Performance Appraisal for Teachers

1. Performance Appraisal for Teachers Enhancing Teacher Effectiveness Initiative using The Danielson Model

2. Superintendent’s Remarks…. • A New Way of Doing Business • Legislative Mandate • Teacher evaluation – Charlotte Danielson • Principal Evaluation – Doug Reeves • Peer Evaluator • Value-Added Model (VAM)

3. Why Are We Doing This? • Federal Grant- Race to the Top • SBHC applied for and received federal funds (+$2 million) • A requirement of the grant includes development of a performance appraisal system based upon a growth model for teachers and administrators and a system of compensation based upon student achievement data • Senate Bill 736 – Student Success Act (1012.33/1012.34 FS) - Requires all school districts in Florida to implement research-based models of performance evaluation and include a system of performance pay. • And, most importantly…..

4. Instruction will improve and, as a result, student learning will improve…..

5. “among the factors within the school that contribute to student learning, the quality of teaching is the single most important.”(Danielson, 2008)

6. What the research says….. • The “Ten Year Rule” • It takes approximately ten years or 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to reach expert status. • Number of years of experience is not necessarily a predictor of performance. • Teachers progress through various stages on the way to becoming expert • Factors include: • Motivation • Focused Feedback • Focused Practice

7. Implementation Schedule • 2011-12 – implement teacher and school administrator performance appraisal system • 2014 – Pay teachers and school administrators based upon performance appraisal system and student achievement data. (based upon 2013-14 data)

8. Purpose of New Teacher Evaluation “ETEI” – Enhancing Teacher Effectiveness InitiativePurpose Statement: Working Together to Help Students Achieve by Helping Teachers Succeed • Ensuring quality of teaching and effectiveness of practices. • Promoting teacher growth and learning. • Improving student growth and achievement. • Rigorous • Valid • Reliable • Defensible

9. The Danielson Model A Framework for Teaching • Four Domains 1. Planning and Preparation 2. The Classroom Environment 3. Instruction 4. Professional Responsibilities Domains 2 and 3 are “onstage” domains and are weighted more than 1 and 4 (Danielson research)

10. Planning and Preparation • Knowing the content and understanding what we teach. • Knowing the students (demographic information, academic background, special needs, etc) • Understanding instructional materials and resources • Understanding instructional design and assessment • Time

11. The Classroom Environment • Standards for Conduct are clear and routine • No loss of instructional time • Respectful interactions among students and teacher • Physical environment supports learning

12. Instruction • Students are engaged • High quality activities and assignments • Higher order questioning techniques • Use of feedback and formative assessment • Teacher Flexibility - Use of “Plan B” when necessary • Differentiates instruction

13. Professional Responsibilities • High Ethical Standards • Professionalism • Reflection on Instruction • Regular attendance • Accurate Record Keeping • Frequent communication with families • Participation in school events • Professional Development

14. Formal Classroom Observations • Teacher provides a formative self-assessment • Pre-conference-respond to a variety of written questions regarding the lesson to be observed and to determine the range of ability within the classroom • Observe the lesson-collect/script evidence only; not opinion, interpretation, or emotion • Post Conference-reflection; determine strengths and areas of development; make recommendations where appropriate

15. Peer Evaluators • Support for First Year Teachers and New to District; and Teachers in Need of Development • Frequent, formative feedback ; 3-4 “pop-ins” per semester • One Formal observation per semester (two per year) with Pre and Post Conferences • 20% of Summative Evaluation • Content Area Specialists, District Resource Teachers, others (outside experts)

16. Category II Teachers Professional Service Contract (PSC), Continuing Contract (CC) Teachers and Teachers with 4+ years of experience One formal observation per year by school administrator (may conduct additional observations if needed) 2-3 informal observations (walk-throughs, formative) per year

17. Calibration: • Performance Appraisal Ratings • All Administrators and Peer Evaluators Certified by Cambridge Education • Must use rubric and evidence • Insures Inter-rater Reliability • Does not promote “rater-bias”

18. What about the evidence? • Planning – Unit planning; the big picture; developing prompts and activities that require students to use analysis, synthesis and evaluation • Student engagement – student work, relevancy, focus on deep meaning; use higher order questioning techniques • Communication with families – newsletters, phone logs, emails, etc. • Professional Growth – attendance log of professional development activities, workshop or conferences; reflection • Participation in a professional learning community (PLC) or action research project, log of school-wide or district committee service

19. Ratings • Highly Effective- meets stringent criteria in rubric; “elite” group of teachers; should have school-wide impact • Effective – classroom impact and rating that encompasses most teachers • Needs Improvement- developing skills and willing to improve practices • Ineffective – Little to no evidence of practices that impact student learning (refer to generic ratings in Guidelines)

20. Value-added ModelsTeacher A The difference between the predicted performance and the actual performance represents the value added by the teacher’s instruction. The predicted performance represents the level of performance the student is expected to demonstrate after statistically accounting for factors through a value-added model.

21. New Standard for Teacher Evaluations

22. New Standard for Teacher Evaluations

23. Evaluating “Non-FCAT” Teachers

24. Evaluating “Non-FCAT” Teachers

25. Data • State Growth Model – Value-Added covariance • FCAT • End of Course Exams • SAT 10 for 2011-12 only; district selected assessment after 2011-12 • IPDP – collaborative/conversations with principal (pre-post?) • Student Achievement Goal • Performance Appraisal (Instructional Practices) Goal • Prescriptive Professional Development

26. After first year of implementation:How are we doing?What have we learned?Where do we go from here?Questions ????