TEACHER EVALUATION

1
TEACHER EVALUATION

• Marco Ferro, Director of Public Policy
• Larry Nielsen, Field Consultant
• With Special Guest Stars
• Tammy Pilcher, President
• Helena Education Association
• Mike Thiel, President
• Kalispell Education Association

2
Presentation Format

• Evaluation Guidelines
• Implementation Guidelines
• Examples from the Field

3
Evaluation Guidelines

• National Education Association
• http//www.nea.org/grants/46326.htm
• American Federation of Teachers
• http//www.aft.org/pdfs/press/improvemodel011210.p
  df
• Administrative Rules of Montana, Chapter 55
• Schools of Promise Performance Appraisal System
• (SOPPAS)

4
Chapter 55

• Current Accreditation Standard10.55.701(4) The
  board of trustees shall have valid, written
  contracts with all regularly employed certified
  administrative, supervisory, and teaching
  personnel.New Accreditation Standard effective
  July 1, 201310.55.701(4)(a) The evaluation
  system used by a school district for licensed
  staff shall, at a minimum 1.     Be conducted
  on at least an annual basis with regard to
  nontenure staff and according to a
  regular schedule adopted by the district for all
  tenure staff 2.      Be aligned with applicable
  district goals, standards of the board of public
  education and the districts
  mentorship and induction program required under
  10.55.701(8)(c) 3.      Identify skill sets are
  to be evaluated 4.      Include both formative
  and summative elements 5.      Include an
  assessment of the educators effectiveness in
  supporting every student in meeting
  rigorous learning goals through the performance
  of the educators duties.  (b) The
  Superintendent of Public Instruction shall
  develop and publish as an appendix to the Chapter
  55 rules model evaluation instruments that comply
  with this rule in collaboration with the MEA-MFT,
  Montana Rural Education Association, Montana
  School Boards Association, School Administrators
  of Montana, and Montana Small School Alliance. A
  school district adopting and using one of the
  model instruments shall be construed to have
  complied with this rule, though use of one of the
  models shall not be required provided that the
  districts evaluation instrument and process
  substantially conforms to the requirements set
  forth in this section.

5
SOPPAS

• Based on Delawares Performance Appraisal System
  which is modeled after Charlotte Danielsons work
  on Enhancing Professional Practice A Framework
  for Teaching.

6
SOPPASThe Five Components

• Planning and Preparation
• Classroom Environment
• Instruction
• Professional Responsibilities
• Student Improvement

7
Planning and PreparationCriteria for Evaluation

• Selecting Instructional Goals
• Designing Coherent Instruction
• Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
• Demonstrating Knowledge of Students

8
Classroom Environment Criteria for
Evaluation

• Managing Classroom Procedures
• Managing Student Behavior
• Creating an Environment to Support Learning
• Organizing Physical Space

9
InstructionCriteria for Evaluation

• Engaging Student Learning
• Demonstrates Flexibility
• Communicating Clearly and Accurately
• Using Questions and Discussion Techniques

10
Professional ResponsibilitiesCriteria for
Evaluation

• Communicating with Family
• Following District Policies and Procedures
• Growing and Developing Professionally
• Reflecting on Professional Practice

11
Student Improvement

• Should include data from multiple measures.
• Should include Data from the CRT.
• Basis for goal setting in first three components
  Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment,
  and Instruction comes from goal setting in
  Student Improvement.

12
Student Improvement Assessments

• Through Component Five, teachers demonstrate
  their understanding of assessment for, and of,
  learning and how each plays a valuable part in
  teaching and learning.
• Pay close attention to this part of the appraisal
  plan as it is key to improving teaching.
  Assessment should drive planning, preparation,
  and instruction for a formative and summative
  sense.

13
Evaluation Process

• Goal setting as an individual and School
• Formative Observations and Interactions
• Reflections on Goals
• Summative Evaluation

14
Goal Setting
Professional Responsiblity
15
Implementation Guidelines

• Bargain it!

16
Helena Implementation

• Started through on-going bargaining.
• Committee of educators and administrators.
• Worked eighteen months, research and development.

