Teacher Evaluation in Newark Evaluator Training August 21

Teacher Evaluation in Newark: Evaluator Training August 21 or 22, 2013 1

The Irreplaceables explores retention through the experience of the nation’s best teachers, who urban schools desperately need to keep. Who Are the Irreplaceables? The “Irreplaceables” are teachers so successful that they are nearly impossible to replace. Estimates of Irreplaceables percentage based on teachers with value-added or growth data; District A high performers: 21%; District B high performers: 20%; District C high performers: 20%; District D high performers: 18%; Student impact estimates calculated following the methodology of Hahnel and Jackson (2012). Source: District data from SY 2009 -10 and SY 2010 -11. /2

When an Irreplaceable leaves a low-performing school, the school is almost guaranteed to hire a less-effective replacement. Likelihood of Replacing a High Performer with a Teacher of Similar Quality When a great teacher leaves a school, it can take 11 hires to find one teacher of comparable quality. Estimates based on teachers with value-added or growth data; Low performing schools include schools in the lowest quintile of proficiency by school level; Percentage of high-performing potential replacements in all schools - District A: 12%; District B: 17%; District C: 15%; District D: 15%; Low-performing schools District A: 12% ; District B: 10%; District C: 3%; District D: 9%. Source: District data from SY 2008 -09 and SY 2009 -10. /3

Yet most schools retain Irreplaceables and low performers at fairly similar rates. School Retention Rates by Teacher Performance, 2009 -10 Struggling teachers remain for too long: Most have more than 9 years of experience and plan to stay for at least another 10 years. Chart: School retention defined as teachers remaining at their school from one year to the next. Bottom statement: Median years of experience 9 -10 years across districts; Percentage planning to stay more than 10 years 48 -62% across districts. Source: District data from SY 2008 -09 through SY 2010 -11 /4

Low performers rarely improve significantly. Even three years later, most perform worse than the average first-year teacher. Performance Comparison of New Teachers and Low Performers over Three Years 40 percent of teachers with 7+ years of experience are less effective than the average first-year teacher Chart: Median percentile ranks by population scores in District C; Populations defined in 2007 -08. Bottom statement: District A: 44% veterans less effective; District C: 39% veterans less effective. Source: District data from SY 2008 -09 through SY 2010 -11 /5

There are simple, low-cost steps principals can take that double the time Irreplaceables plan to remain at their schools. Low-Cost Retention Strategies for Irreplaceables Top teachers who experience two or more of these retention strategies plan to keep teaching at their schools for nearly twice as long (2 -6 more years). Low-cost retention strategies defined as those that influence planned school retention of Irreplaceables. Source: District and survey data. /6

However, Irreplaceables report receiving little recognition or attention at the school level – often on par with the lowest performers. Teachers Reporting Recognition at School Principals used 7 of 8 top retention strategies at similar rates for high and low performers. Source: District B data and survey data. Trends confirmed across districts. /7

The Framework for Effective Teaching is at the core of the evaluation system 8

Our goal today: Ensure all are ready to implement the teacher evaluation system as a tool for differentiated management Today, we will: ü Reflect on SY 12 -13 and discuss what is changing for SY 13 -14 ü View instruction and norm on the framework ü Conduct a deep dive into the student goal setting process ü Discuss details of evaluation requirements and prepare to implement as the school year begins 9

REFLECTIONS ON 2012 -13 TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS 10

Activity: Think-Pair-Share Reflecting on implementation of teacher evaluation this past year, write down: • 1 to 2 successes from this year • 1 to 2 challenges from this year Turn to your neighbor and share what you wrote down 11

Quick Quiz What percentage of our teachers received an annual evaluation by the end of the year? 12

Completion rates for observations, midyears, and annuals evaluations were strong 93% 76% At least 1 Met observation (4/2012) (7/1/13) requirements (7/1/13) 1 3 94% 91% Confidential - Do Not Distribute 72% Mid-year Review (2/22/13) 77% Annual Evaluations (7/2012) (8/13/2013)

Completion rates for observations and evaluations are consistently high across networks Annual Evaluations 93% 92% 99% 98% Observations 97% 90% 94% 93% 95% 92% 65% Brad (n = 961) 1 4 Mitch (n = 580) Peter (n = 535) Roger (n = 478) Tiffany (n = 484) 56% Central (n = 108) Notes: Observation completion rates measured as percent of teachers with required number of observations; Central includes Office of Special Education, Early Childhood, Title I Office, Master Teachers, and anyone else evaluated by central office staff except staff on long term leave Confidential - Do Not Distribute Data current as of 7/1/2013

