1. Educator Effectiveness Annual Orientation August 1, 2013

2. Outcomes • Participants will understand the 2013-14 APS pilot process and evaluation system for teachers. • Participants will begin to develop their understandings regarding the teacher quality standards and elements. • Participants will begin to understand the teacher evaluation rubrics and their scoring. MS

3. Evaluation system – true or false? • Standard VI, or the “other 50%,” is based on a single test score and teachers can be fired based on this score. • The purpose of the evaluation system is to provide meaningful and credible feedback that improves performance. • 50% of specials teachers’ (Art, Music, PE, etc) overall effectiveness ratings will be based on TCAP scores. • The new evaluation system is a one-time event each year. • Teachers will be responsible for providing evidence and artifacts of effective practice. • The new evaluation system will change the professional learning courses currently offered. • Every teacher will be evaluated every year. • The new evaluation system will drive the way principals plan for building professional development. • The new evaluation system allows only principals and assistant principals to be evaluators. • Every licensed staff member will be evaluated in 2013-14, but scores will start to “count” for non-probationary teachers in 2014-15. MS

4. Committees District Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (a.k.a. 1338) Teacher Evaluation Revision Committee (TERC) Other 50% - TERC Principal Evaluation Revision Committee (PERC) Other 50% - PERC- committee membership TBD MS

5. Evaluation System Implementation 2010 Senate Bill 10-191 is passed, The Great Teachers and Leaders Law 2010-12 CDE developed Colorado Model Evaluation System as an option for Colorado districts’ use 2011-12 Teacher Evaluation Revision Committee (TERC) reviewed the Colorado Model Evaluation System and adapted it for APS implementation 2012-13 APS Limited Pilot was conducted with teachers from 11 schools and principals and AP’s from 8 schools June 2013 Limited Pilot feedback was reviewed by TERC and changes were made to the APS evaluation rubric and guidelines 2013-14 All licensed employees will be evaluated in a district-wide pilot process June 2014 Pilot feedback will be reviewed by TERC and changes will be made to the APS evaluation rubric and guidelines MS

6. Guiding Principles for Implementation of SB 10-191 • The purpose of the system is to provide meaningful and credible feedback that improves performance. • The implementation and assessment of the evaluation system must embody continuous improvement. • Data should inform decisions, but professional judgment will always be a component of evaluations. • The development and implementation of educator evaluation systems must continue to involve all stakeholders in a collaborative process. • Educator evaluations must take place within a larger system that is aligned and supportive. • Teacher effectiveness equals student achievement – the teacher matters! MS

7. More Guiding Principles • The APS evaluation is aligned to the CDE Model evaluation system, refined according to APS priorities. • Quality Standard VI, the “other 50%,” will be based upon multiple, fair, valid measures of student growth. • Pilot participants’ feedback will help the APS Teacher Evaluation Revision Committee (TERC) make appropriate adjustments to the system. • The tools for collecting and documenting evaluation information should not become bigger than the process. • Continued support for evaluators’ Inter-rater agreement (IRA) will be an integral part of the pilot process in 2013-14. MS

8. Teacher Quality Standards LM

9. Teacher Evaluations • Evaluated using: (1) a measure of individually-attributed growth, (2) a measure of collectively-attributed growth; (3) when available, statewide summative assessments; and (4) where applicable, Colorado Growth Model data. Evaluated using: (1) observations; and (2) at least one of the following: student perception measures, peer feedback, parent/guardian feedback, or review of lesson plans/student work samples. May include additional measures. Quality Standards I-V: I. Mastery of content II. Establish learning environment III. Facilitate learning IV. Reflect on practice V. Demonstrate leadership Quality Standard VI: VI. Responsibility for student academic growth LM

10. Principal Quality Standards LM

11. Principal Evaluations Evaluated using: (1) SPF data; and (2) at least one other measure of student academic growth. Evaluated using: (1) teacher input; (2) teacher evaluation ratings; and (3) teacher improvement. Quality Standard VII: VII. Leadership around student academic growth Quality Standards I-VI: I. Strategic leadership II. Instructional leadership III. School culture/equity leadership IV. HR leadership V. Managerial leadership VI. External development leadership LM

12. Principal and Teacher Performance Evaluation Ratings LM

13. Special Service Providers (SSP) Who is considered a specialized service professional? Currently, there are nine categories of specialized service professionals: • School audiologists • School psychologists • School nurses • School physical therapists • School occupational therapists • School counselors • School social workers • School speech language pathologists • School orientation and mobility specialists The current teacher evaluation system for these individuals is being reviewed by groups of educators in the Colorado State Model Evaluation System pilot and feedback is being collected LM

14. APS evaluation system features • Professional Learning Plan form • Inclusion of student behavior in the proficient column • Inclusion of teacher behavior in the accomplished and exemplary columns • Creation of pre-observation and post-observation forms for consistency of practice LM

15. APS Evaluation processes • Self-assessment • Completed by the end of August • Teacher (or Principal) Professional Learning Plan • Completed in collaboration with evaluator and based on self-evaluation and school goals (UIP) • Observations (minimum number) • 4 informals (minimum 10 minutes) per year • 1 formal for non-probationary teachers • 3 formals for probationary teachers • Ongoing evidence/artifact collection by teacher and evaluator – not required for every element and standard • Mid year review LM

16. 1. Training LM

17. What does a pilot year mean? • Hold harmless for non-probationary educators • Ongoing professional learning and feedback – cycle of learning for principals and teachers • Communities of practice • Tolerance for ambiguity required • Formalized feedback structures • Feedback by participants will inform our evaluation process in the future SO

18. Inter-rater Agreement (IRA) Inter-rater agreement measures the extent to which two or more evaluators using the same evaluation tool give the same rating to an identical observable situation. SO

19. Body of Evidence • Teachers will share artifacts, such as: • Commonly developed lesson plans or assessments • Memos • Letters • Input from students • Student work • Artifacts are not necessary for each and every standard and element, only for those which cannot be observed or about which there exists some disagreement • The rating of artifacts requires Inter Rater Agreement. SO

20. Scoring the rubric SO

21. Designees Who can evaluate teachers? Section 22-9-106 (4) (a), C.R.S, allows performance evaluations to be conducted by an individual who has completed a training in evaluation skills that has been approved by CDE. Teachers may fill the role of an evaluator if they are a designee of an individual with a Principal or Administrator license and have completed a training on evaluation skills that has been approved by CDE. The use of designees will be evaluated by the Teacher Evaluation Revision Committee at the conclusion of the 2013-14 pilot. Any licensed staff member identified as the principal’s designee for the purpose of evaluation must have been identified as effective/meeting standards on their most recent performance evaluation. SO

22. Resources • New web page • Principal and Teacher Effectiveness, www.pte.aurorak12.org • Principals and teachers will be able to download and print the Guidelines Handbook, the rubric and all other forms as needed at their site. SO

23. Online data collection CDE has selected RANDA Solutions, Inc. to create an online performance management system as an optional technology platform at no cost to districts. This tool will provide online web-based entry of educator evaluation data and make tracking and reporting a much more useful and meaningful process for educators and districts.  Initial beta tests will be available to all districts by fall 2013. More information is coming soon.  SO

24. Thank you!