1. Teacher Effectiveness Pilot II Presented by PDE

2. Project Development - Goal  Evaluate educators based on their effectiveness in serving students  “Highly qualified” focuses on factors related to the educator’s preparation  “Highly effective” focuses on student success resulting from the educator’s ability to teach and lead  The new PDE evaluation system will emphasize effectiveness based on teacher performance and student results, not credentialing requirements

3. Project Development - Background $800,000 Gates Foundation grant to facilitate the development of statewide policy, tools and processes to evaluate teachers and principals in which student achievement is a significant factor affecting performance ratings PDE is closely following the work of the Pittsburgh Public Schools – PPS recipients of $40 million Gates Foundation grant that is more comprehensive in scope but similar in redesigning evaluation policy, tools and processes

4. 2010-2011 Pilot Sites The following were the pilot sites: Allentown School District Cornell School District Mohawk School District IU5 – Northwest Tri-County

5. 2010-2011 Pilot - Initial Successes Feedback from the pilots indicated that: Initial training was strong for the time allotted. While participants were wary at the start, they valued the opportunity to provide input. Post conferences were taking more time, but the dialogues were excellent.

6. 2010-2011 Pilot - Opportunities for Improvement From the Principals: TIME – how to make the instrument less labor intensive. How could technology assist with the observation process? How could technology provide immediate feedback to the teacher?

7. Multiple Measures of Teacher Evaluation - Anticipated Evidence Principal/Supervisor classroom observations, including evidence that demonstrates behaviors associated with improving student achievement:  Planning and preparation, including selecting standards-based lesson goals and designing effective instruction and assessment;  Classroom environment, including establishing a culture for learning and appropriate classroom management techniques that maximize instructional time;  Instruction, including the use of research-based strategies which engage students in meaningful learning and utilize assessment results to make decisions about student needs; and  Professional responsibilities, including using systems for managing student data and communicating with student families.

8. Teacher Evaluation Rubric Danielson Domains  Planning and Preparation  Classroom Environment  Instruction  Professional Responsibilities  Detailed Performance Based Rubric

9. Teacher Evaluation Rubric Component1. Unsatisfactory2. Needs Improvement or Progressing 3. Proficient4. Distinguished 3a: Communicating with students Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are unclear or confusing to students. Teacher’s use of language contains errors or is inappropriate to students’ cultures or levels of development Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clarified after initial confusion; teacher’s use of language is correct but may not be completely appropriate to students’ cultures or levels of development. Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clear to students. Communications are appropriate to students’ cultures and levels of development. Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clear to students. Teacher’s oral and written communication is clear and expressive, appropriate to students’ cultures and levels of development, and anticipates possible student misconceptions. 3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques Teacher’s questions are low-level or inappropriate, eliciting limited student participation, and recitation rather than discussion. Some of the teacher’s questions elicit a thoughtful response, but most are low- level, posed in rapid succession. Teacher’s attempts to engage all students in the discussions are only partially successful. Most of the teacher’s questions elicit a thoughtful response, and the teacher allows sufficient time for students to answer. The students are engaged and participate in the discussion, with the teacher stepping aside when appropriate. Questions reflect high expectations and are culturally and developmentally appropriate. Students formulate many of the high-level questions and ensure that all voices are heard. Domain 3: Instruction

10. Teacher Evaluation Rubric Domain 3: Instruction Component1. Unsatisfactory2. Needs Improvement or Progressing 3. Proficient4. Distinguished 3c: Engaging students in learning Activities and assignments, materials, and groupings of students are inappropriate and ineffective to the instructional outcomes, or students’ cultures or levels of understanding, resulting in little intellectual engagement. The lesson has no structure or is poorly paced. Activities and assignments, materials, and groupings of students are partially appropriate and effective for the instructional outcomes, or students’ cultures or levels of understanding, resulting in moderate intellectual engagement. The lesson has a recognizable structure but it is not fully developed or maintained. Activities and assignments, materials, and groupings of students are fully appropriate and effective for the instructional outcomes, and students’ cultures and levels of understanding. All students are engaged in work of a high level of rigor. The lesson’s structure is coherent, with appropriate pacing. Students are highly intellectually engaged throughout the lesson in significant learning and make relevant and substantive contributions to the activities, student groupings, and materials. The lesson is adapted to the needs of individuals, and the structure and pacing allow for student reflection and closure.

