback can be given on that lesson. In the feedback that we received from administrators in the M-STAR focus groups, there was consensus that walk-throughs are considered an effective observation tool. Previously, a minimum of 5 walkthrough observations were required. That requirement has been modified to a minimum of two. This modification will give districts and administrators the discretion to determine the number of walkthrough observations to perform based on the needs of the teacher.

10. 3. Formal Observation and Conferences Pre-Observation Conference
Optional
Discussion of the lesson to be observed
Discussion of teacher self-assessment
Formal Observation
Minimum of one per school year
Minimum of 30 minutes
Formative Post-Observation Conference
Required after each formal observation
Discussion/Feedback
Next Steps/Professional Growth Plan
4. Student Surveys (optional)
The pre-observation conference provides the opportunity for the teacher to describe the context and plans for the class session and discuss goals related to the self-assessment. Previously, a pre-observation conference was required with each formal observation. Feedback from the focus groups revealed that some administrators believed the pre-observation conferences were beneficial in preparing the teachers for what is expected during the formal observations. Other administrators do not see the need for a formal sit down pre-observation conference session and would rather have the lesson plan provided instead. Although the pre-observation conference is recommended, in the modified observation cycle, it is not required. Again this change is to give districts and administrators flexibility.
Originally, the M-STAR process required two formal observations per school year, one in the fall and a summative in the spring. The M-STAR focus groups revealed that many administrators believed that completing two formal observations per year is logistically problematic. Administrators prefer one formal per year with discretion to conduct a second formal for teachers who need it. The modification to the process does exactly that--- requires a minimum of one formal per year, but gives districts the discretion to complete as many as is deemed necessary for each teacher. The formal observation must be a minimum of 30 minutes.
A post-observation conference is required after each formal observation. The post-observation conference is extremely important because it provides another opportunity for teachers to get feedback --- This feedback includes next steps that will help them to improve their practice. The focus groups revealed that most administrators found the post-observation conference to be the most beneficial part of the process. And teachers found the post-observation conference extremely beneficial when they provided constructive feedback with suggestions for improvement.
Student surveys continue to be an optional part of the cycle. However, The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation found that well-crafted student surveys can play an important role in evaluating teacher effectiveness.

11. Modification 3
Revise Process Manuals and forms to correlate with modifications
The M-STAR Process Manual is has been updated to reflect the modifications in the process.
All M-STAR Forms has been updated as well. All M-STAR forms are optional. The MDE does not mandate the use of any of the forms in the process manual or on the web page. The forms are provided as a resource to help evaluators to mange the observation process. The use of any form is at the discretion of the school district.
M-STAR/MPES Updates

12. ARTIFACTS
Feedback from the field test year revealed a need for clarity on the artifact review process. The MDE will only require that the lesson plan associated with the formal observation be retained as documentation of the observation. All other requirements for the collection of artifacts are left to the district’s discretion.

13. Focus Group Feedback
Administrators do not see the need for additional artifacts. Items such as lesson plans, parent communication logs, discipline referrals, etc., are already provided. There is no need to provide additional items.
In the M-STAR focus group meetings, some administrators revealed that they do not see the need for additional artifacts. They stated that items such as lesson plans, parent communication logs, discipline referrals, etc., are already provided. Therefore, there is no need to provide additional items.
The artifact submission process is not intended to require teachers to compile portfolios or administrators to have to go through crates of materials submitted by teachers. Of course, ultimately how the artifact review process is managed is at the discretion of the school district, but artifacts are simply evidence already reviewed by the instructional leader.
For instance, most teachers are already required to submit lesson plans. Domain 1 (planning) can be entirely assessed using lesson plans. Often, instructional leaders require supporting documents – like assessments or data analysis – with lesson plans. Domain 2 (assessment) can be entirely assessed using documents such as these that are submitted with lesson plans. Most instructional leaders already attend team or PLC meetings or require agendas or other documentation from these meetings. This is evidence of teachers’ practice in domain 5 (professional responsibilities).
Artifacts are evidence that are a part of a teachers practice.
M-STAR/MPES Updates

14. Artifact Review Process
Artifacts are evidence of a teacher’s practice in Domains 1, 2, and 5.
The process should not be overly burdensome to teachers or evaluators.
Teachers should not create artifacts specifically for this artifact review.
Review Slide
Artifacts viewed during walk-through observations or formal observation can also be documented at that time.
All artifacts need to be meaningful, linked to the domains and standards, and support student learning and effective teaching.”

