Ponaganset Middle School Evaluation Protocol 2013-14 RIDE Edition 2 w ith Addendum

1. PonagansetMiddle School Evaluation Protocol 2013-14 RIDE Edition 2 with Addendum

2. Edition II: Five Key Priorities for Model Refinement

3. Details of Changes Differentiated Evaluation Process: Depending on the previous years final evaluation rating there will be varying requirements: Conferences: one conference- EOY only, or two conferences- Beginning and End of Year, or three conferences- Beginning , Middle and End-of-Year Classroom Observations: one observation- unannounced, or two- 1 announced and 1 unannounced, or three- 1 announced and 2 unannounced, or four- 1 announced and 3 unannounced • Announced (week notification can not be the same as the week of observation) • all observations are rated and require written feedback RI Growth Model Rating: included for teachers who contribute to student learning in math and reading in grades 3-7 Professional Growth Goals: at least 1 per teacher (aligned with school and district ) SLO: at least 2 per teacher (aligned with department, school, district)

4. Details of Changes • Professional Practice • For the 2013 edition, no changes have been made to the architecture of the Rubric (e.g., the same 8 components). The language changes are primarily located in the critical attributes and possible examples of Domain 3 to better align with the Common Core State Standards. All components remain 100% observable (no evidence to be provided) • Professional Foundations • Some of the components will be seen in action; others will require artifact review. (pg. 26)

5. PMS Student Learning Objective StatementProfessional Growth Goal Reading: Students will demonstrate improved performance in reading and comprehending informational text. This defined area of need is based on a data crosswalk between NECAP, MAP and local common assessments. Math: Students will demonstrate improved performance in the area of numbers and operations. This defined area of need is based on a data crosswalk between NECAP, MAP and local common assessments.

6. Professional Growth Goals • Engage in accurate and consistent analysis of data and student learning—across teachers, departments, and schools—to design and implement core, supplemental and intensive instructional supports and intervention • Engage in a continuous focus on improving teaching and learning with an explicit emphasis on literacy, numeracy and 21st Century Skills • Continue to implement a system to ensure the evaluations process is conducted timely, thoroughly and with full alignment.

7. Ponaganset Middle School PGG #1 Goal #1: Create and establish a system to ensure the evaluations process is conducted timely, thoroughly and with full alignment. Action Step #1 (required): Introduce and explain the new RI Model Educator Evaluation System (Edition 2) to the faculty. Benchmark(s) for Action Step # 1: By (date): 9/16/13 Identify what you plan to accomplish: Offer PD for Teacher Professional Practice Rubrics and Educator Professional Foundations Rubrics Dedicate CPT to agreement on assessment to be used as data for the SLO (MAP, Common task, grade level assessments)

8. Timeline and Focus

9. Student Learning Objectives The Measures of Student Learning section in the Addendum replaces the original section in the Edition II Guidebook. In addition to the changes to the SLO process, this section is intended to help educators better understand how SLOs are fully integrated with curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Addendum pg. 10-11

10. Student Learning Objective The SLO form has been revised based on feedback from educators across the state. These changes include: • Removing the Level of Standardization section (which was often confused with assessment quality) • Re-sequencing the order of the elements • Collapsing Evidence Source, Administration, and Scoring into one category

11. The Anatomy of a Student Learning Objective The SLO Form is designed to elicit answers to the following three essential questions: 1. What are the most important knowledge/skill(s) I want my students to attain by the end of the interval of instruction(Priority of Content) 2. Where are my students now (at the beginning of instruction) with respect to the objective (Priority of Content, Rigor of Target) 3. Based on what I know about my students, where do I expect them to be by the end of the interval of instruction and how will they demonstrate their knowledge/skill(s) (Rigor of Target, Quality of Evidence)

12. Priority of Content The Anatomy of a Student Learning Objective Objective Statement • Identifies the priority content and learning that is expected during the interval of instruction • The objective statement should be broad enough that it captures the major content of an extended instructional period, but focused enough that it can be measured Rationale • Provides a data-driven and/or curriculum-based explanation for the focus of the Student Learning Objective Aligned Standards • Specifies the standards (e.g., CCSS, Rhode Island GSEs, GLEs, or other state or national standards) to which this objective is aligned

13. Rigor of Target Anatomy of a Student Learning Objective Baseline Data Describes students’ baseline knowledge, including the source(s) of data and its relation to the overall course objectives. If baseline data are not available for the student population to whom the Student Learning Objective applies, data about a similar student group (such as students taught in a previous year) or national expectations about student achievement in this area may be referenced. • Baseline data may include: • prior year assessment scores or grades • beginning-of-year benchmark assessment data • other evidence of students’ learning, such as portfolio work samples During the first week of school, students completed a mile run. Only 50% of students ran the mile in under 10 minutes. Of those, 25% ran the mile in under 8 minutes. The other 50% ran the mile in over 10 minutes. Example:

14. Rigor of Target Anatomy of a Student Learning Objective Target(s) • Describes where the teacher expects students to be at the end of the interval of instruction. • The target should be measureable and rigorous, yet attainable for the interval of instruction. • The target should be tiered (differentiated) so as to be both rigorous and attainable for all students included in the Student Learning Objective.

15. Rigor of Target Anatomy of a Student Learning Objective Rationale for Target(s) • Explains the way in which the target was determined, including the data source (e.g., benchmark assessment, historical data for the students in the course, historical data from past students) and evidence that the data indicate the target is both rigorous and attainable for all students. • Rationale should be provided for each target. These targets were informed by my data from last year’s French 2 student data. I created tiers based upon the Q1 assessment, which indicated that 85% of students are on-track. The remaining 15% are entering the course lacking some foundational skills from French 1. Therefore, I have set a slightly lower, though still rigorous, target for these students.

16. Quality of Evidence Anatomy of a Student Learning Objective High-quality assessments are essential for accurately measuring students’ learning. In Rhode Island, a variety of summative assessments may be used as evidence for SLOs, including performance tasks, extended writing, research papers, projects, portfolios, unit assessments, final assessments, or a combination. Assessments may be created by individual teachers, teams of teachers, district leaders, or purchased from a commercial vendor; all assessments must be reviewed by evaluators. Addendum pg. 19

17. Quality of Evidence Anatomy of a Student Learning Objective Evidence Source • Describes how student learning will be assessed and why the assessment(s) is appropriate for measuring the objective • Describes how the measure of student learning will be • Describes how the evidence will be collected and scored • Various assessments may be used as evidence of target attainment, ranging from teacher-created performance tasks to commercial standardized assessments. • Common assessments for the same courses will save time for teachers and evaluators.

18. Mid-Year SLOs can/should be revised IF… • Based on new information, it is clear the objectives fail to address the most important learning in the classroom/course • New, more reliable sources of evidence become available • Class compositions have changed significantly • Teaching schedule or assignment has changed significantly

19. Scoring SLOs

20. PRIOR to the End-of-Year Conference which all teachers are required to attend, teachers should: Gather and analyze student learning data relevant to their SLOs (e.g., assessment results) Complete the results section of each SLO Form Submit data and completed SLO Form to evaluators at least 48 hours in advance of conference Scoring SLOs

21. Step 2: Scoring a Set of SLOs

22. Scoring Tables Step 2: Scoring a Set of SLOs

23. Thank you for your professionalism and hard work.