Completion rates for annual evaluations and observations less consistent across schools � 52 schools have annual evaluation or completion rates above 95% Number of schools and departments Completion rate 1 5 Annual Evaluations Observations 100% 35 28 95 – 99% 17 22 90 – 94% 11 9 80 -89% 8 6 Less than 80% 6* 12* Note: Only 1 school has an annual evaluation completion rate below 80% and only 6 schools have observation completion rates below 80% Data current as of 7/1/2013

Quick Quiz What percentage of teachers in the EWPS pool did not receive a rating in 2012 -13? 16

Teachers in the EWPS pool receive lower ratings compared to the district distribution • 29% of teachers in the 2012 -13 EWPS pool (and 21% of teachers projected 2013 -14 EWPS) did not receive annual evaluations 2% 5% 11% Highly Effective 48% Partially Effective 50% 69% 30% 20% 12 -13 EWPS Pool (n=153) 1 7 32% 13 -14 EWPS Pool (n=339, projected) 16% 4% District Ineffective

Teachers on long-term leave have lower ratings compared to other teachers • 11% of teachers on long-term leave have completed annual evaluations • 23% have the required number of observations and 26% have been observed at least once 4% 7% 10% 16% 33% 45% 68% Highly Effective 69% 50% 15% Effective Partially Effective Ineffective 30% 21% 17% 11% 4% Long term leave (n = 57) Observations 1 8 District (n = 4832) Long term leave (n = 57) District (n = 2969) Annual Evaluations

Quick Quiz What percentage of observations had a partially effective rating? What percentage of annual reviews had a partially effective rating? 19

Observations and Annual Ratings Distribution, 2012 -13 Observations Annual Evaluations 68% 69% 21% 7% 11% Highly Effective 2 0 16% 4% 4% Effective Partially Effective Ineffective

Quick Quiz What was the percentage of teachers rated highly effective last year (2011 -12)? What was the percentage of teachers rated highly effective this year (2012 -13)? 21

Compared to last year, % HE annuals decreased and % PE annuals increased 2011 -2012 -2013 69% 17% 16% 11% 10% 4% Highly Effective 2 2 Effective Partially Effective 4% Ineffective

Annual ratings vary across networks 9% 13% 10% 14% 8% Highly Effective 21% Effective Partially Effective Ineffective 72% 63% 75% 17% 20% 23% 75% 70% 14% 1% 9% 7% 6% 4% 3% 3% 2% Brad Mitch Peter Roger Tiffany Central (n = 890) (n = 574) (n = 521) (n = 447) (n = 461) (n = 70) 2 3

Ratings vary even more across schools: Some schools still rated few teachers as partially effective or ineffective Observations: > 27 schools had no ineffective observation ratings. > 3 schools had no partially effective or ineffective observation ratings. > 34 schools assigned more than 80% of observation ratings in the top two categories. Annual Evaluations: > 28 schools had no ineffective annual ratings. > 4 schools had no partially effective or ineffective annual ratings. > 37 schools assigned more than 80% of evaluation ratings in the top two categories. 2 4

Quick Quiz What competencies receive the greatest proportion of partially effective and ineffective ratings? 25

On Annuals, Competencies 2 and 4 have the highest share of PE and IE ratings 10% 19% 11% 20% 67% 66% 21% 70% 65% 66% Highly Effective Partially Effective 5 11% 2% pe t en cy 4 C om pe t en cy 3 en cy pe t om C C om pe t en cy 2 3% 1 en cy pe t om C 2 6 16% 3% 13% 2% C om 20% 13% 2% Ineffective

Ratings distribution is fairly consistent across different evaluator types (slightly higher for DCs) 6% 7% 8% 10% 13% Highly Effective 65% 24% 21% 5% 4% 19% 3% 17% 5% 17% 3% 14% 3% al D ep a ce rtm Pr en t C in ci p Vi ep a D in C en t rtm Pr ce Vi Pr al in ci p in Pr ha ir 73% al 69% ha ir 65% al 71% Observations (n = 4832) 2 7 Partially Effective 67% Annual Evaluations (n = 2969) Ineffective

