Partnership for Innovation in Compensation for Charter Schools

1
Partnership for Innovation in Compensation for
Charter Schools

• Peer Review
• Webinar 5
• February 27, 2008

PICCS is a project of the Center for Educational
Innovation - Public Education Association

2
Agenda

• Number of Peer Reviews Per School Year 1, Years
  2-5
• Second Level Peer Review
• Incentive Plan for Peer Review
• Consultants Status and Feedback
• Other Issues

3
Number of Peer ReviewsSchool Year 1 2-5

• Shortfalls as Described in Proposal
• Same number of peer reviews regardless of school
  size will put strain on schools with a small
  number of faculty.
• Number of peer reviews per school remains the
  same throughout the course of the grant despite
  changes in school culture resulting from
  incorporation of peer review with professional
  development.

4
Number of Peer ReviewsSchool Year 1 2-5

• Suggested Proposal
• Base the number of peer reviews per school on a
  percentage of the number of faculty.
• Each year, an increasing number of peer reviews
  take place based on a growing percentage of the
  number of faculty.

5
Number of Peer ReviewsSchool Year 1 2-5

• Suggested Proposal

6
Number of Peer ReviewsSchool Year 1 2-5

• Percentages are a minimum
• Percentages do not preclude more peer reviews
• Designated Faculty
• Full time faculty members who teach core
  subjects.
• Self-contained Classrooms - each grade level
  teacher.
• Departments - ELA, Math, Science, Social Studies
  and Foreign Language teachers.
• Non-Designated Faculty
• Non-tested areas (Art, Music, Physical Education)
  
• Not included in calculating minimum percentages
• Not precluded from serving as a teacher presenter
  in a peer review.

7
Number of Peer ReviewsSchool Year 1 2-5

• Participant Feedback on Proposed Number of Peer
  Reviews

8
2nd Level Peer Review

• 2nd Level Peer Review takes place at the
  PICCS-wide level.
• Which learning experiences should move to 2nd
  level?
• Requires full confidence of school team that the
  learning experience is ready for replication
• Only exemplary learning experiences should move
  to the 2nd level review.

9
2nd Level Peer Review

• Need for objective criterion in moving a learning
  experience to the 2nd level.
• Reviewers, like presenters, are new to the peer
  review process
• Reviewers need time to make informed decisions
  about moving learning experiences to the 2nd
  level.

10
2nd Level Peer Review

• Years 1-2 are Learning Years
• 2nd level peer reviews will provide information
  to the school level as to what makes an exemplary
  learning experience.
• Publicly Available Suitable for Replication
  Learning Experiences
• As 2nd level peer reviewers deem learning
  experiences suitable for replication, those
  learning experiences will be made public
• This will help school reviewers make informed
  decisions about moving peer reviews to the second
  level.

11
2nd Level Peer Review

• Who should serve as 2nd level peer reviewers?
• The 2nd level peer review process will inform
  decisions at the school level
• 2nd level peer review panelists need to possess
  expertise in evaluating learning experiences.

12
2nd Level Peer Review

• Who should serve as 2nd level peer reviewers?
• Outside experts (e.g. NSRF consultants)
• Combination of outside experts and subject level
  master teachers from each school
• Only subject level master teachers from each
  school
• Eventually, PICCS teachers who have produced
  ready for replication learning experiences
  through 2nd-level reviews

13
2nd Level Peer Review Team

• Year 1 Recommendations
• Panelists - 4 NSRF Consultants
• Facilitator - Joe McDonald
• Recorder - Mary Grace Eapen

14
2nd Level Peer Review Team

• Year 2 Recommendations
• Panelists - 2 NSRF consultants 2 teachers who
  have produced ready for replication learning
  experiences
• Facilitator - Member of the PRAT
• Recorder - Member of the PRAT

15
2nd Level Peer Review Team

• Years 3-5 Recommendations
• Panelists - 4 teachers who have produced ready
  for replication learning experiences and/or
  subject level masters
• Facilitator - PICCS teachers experienced in
  school-level peer review
• Recorder - PICCS teachers experienced in
  school-level peer review

16
2nd Level Peer Review Processes

• Year 1
• 2nd Level Peer Reviews will be conducted in two
  formats
• Live, in-person peer reviews
• Electronic peer reviews in a webinar format using
  the MyPICCS Portal (in development).
• The live version will be captured on video and
  posted in the portal as a training device for
  PRCs and other faculty members at PICCS schools.

17
2nd Level Peer Review Processes

• Years 2-5
• Live, in-person peer reviews
• Electronic peer reviews in a webinar format
• Similar opportunities for posting video and audio
  training from these sessions will be made
  available on the portal

18
Year 1 2nd Level Peer Reviews

• 2nd Level Peer Review
• Proposed Dates
• May 19-23, 2008

19
2nd Level Peer Review

• Participant Feedback

20
TIF funds for incentives

• Academic Incentives
• Peer Review Incentives
• Teachers
• School Leaders
• Leadership Incentives
• Peer Review Coordinators
• Data Coordinators
• Others as identified by the school

21
Incentive Pool

• Each school is allocated a pool of incentive
  funds based upon the projected number of school
  leaders, teachers and paraprofessionals provided
  in the proposal questionnaire.
• This pool can be allocated by schools to meet
  specific goals for the incentives.
• In Year 1, schools are allocated funds for
  leadership and peer review incentives.
• In Year 1, schools can re-allocate funds within
  the leadership and peer review categories to meet
  Year 1 goals at the school level.

22
Year 1 Incentives

• Every school receives
• 2,000 for 2 ready for replication learning
  experiences
• 2,000 for leadership roles (PRC DC)
• 1,000 for school leader(s) guiding peer reviews

23
Year 1 Incentive Pool Distributions
Each schools total pool of available funds was
computed based upon the projected number of
school leaders, teachers and paraprofessionals
provided in the proposal questionnaire.
24
Year 1 Incentive Pool Distributions

• Add 2 leadership incentive positions
• Eliminate school leader peer review incentive
  award
• Fund 2 peer reviews at 500 per successful peer
  review

25
Year 1 Incentive Pool Distributions

• Add 3 leadership incentive positions
• Eliminate school leader peer review incentive
  award
• Eliminate peer review incentives for Year 1

26
Year 1 Incentive Pool Distributions
27
NSRF Consultants Status Feedback

28
General Discussion