11. Teacher Evaluation Rubric Domain 3: Instruction Component1. Unsatisfactory2. Needs Improvement or Progressing 3. Proficient4. Distinguished 3d: Using assessment in instruction Assessment is not used in instruction, either through students’ awareness of the assessment criteria, monitoring of progress by teacher or students, or through feedback to students. Assessment is occasionally used in instruction through some monitoring of progress of learning by teacher and/or students. Feedback to students is uneven, and students are aware of only some of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their work. Assessment is regularly used in instruction through self-assessment by students, monitoring of progress of learning by teacher and/or students, and through high quality feedback to students. Students are fully aware of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their work. Assessment is used in a sophisticated manner in instruction through student involvement in establishing the assessment criteria, self-assessment by students and monitoring of progress by both students and teachers, and high quality feedback to students from a variety of sources. 3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness Teacher adheres to the instruction plan, even when a change would improve the lesson or a students’ lack of interest. Teacher brushes aside student questions; when students experience difficulty, the teacher blames the students or their home environment. Teacher attempts to modify the lesson when needed and to respond to student questions, with moderate success. Teacher accepts responsibility for student success, but has only a limited repertoire of strategies to draw upon. Teacher promotes the successful learning of all students, making adjustments as needed to instruction plans and accommodating student questions, needs and interests. Teacher seizes an opportunity to enhance learning, building on a spontaneous event or student interests. Teacher ensures the success of all students, using an extensive repertoire of instructional strategies.

12. Multiple Levels of Teacher Evaluation - Anticipated Evidence Correlating evidence of behaviors noted in previous slide with growth in student achievement Allows the observation of the behaviors above to be utilized in evaluating teachers for whom no formal, standardized assessment data may be available.

15. Principal Evaluation The Rationale – The redesigned principal evaluation instrument will be aligned to Pennsylvania School Leadership Standards and become a component of training in the PIL Induction program. The Design – There must be compatibility between the teacher and principal evaluation instruments so that collaborative goal setting can occur with all stakeholders. The Outcomes – A finalized version of the principal evaluation instrument must include multiple measures of student achievement to fairly assess performance. The Impact – Principal evaluation tools must become integral tools in assessing school success or the need for improvement.

16. Pilot Planning and Implementation Timeline BenchmarkAnticipated Completion Date Status Receive Gates Momentum Evaluation of Teacher Pilot I June 30, 2011 Completed Review Preliminary Reports and Studies by Outside Evaluator, Suzanne Lane, on Teacher Pilot I June 30, 2011 Completed Finalize Field Plan for 2011-2012 Teacher Effectiveness Pilot II July 31, 2011 Communications plan Plan for pilot recruitment Training plan Pilot oversight plan Receive Outside Evaluator’s Final Report on Pilot IAugust 31, 2011 Completed Refine Teacher Evaluation Instruments for Pilot IISeptember 9, 2011 Completed Complete Recruitment of Teacher Effectiveness Pilot II LEAs August 31, 2011 Completed Train the Trainers Event for Teacher Effectiveness Pilot II October 26-28, 2011 Receive Mathematica Gates Grant Report on Teacher Effectiveness Pilot I December 30, 2011Compare teacher and principal evaluation results with evidence of student growth in pilots during 2010-11 year Release Final Gates Momentum Grant Report on Teacher Effectiveness Pilot I January 30, 2012 Complete Training of Teacher Effectiveness Pilot II LEAs January 31, 2012

17. Pilot Planning and Implementation Timeline Benchmark Anticipated Completion Date Status Begin 2011-2012 Teacher Effectiveness Pilot IIJanuary 31, 2012 Begin process to develop and implement the Principal Evaluation Instrument including a written plan and timeline March 1, 2012 Will be integrated with PIL program Will align with teacher process and instrument Will follow the development process used for teacher system with modification based on experience Produce first draft of multiple measures of student achievement policies and processes April 15, 2012 List of multiple measures or parameters Percentage of student growth Guidelines for elective assessments Implement multiple measures of student achievement data requirements for Teacher Effectiveness Instrument August 31, 2012For 2012-13 Implement formula for annual rating for Teacher Effectiveness Instrument August 31, 2012For 2012-13 Incorporate results of instrument and student data Implement Principal Evaluation Instrument and process with written plan and timeline Fall 2012 **Receive studies and reports by outside evaluators on Teacher Effectiveness Pilot II December 2012 Release evaluation by outside evaluators on first year of Principal Evaluation Instrument Fall 2013See above

18. Profile of LEAs in Pilot II 83 School Districts 11 Intermediate Units 8 Charter Schools 11 CTCs 112 Total LEAs 347 Buildings 555 Supervisors 3,339 Teachers in PSSA tested subjects 3,727 Teachers in non-PSSA tested subjects

19. Next Steps PDE will:  Analyze the balance of factors and weighting within the factors  Identify multiple measures of student achievement  Develop an infrastructure to gather and report on the student achievement measures  Determine a process for implementation  Conduct research and review to assure inter-rater reliability  Coordinate professional development  Develop a plan to implement the system statewide  Training will be conducted through Intermediate Units

20. Questions, Comments & Conversation