15. Modification 4 Tightening the language of the rubric
Modification 4 – Tighten the language of the rubric.
The focus groups revealed that many educators believed that the adverbs like “consistently” and “frequently” were confusing. Some educators also believed that some of the standards were repetitive, for instance standards 3, 6, and 15 are looking at a similar aspect of a teacher’s practice.
Feedback such as this was used to improve the rubric. In revising the rubric, we assembled a group of educators to review each indicator of each standard and to suggest ways to improve the language. We were careful to keep the same structure of the rubric and to avoid significantly altering the content of each indicator. In the revision, the adverbs were removed and we tried to make the language of the rubric clearer and more concise, with tighter distinctions between performance levels
M-STAR/MPES Updates

16. M-STAR Rubric Overview
Five domains (weighted equally)
Planning (4 standards)
Assessment (2 standards)
Instruction (5 standards)
Learning Environment (5 standards)
Professional Responsibilities (4 standards)
20 standards (placed among the 5 domains)
There are five domains, and there are 20 standards placed among the five domains. Domain 1 has four standards, Domain 2 has two standards, Domain 3 has five standards, Domain 4 has five standards, and Domain 5 has four standards.
Beneath each standard are the indicators. The indicators describe what the standard contains, or in other words, what the teachers should be doing at each level of effectiveness.

17. Domain Standard Indicators
Domain III: Instruction
Domain
7. Demonstrates deep knowledge of content during instruction
Teacher: 4
Uses multiple representations and explanations that capture key ideas in the discipline and promotes each student’s achievement of content standards by always anticipating common misconceptions in learning
Stimulates class reflection on prior content knowledge; links new concepts to familiar concepts, and makes clear and relevant connections to the students’ experiences through real-life applications and tasks
Assists students in developing a deep understanding by engaging students in connecting the content to other appropriate subject areas and applying content to explore real-world problems 3 2 1
Comments:
Standard
Indicators
Can you locate the domains, standards, and indicators? Examine one of the pages – they all are very similar in the layout used. Domains are the broad heading; there are 5 of them. The 20 standards are the areas to focus on first. Standard 7 – 16 are the ones that support your formative and summative observations. These are the 10 standards that you will want to weave into every lesson. Do not panic because you do most of this already.
The indicators better explain what is expected at each effectiveness level. The State of Mississippi pays for effective teachers, so focus on the #3 indicators. A 3-Effective teacher is one who has been teaching for awhile and understands and implements Best Practices in his/her classroom almost every day in every lesson.
As you look at these standards, you will see a big correlation with Common Core Standards. M-STAR and Common Core very much support each other.“

18. Revised Standard 8 M-STAR/MPES Updates
8. Actively engages students in the learning process
Teacher: 4
Uses a variety of instructional strategies and resources that consistently meet all students’ skill levels and learning styles
Links content with student interests through clear and meaningful connections by incorporating students’ questions and ideas
Engages all students in active learning by providing multiple opportunities to individually and collaboratively solve problems; manage themselves; analyze, create, and critique content
Engages the class in using a wide range of learning skills and diverse technology tools to access, interpret, and apply information 3
Uses a variety of instructional strategies and resources that meet most students’ skill levels and learning styles
Links content with student interests through clear and meaningful connections
Engages students in active learning by providing multiple opportunities to individually and collaboratively solve problems; manage themselves; analyze, create, and critique content
Engages the class in using appropriate learning skills and technology tools to access, interpret, and apply information 2
Uses a variety of instructional strategies and resources that meet some students’ skill levels or learning styles
Links content with student interests, but connections are occasionally unclear or ineffective
Engages some students in active learning by providing a few opportunities to individually and collaboratively solve problems; manage themselves; analyze, create, and critique content
Inconsistently engages the class in using appropriate learning skills and technology tools to access, interpret, and apply information 1
Uses a single instructional strategy or resource
Rarely links or does not link content with student interests
Rarely engages or does not engage students in active learning by providing opportunities to individually and collaboratively solve problems; manage themselves; analyze, create, and critique content
Rarely engages or does not engage the class in using appropriate learning skills and technology tools to access, interpret, and apply information
M-STAR/MPES Updates

