RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design

RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design ACEES Meeting October 4, 2010

Meeting Agenda • RI Model Development Update • AFT Collaboration • District Developed Systems • Working Group Wrap-Up • Professional Responsibilities • Draft framework for discussion and feedback • Support and Development • Draft framework for discussion and feedback • Administrator Professional Practice • New rubric based on administrator feedback • Wrap-up

RI Model – AFT Innovation Grant Collaboration Update • RIFT and RIDE have agreed to make a substantive effort to combine efforts toward 1 comprehensive system. • Agreement on approaches to TPP, PR, Process and Support and Development • Update from today’s meeting

District Developed Systems Timeline Update • October 13: Districts will submit documentation for first round of approval • December 21: Second round of submissions for approval • Student Learning update for district systems • Districts may choose to adopt the RI administrator system

Working Group Wrap-Up Plan Model synthesis Content review and refinement based on feedback RI Model v.1.0 ready for field testing (test usability) Model refinement based on testing outcomes and feedback Working groups wrap up Currently scheduled ACEES meetings Potential additional ACEES meetings Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May • Working groups’ individual meetings completed by mid-October • Final working group meeting October 27 – all groups together for synthesized RI Model overview and wrap-up; ACEES attendance welcome

Professional Responsibilities Content Review • 5 Domains • Collaborate • Believe in and advocate for students • Create a culture of respect • Contribute to the school community • Exercise professional judgment and Development • Scoring Structure • Each competency (educator actions that live under each domain) will be assessed on a 3-point Exceeds, Meets, or Does Not Meet Expectations scale • Some competencies are structured so that the educator can either only Exceed/Meet or Meet/Does Not Meet • Possible Sources of Evidence

Professional Responsibilities Rubric (Sample Domain and Competencies)

Professional Responsibilities Discussion Questions • Does the framework accurately define the competencies of professional responsibilities? If not, what is missing or overrepresented? • Can the framework be applied to all Rhode Island educators?

RI Model - Support and Development Process Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Mid-year check-in conference ------------------ Revisit and discuss professional growth goals; review progress to date including observation feedback and informal check-in log End of year summative evaluation conference ------------------ Review evaluation feedback; note status of professional growth goals; self reflect and identify future growth goals Check-ins with evaluator(s), coaches, mentors, colleagues, etc. & Progress toward growth goal benchmarks Check-ins with evaluator(s), coaches, mentors, colleagues, etc. & Progress toward growth goal benchmarks Beginning of year goal-setting conference ------------------ Professional growth plan discussed and finalized, including goal benchmarks and frequency of check-ins Individualized support Intensive, targeted support including specific growth goals tied to performance with clear benchmarks as well as more frequent required check-ins with evaluator(s) Minimally effective and ineffective New, new to role and change of assignment Intensive, targeted support based on all available data; uses assigned mentors, content coaches, more frequent check-ins with evaluator(s) to assist in transition

Teacher Support and Development Process w/Differentiation • Prior to beginning of year evaluation conference • Teacher completes the self-assessment and identifies professional growth goals • ME/IE (minimally effective/ineffective) completes with the improvement team and has less autonomy over choosing growth goals • Beginning of the year evaluation conference • Teacher and evaluator discuss and finalize prof. growth goals • Benchmarks and frequency of check-ins are decided • High frequency of check-ins for ME, IE, new, new to role, change of assignment • Between conferences • Informal check-ins with complementary evaluators, coaches, mentors, colleagues • Required check-ins with improvement team for ME, IE

Teacher Support and Development Process w/Differentiation • Mid-year evaluation conference • Teacher and evaluator review progress of professional growth goals and review logs of check-ins • New to role, change of assignment may scale back check-ins if evaluator agrees • End of year evaluation conference • Professional growth goals are marked as “achieved,” “in progress” or “not addressed.” • Summative evaluation leads to development of future professional growth goals

Support and Development Discussion Questions • Do the self assessment and professional growth plan templates establish a link between feedback from evaluation and goals for professional growth? • What aspects of the self assessment and/or professional growth plan is unclear?

Administrator Professional Practice Content Review • Is based on the Rhode Island EducationalLeadership Standards • Takes into account information from a variety of sources • Relies heavily on evidence of student outcomes and on evidence of professional practices that are linked to student outcomes • Provides a list of possible sources of evidence for each competency. Districts can specify the evidence that is appropriate for rating each competency, consistent with their own local contexts and strategies. • Sources of evidence should be identified at the beginning of the year by the Superintendent and his/her leadership team, and should be consistent with the district’s leadership and management strategies, initiatives, systems, processes and tools. • Some competencies or sources of evidence many not apply to an administrator because of his or her district or school context or span of control. Evidence should not be included if it does not relate to outcomes for which the administrator is responsible.

Administrator Professional Practice - Discussion Questions • How clear is the rubric language and format as an instrument to assess building administrator professional practice? • Can the framework be applied to all building administrators regardless of experience or roles? • What questions or concerns do you have with the building administrator professional practice instrument?

Next Steps • Meeting: Monday, October 25th, 4-7 pm • Location: 255 Westminster Street, Shepard Building, Room 329 • Website- www.ride.ri.gov/educatorquality/educatorevaluation

RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design