17
Helena Standards

• Standard 1 (Preparation and Content)
• The educator identifies learning targets
  appropriate to the specific discipline, age, and
  range of cognitive levels being taught.
• Standard 2 (Instructional Strategies)
• The educator demonstrates flexibility and
  responsiveness in adjusting instruction to meet
  student needs.
• Standard 3 (Environment for Learning)
• The educator organizes, allocates, and manages
  the resources of time, physical space,
  activities, and attention.

18
Helena Standards

• Standard 4 (Student Assessment and Progress
  Monitoring)
• The educator maintains appropriate and accurate
  records of student achievement.
• Standard 5 (Collaborative Relationship)
• The educator establishes collaborative
  relationship with colleagues, parents, agencies,
  and other in the community to support and enhance
  student learning and well-being.
• Standard 6 (Professional Development)
• The educator accepts evaluative feedback in a
  professional manner and is receptive to
  constructive suggestions.

19
Year 1 2011-12

• 1. Training provided district wide to all
  educators and administrators.
• 2. All tenured educators will use the rubric for
  self evaluation and will not be formally
  evaluated this year. Educators on PCAP will
  submit CDP and PSC as usual (New educators to the
  District do not have to do a CDP their first
  year, however they must do a PSC).
• 3. All non-tenured educators will be evaluated
  using the rubric.
• 4. Classroom walk-throughs may be utilized for
  practice by evaluators.

20
Year 2 2012-13

• 1. All educators will submit a Professional
  Growth Plan. Those on PCAP, the CDP will become
  the PGP (New educators to the District do not
  have to do a PGP their first year, however they
  must do a PSC).
• 2. 1/3 of tenured educators will be in the
  summative evaluation year and will be formally
  evaluated using the rubric.
• 3. All non-tenured educators will be evaluated
  using the rubric .
• 4. Two classroom walk-throughs for every educator
  should be conducted by their evaluator.

21
Year 3 2013-14

• 1. All educators will submit a Professional
  Growth Plan (New educators to the District do not
  have to do a PGP their first year, however they
  must do a PSC).
• 2. Another 1/3 of tenured educators will be in
  the summative evaluation year and will be
  formally evaluated using the rubric.
• 3. All non-tenured educators will be evaluated
  using the rubric
• 4. Two classroom walk-throughs for every educator
  should be conducted by their evaluator.

22
Year 4 2014-15

• 1. All educators will submit a Professional
  Growth Plan (New educators to the District do not
  have to do a PGP their first year, however they
  must do a PSC).
• 2. Another 1/3 of tenured educators will be in
  the summative evaluation year and will be
  formally evaluated using the rubric. All
  educators will have been evaluated using the
  rubric and be on a 3 year cycle.
• 3. All non-tenured will be evaluated using the
  rubric .
• 4. Two classroom walk-throughs for every educator
  should be conducted by their evaluator.

23
Kalispell

• New instrument based on the work of Charlotte
  Danielson.
• New hires and tenured staff on a voluntary basis
  under an Memorandum of Agreement (Spring 2012)

24
Training

• All district administrators and a group of
  teacher leaders are engaging in training around
  the instrument.
• Training is on-going (started in August) and is
  provided by the New Teacher Center. The training
  is being paid for by a grant and is running in
  conjunction with mentor training.

25
Collaboration

• The committee charged with this work is chaired
  by the superintendent. Teacher leaders and
  building level administrators are included as
  committee members.
• The instrument is being reworked as needed.

26
Pilot Program

• By agreement (MOA) the new evaluation program
  will remain in this pilot stage for one year
  after all the training has been completed. After
  this period the new program will become the
  evaluation method for all teaching staff.

27
On-going Development

• Parallel instruments are being developed for
  librarians and counselors.

28
Questions are always Appropriate!!!!!
29
Contact Information

• Marco Ferro mferro_at_mea-mft.org
• Larry Nielsen lnielsen_at_mea-mft.org
• Tammy Pilcher tpilcher_at_helena.k12.mt.us
• Mike Thiel mthiel_at_aboutmontana.net
• Helena School District Evaluation Site
  http//www.helena.k12.mt.us/district/departme/pers
  onne/newteach/
• index.dhtm
• Kalispell School District Evaluation Site
• http//www.sd5.k12.mt.us/site/Default.aspx?PageID
  145