19. What do best practices look like?
Don’t get lost in what the standards are saying. . .
Instead, focus on what behaviors will be seen when an effective teacher and his/her students are observed.
The M-STAR rubric can seem overwhelming, so it is very important to “unpack” it and understand what the standards look like. The next two slides will begin to break down Standard 8. Find it in your rubric (if you have it in front of you) and follow along as we see what actively engaging your students looks like. This will help you understand what evidence of effective teaching and learning your administrator needs to see.

20. Standard 8: Actively engages students in the learning process
Teachers will be:
Using a variety of teaching strategies and resources
Teaching appropriate for skill levels and different learning styles
Linking content with student interests
Probing and incorporating students’ questions
Grasping and holding students’ attention
Using a wide range of learning skills and technology to enhance learning
Within close proximity to students
Exhibiting excitement and interest in lesson and students
Leading a student-centered classroom
Can you think of other evidence of engaging students in learning?
This slide demonstrates what an effective teacher would do for Standard 8. Of course, it is impossible to put everything on a slide; this list could contain more examples. Can you come up with other teaching strategies a teacher could use?
Make your focus Best Practices and 21st-century-teaching skills. These action are evidence of what evaluators will be looking for while in your classroom.

21. Standard 8: Actively engages students in the learning process
Students will be:
Asking and answering questions that reflect applicable understanding of content
Responding to formative assessments
Using technology to access, interpret, and apply information
Demonstrating interest in lesson/activity
Learning on their level; engaged
What else will they be doing if they are truly engaged?
This slide shows what students will be doing if they are engaged in the learning process. What are other ways that students will demonstrate learning and engagement in the process?
These actions are evidence of what evaluators will be looking for while observing your class.

22. Example: Summative Observation Rating
Domain
Domain Score
Weight
Weighted Rating
I: Planning
2.75 x
.55
II: Assessment 4
.80
III: Instruction
2.5
.50
IV: Learning Environment
3.5 x
.70
V: Professional Responsibilities
Summative Classroom Observation Rating
3.05
Explain:
“The evaluator would multiply each domain score by .20 in order to obtain a weighted rating. Each domain counts 1/5 of the overall summative classroom observation rating.”
An optional method for calculating the Summative Classroom Observation Rating is to simply average the ratings of the individual standards.
REMEMBER: THIS RATING IS ASSIGNED ONLY AT THE END OF THE YEAR AS PART OF THE SUMMATIVE OBSERVATION CYCLE, AND IT REPRESENTS ONLY PART OF THE TEACHER’S OVERALL RATING. STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND PROFESSIONAL GROWTH GOALS WILL HAVE TO BE COMBINED WITH THIS RATING TO DETERMINE THE COMPLETE TEACHER PERFORMANCE LEVEL.
( ) 5

23. Educator Evaluations Mobile Application
One process tool across Desktop, Laptop, iPad, and mobile phone
Easy-to-use interface
Quick reference tools and forms
Will eventually be available to use with all educator evaluations (teachers, principals, counselors, speech-language pathologist, etc.)
M-STAR/MPES Updates

24. Teacher Evaluation Resources
MDE Homepage
Teacher Evaluation Web Page
M-STAR/MPES Updates

25. MTES Contacts For more information, contact: Tarance Hart, Ph.D.
For more information, contact:
Tarance Hart, Ph.D.
Teacher Evaluation
(601)
Cerissa Neal, Bureau Manager
Office of Educator Quality

26. For more information on Teacher Evaluation, contact:
RCU Contact
For more information on Teacher Evaluation, contact:
Lois Kappler, Project Manager
(662)
I am also available if you have any additional questions that we can assist with.
Thank you for your interest today.