1. Marco Ferro, Director of Public Policy Larry Nielsen, Field Consultant With Special Guest Stars: Tammy Pilcher, President Helena Education Association Mike Thiel, President Kalispell Education Association

2. Presentation Format  Evaluation Guidelines  Implementation Guidelines  Examples from the Field

3. Evaluation Guidelines National Education Association http://www.nea.org/grants/46326.htm American Federation of Teachers http://www.aft.org/pdfs/press/improvemodel011210.pdf Administrative Rules of Montana, Chapter 55 Schools of Promise Performance Appraisal System (SOPPAS)

4. Chapter 55 Current Accreditation Standard 10.55.701(4) The board of trustees shall have valid, written contracts with all regularly employed certified administrative, supervisory, and teaching personnel. New Accreditation Standard effective July 1, 2013 10.55.701(4)(a) The evaluation system used by a school district for licensed staff shall, at a minimum: 1. Be conducted on at least an annual basis with regard to nontenure staff and according to a regular schedule adopted by the district for all tenure staff; 2. Be aligned with applicable district goals, standards of the board of public education and the district’s mentorship and induction program required under 10.55.701(8)(c); 3. Identify skill sets are to be evaluated; 4. Include both formative and summative elements; 5. Include an assessment of the educator’s effectiveness in supporting every student in meeting rigorous learning goals through the performance of the educator’s duties. (b) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall develop and publish as an appendix to the Chapter 55 rules model evaluation instruments that comply with this rule in collaboration with the MEA-MFT, Montana Rural Education Association, Montana School Boards Association, School Administrators of Montana, and Montana Small School Alliance. A school district adopting and using one of the model instruments shall be construed to have complied with this rule, though use of one of the models shall not be required provided that the district’s evaluation instrument and process substantially conforms to the requirements set forth in this section.

5. SOPPAS  Based on Delaware’s Performance Appraisal System which is modeled after Charlotte Danielson’s work on “Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching”.

6. SOPPAS The Five Components  Planning and Preparation  Classroom Environment  Instruction  Professional Responsibilities  Student Improvement

7. Planning and Preparation Criteria for Evaluation  Selecting Instructional Goals  Designing Coherent Instruction  Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy  Demonstrating Knowledge of Students

8. Classroom Environment Criteria for Evaluation  Managing Classroom Procedures  Managing Student Behavior  Creating an Environment to Support Learning  Organizing Physical Space

9. Instruction Criteria for Evaluation  Engaging Student Learning  Demonstrates Flexibility  Communicating Clearly and Accurately  Using Questions and Discussion Techniques

10. Professional Responsibilities Criteria for Evaluation  Communicating with Family  Following District Policies and Procedures  Growing and Developing Professionally  Reflecting on Professional Practice

11. Student Improvement  Should include data from multiple measures.  Should include Data from the CRT.  Basis for goal setting in first three components Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, and Instruction comes from goal setting in Student Improvement.

12. Student Improvement Assessments  Through Component Five, teachers demonstrate their understanding of assessment for, and of, learning and how each plays a valuable part in teaching and learning.  Pay close attention to this part of the appraisal plan as it is key to improving teaching. Assessment should drive planning, preparation, and instruction for a formative and summative sense.

13. Evaluation Process Goal setting as an individual and School Formative Observations and Interactions Reflections on Goals Summative Evaluation

14. Student Improvement Planning and Preparation Classroom Environment Instruction

15. Implementation Guidelines  Bargain it!

16. Helena Implementation  Started through on-going bargaining.  Committee of educators and administrators.  Worked eighteen months, research and development.

17. Helena Standards Standard 1: (Preparation and Content) The educator identifies learning targets appropriate to the specific discipline, age, and range of cognitive levels being taught. Standard 2: (Instructional Strategies) The educator demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness in adjusting instruction to meet student needs. Standard 3: (Environment for Learning) The educator organizes, allocates, and manages the resources of time, physical space, activities, and attention.

18. Helena Standards Standard 4: (Student Assessment and Progress Monitoring) The educator maintains appropriate and accurate records of student achievement. Standard 5: (Collaborative Relationship) The educator establishes collaborative relationship with colleagues, parents, agencies, and other in the community to support and enhance student learning and well-being. Standard 6: (Professional Development) The educator accepts evaluative feedback in a professional manner and is receptive to constructive suggestions.

19. Year 1 2011-12 1. Training provided district wide to all educators and administrators. 2. All tenured educators will use the rubric for self evaluation and will not be formally evaluated this year. Educators on PCAP will submit CDP and PSC as usual (New educators to the District do not have to do a CDP their first year, however they must do a PSC). 3. All non-tenured educators will be evaluated using the rubric. 4. Classroom walk-throughs may be utilized for practice by evaluators.

20. Year 2 2012-13 1. All educators will submit a Professional Growth Plan. Those on PCAP, the CDP will become the PGP (New educators to the District do not have to do a PGP their first year, however they must do a PSC). 2. 1/3 of tenured educators will be in the summative evaluation year and will be formally evaluated using the rubric. 3. All non-tenured educators will be evaluated using the rubric. 4. Two classroom walk-throughs for every educator should be conducted by their evaluator.

21. Year 3 2013-14 1. All educators will submit a Professional Growth Plan (New educators to the District do not have to do a PGP their first year, however they must do a PSC). 2. Another 1/3 of tenured educators will be in the summative evaluation year and will be formally evaluated using the rubric. 3. All non-tenured educators will be evaluated using the rubric 4. Two classroom walk-throughs for every educator should be conducted by their evaluator.

22. Year 4 2014-15 1. All educators will submit a Professional Growth Plan (New educators to the District do not have to do a PGP their first year, however they must do a PSC). 2. Another 1/3 of tenured educators will be in the summative evaluation year and will be formally evaluated using the rubric. All educators will have been evaluated using the rubric and be on a 3 year cycle. 3. All non-tenured will be evaluated using the rubric. 4. Two classroom walk-throughs for every educator should be conducted by their evaluator.

23. Kalispell New instrument based on the work of Charlotte Danielson. New hires and tenured staff on a voluntary basis under an Memorandum of Agreement (Spring 2012)

24. Training  All district administrators and a group of teacher leaders are engaging in training around the instrument.  Training is on-going (started in August) and is provided by the New Teacher Center. The training is being paid for by a grant and is running in conjunction with mentor training.

25. Collaboration  The committee charged with this work is chaired by the superintendent. Teacher leaders and building level administrators are included as committee members.  The instrument is being reworked as needed.

26. Pilot Program  By agreement (MOA) the new evaluation program will remain in this pilot stage for one year after all the training has been completed. After this period the new program will become the evaluation method for all teaching staff.

27. On-going Development  Parallel instruments are being developed for librarians and counselors.

29. Contact Information  Marco Ferromferro@mea-mft.org  Larry Nielsenlnielsen@mea-mft.org  Tammy Pilchertpilcher@helena.k12.mt.us  Mike Thielmthiel@aboutmontana.net  Helena School District Evaluation Site http://www.helena.k12.mt.us/district/departme/personne/newteach/ index.dhtm  Kalispell School District Evaluation Site http://www.sd5.k12.mt.us/site/Default.aspx?PageID=145