Ratings are slightly higher both from observations and mid-years to annual evaluations Annual Evaluation Mid-Year Highly Effective 2 8 Partially Effective Ineffective Highly Effective 71% 29% 0% 0% Effective 3% 90% 8% 0% Partially Effective 0% 21% 71% 8% Ineffective 0% 3% 36% 62% Note: Percentages calculated as percent of row total; red numbers indicate inflation, blue numbers indicate deflation

TRANSITION TO NETWORKS 29

The five competencies set the standard for teacher practice in NPS Students sustain focus on a specific objective that moves them toward mastery. Instructional strategies challenge all students and provide multiple pathways to mastery. A learningfocused environment of shared high expectations promotes mastery. Students show evidence of, and teacher monitors, growth. The teacher demonstrates commitment to excellence and to the professional growth of his/her school and peers. 30

Framework language changes to increase clarity and user-friendliness 12 -13 version 13 -14 version • Some indicators used the phrase “and/or”, particularly in PE or I ratings • Simplified to use either “and” or “or” to make rating these indicators easier and more consistent • The distinction between performance levels in some indicators wasn’t very clear • Indicator 3 e did not include reference to the teacher modeling high expectations • Language was changed to make distinctions clearer • Indicator 3 e revised to include the expectation that the teacher is a model of high expectations 31

Framework language changes to increase clarity and user-friendliness 12 -13 version 13 -14 version • Highly Effective in indicator 3 b asked for students to demand persistence of each other. • This phrase in Highly Effective was removed • Competency 4 over-time indicators were revised to better align with the new student learning goals in the IPDP. 32

Most remaining content of the Framework did not change. But does require additional training to ensure consistency across evaluators. • All/nearly all, most, some, few • Calling out a teachers’ physical classroom space • Explicitly listing professional standards • Making an explicit description of attendance metrics in Competency 5 33

Let’s reflect on the changes to the framework and evaluation system this year • Consider each competency and the changes (both in language and evidence collection) between 2012 and 2013 • On your handout • Note what these changes signify about the intent of the competency • Note what these changes signify about the implementation of the competency • Share your thoughts with your table mates • Be prepared to share your group’s thoughts with the larger group about one competency 34

This year, there are many ways to collect evidence to evaluate and support teachers Rigor & Inclusiveness Culture of Achievement Commitment to Personal & Collective Excellence What Can Be Seen in Quantitative Data What Can Be Seen in Artifacts What Can Be Observed Lesson Design & Focus Student Progress Towards Mastery 35

BREAK 36

VIEWING AND RATING INSTRUCTION 37

Viewing instruction: Using an observation template or your own method, transcribe what happens in the following teaching clip. After you view the video, categorize your evidence and assign ratings on the NPS framework. Then, note your ratings on the flip charts at the front of the room. 3 8 Video linked here

Let’s review our ratings and discuss Where are we aligned in ratings? Where are there outliers? What evidence can you share for these outlier ratings? What do we need to do to ensure we and our school leaders are aligned? What feedback would you give this teacher? What is the highest-leverage thing she could do to improve? 3 9

LUNCH 40

ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING IN TEACHER EVALUATION 41

Student learning is already a core part of our framework 42

Main Takeaways 1. Competency 4 defines how we approach the use the assessment of student learning in teacher evaluation. 2. The Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP) is the way we will document how a teacher addresses Competency 4. 3. The IPDP requires setting student learning goals and teacher goals related to those student learning goals. 4. The goal setting process in the IPDP documents what effective teachers already do. 5. The IPDP should serve as a communication tool for teachers and their administrators on goals. 6. The specificity of student goals should be determined by the strength of available tools and resources (e. g. , curriculum, assessments). 7. The Corrective Action Plan (CAP) has the same process as the IPDP for setting student learning goals and a more rigorous process for setting and tracking teacher goals. 8. All IPDPs and CAPs will be entered into an online system. 43

This year’s Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP): • Provides a tool for goal setting for teachers and administrators around both student learning goals and the teacher’s own development goals • Leverages over-time indicators and Common Core planning in the goals teachers set for students and themselves • Is a tool for teachers and administrators to communicate about goals and growth areas throughout the year 44

