1. Teacher Effectiveness
Methodology Text
ADE Educator Evaluation Summit
Thursday, September 13, 2012
2. The impact of an effective
single
is the
teacher
most important factor in
student learning
Thursday, September 13, 2012
3. 60%
Nearly
of the impact on student achievement is attributable to
principal teacher and
effectiveness
* New Leaders for New Schools (2009)
Thursday, September 13, 2012
4. YET principal
and
teacher
evaluation scores
vary minimally
failing to distinguish from great to good, good to fair, or fair to poor
Thursday, September 13, 2012
5. If 98% of teachers have the same rating,
how can districts
use evaluation data for
decision making?
Thursday, September 13, 2012
6. dual
MCESA tools serve
purposes
(human resources • professional development)
for
principal teacher and
evaluations
Thursday, September 13, 2012
7. New AZ laws require
changes
• The State Board of Education shall...”on or before December
15, 2011 adopt and maintain a model framework for a teacher
and principal evaluation instrument that includes quantitative
for schools and
data on student academic progress that accounts for between
thirty-three percent and fifty per cent of the evaluation
districts
outcomes and best practices for professional development and
evaluator training. School districts and charter schools shall
use an instrument that meets the data requirements established
Arizona Revised Statutes
by the State Board of Education to annually evaluate
individual teachers and principals beginning in school year
2012 – 2013.”
Thursday, September 13, 2012
8. By next year, evaluations
must include
multiple measures
Thursday, September 13, 2012
13. Example Learning Observation
Rating Scale...
Score Description
Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 1 on average (based on 5
1
observations)
Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 2 on average (based on 5
2
observations)
Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3 on average (based on 5
3
observations)
Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3 and 4 on average (based on
4
5 observations)
Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3, 4, and 5 on average (based
5
on 5 observations)
Thursday, September 13, 2012
14. Example Learning Observation
Rating Scale... 50% of Score
Score Description
Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 1 on average (based on 5
1
observations)
Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 2 on average (based on 5
2
observations)
Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3 on average (based on 5
3
observations)
Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3 and 4 on average (based on
4
5 observations)
Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3, 4, and 5 on average (based
5
on 5 observations)
Thursday, September 13, 2012
15. Example Growth Scale
50% of Score
Score Growth Designation Example: AIMs Value-Added Model Results
On average, students’ AIMS scores are far below expected scores based on prior achievement, student &
Well Below
1 classroom characteristics (95% statistical confidence that average growth is below the 20th percentile
Expectations
statewide).
On average, students’ AIMS scores are below expected scores based on prior achievement, student &
2 Below Expectations
classroom characteristics (95% statistical confidence that average growth is below the statewide average).
Expected Growth On average, students’ AIMS scores are not statistically different from expected scores based on prior
3
(Average/Typical) achievement, student & classroom characteristics.
On average, students’ AIMS scores are above expected scores based on prior achievement, student &
4 Above Expectations
classroom characteristics (95% statistical confidence that average growth is above the statewide average).
On average, students’ AIMS scores are above expected scores based on prior achievement, student &
Well Above
5 classroom characteristics (95% statistical confidence that average growth is above the 80th percentile
Expectations
statewide).
Thursday, September 13, 2012