Teacher Effectiveness Methodology

Teacher Effectiveness
Methodology Text

ADE Educator Evaluation Summit

Thursday, September 13, 2012

The impact of an effective

single
is the
teacher

most important factor in
student learning


60%
Nearly

of the impact on student achievement is attributable to

principal teacher and
effectiveness
* New Leaders for New Schools (2009)


YET principal
and
teacher
evaluation scores
vary minimally
failing to distinguish from great to good, good to fair, or fair to poor


If 98% of teachers have the same rating,

how can districts
use evaluation data for

decision making?


dual
MCESA tools serve

purposes
(human resources • professional development)
for
principal teacher and
evaluations

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.”


By next year, evaluations
must include

multiple measures

33% - of educator
50% effectiveness
must be measured by
student academic
progress


50%
School Growth
5%
Team Growth
5%

40% 5%
Observation
50%

Individual Growth
40%


Small Group Calibration Exercise

Designation Ineffective Partially Effective Effective 1 Effective 2 Highly Effective

REIL Growth Composite Rating
1 2 3 4 5
1
2
3
4
5


Example Learning Observation
Rating Scale...
Score Description
Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 1 on average (based on 5
1
observations)
2
observations)
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)


Example Learning Observation
Rating Scale... 50% of Score
Score Description
1
observations)
2
observations)
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)


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).


Merging Observation

student academic
&
progress...

Determining tool

&
scale for observation

Selecting measures

&
calculations for
student growth

Appropriate

in values

establishing
effectiveness

Observation
Instrument
Quantitative Measures
Determining Model for Overall
Effectiveness

MCESA Tools


Observation
Cycle
4 + 16 + 2 = 22

Unadjusted Rubric Weights Within REIL LOI

Learning Community
18% Learner Engagement
18%

Content
23%
Instructional Strategies
27%

Formative Assessment
14%


Unadjusted Rubric Weights Within REIL LOI
22
21
20 Learning Community = 4 Element Scores (18%)

Number of Element Scores
19
18
17
16
15 Instructional Strategies = 6 Element Scores (27%)
14
13
12
11
10 Formative Assessment = 3 Element Scores (14%)
9
8
7
6
5
Content = 5 Element Scores (23%)
4
3
2
1 Learner Engagement = 4 Element Scores (18%)
0


Rubric Weights Content Element Weights

Learning Community
Conceptual
Understanding Connections to
Instructional Strategies 20% Content
20%

Formative Assessment Content Accessibility
20%

Content Task Analysis
40%

Learner Engagement


Peer
evaluators

Teacher Effectiveness Methodology

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (12)

Ähnlich wie Teacher Effectiveness Methodology

Ähnlich wie Teacher Effectiveness Methodology (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Teacher Effectiveness Methodology