The IPDP content includes: Student Learning Plan: • Areas of Focus • Student End Points • Student Starting Points • Instructional Tools and Resources Professional Growth Plan: • Growth Areas • Action Steps for Teachers Let’s review a sample IPDP form together 45

The IPDP form is created in the beginning of the year and examined at conferences throughout the year Goal-Setting Conference Annual Conference Observations and Conferences Mid-Year Conference Observations and Conferences 46

The final assessment of progress towards goals happens at the annual conference Specifically, evaluators reflect their assessment of whether or not the teacher met his or her learning and professional development goals in the over-time indicators in Competency 4: • 4 d. Using Data: Teacher tracks assessment data to understand each student’s progress toward mastery and uses results to guide planning and instruction • 4 e. Understanding of Growth: Teacher can articulate specifically (and with evidence) whether or not each student has internalized gradelevel standards and, if not, what s/he still needs to learn. • 4 f. Progress Toward Goals: Data reflect that students are mastering the objectives of the focus areas, leading toward mastery of gradelevel standards. 47

Teachers rated PE or I at the end of SY 12 -13 will have a Corrective Action Plan (CAP), which replaces their IPDP How is the CAP different from the IPDP? CAP is more robust to ensure that: - Struggling teachers are getting the support they need and -The district is collecting sufficient evidence to support tenure charges if necessary The CAP includes 2 extra steps in setting professional development goals: 1) Establishing metrics & processes to monitor progress 2) Articulating the steps administrators will take to support teachers’ development There are several follow-up steps required by state law Additional observations Mid-year conference Observations by multiple observers 48

TRANSITION 49

IMPLEMENTING TEACHER EVALUATION: 2013 -14 50

Goal-Setting Conference Annual Conference Observations and Conferences Mid-Year Conference Observations and Conferences 51

GOAL-SETTING CONFERENCE 52

Goal-Setting Conference at Beginning of Year Goal. Setting Conference • Set student learning and professional development goals • Finalize IPDPs or CAPs for all teachers By 9/15 for teachers on a CAP; by 9/30 for all others 53

Evaluators’ first focus should be on creating a CAP for teachers rated PE or I last year In addition to the requirements mentioned earlier, a strong CAP is: Very explicit in indicators and competencies that areas of focus for the teacher Very clear on the plan for development, including the role of both the teacher and the administrator Is wholly co-developed by evaluator and teacher. CAPs must be on file for all relevant teachers by September 15. 54

Some evaluators submitted CAP as part of the Annual in the Zoho system � 25% of PE teachers and 50% of IE teachers have CAP already Did not receive a CAP 367 121 54 54 Partially Effective (n = 488) Ineffective (n = 108) Received a CAP These evaluators and teachers should re-visit their CAP when they input into the new Bloom. Board system. 5 5

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS 56

Observations requirements have changed but reinforce best practices Factor SY 12 -13 SY 13 -14 Length of Observations Formal: Full class PPO: No guidance Long: 40 minutes Short: 20 minutes # of Observations 3 formal for non-tenured 1 formal for tenured Undefined PPOs 3 for non-tenured (length depends on years of experience) 3 for tenured teachers (all short) # of Observers One observer required per teacher Each non-tenured teacher and teacher with CAP must have at least two observers Timing Just happen at some point in the school year At least one observation must occur in each semester Pre-Obs Conferences Recommended for an announced observation One observation each year must be announced with a pre-conf within 7 days before observation Post-Obs Conferences Formal post-observation required after formal observation within 10 days Post-observation required for all observations within 15 days (for tenured Ts not on CAP, can be “informal”) 57

Quick Quiz What percentage of teachers were observed by more than one evaluator? 58

Consideration: The use of multiple observers � 13 -14 SY Requirement: All non-tenured teachers and a teacher with a CAP must be observed by more than evaluator �Note: A co-observation counts toward this requirement � However, only 10% of teachers were observed by more than one evaluator in 2012 -13 90% 1 9% 1% 2 Number of unique observers in 2012 -13 (excludes Peer Validators) 3 � Bottom line – This is a shift from evaluator practice last year. 5 9

Quick Quiz How many observations were announced this year? 60

Consideration: Pre-observation conferences � 13 -14 SY Requirement: Each year, every teacher must have at least one announced visit with a pre-observation conference within 7 days before the observation � In 12 -13 SY: � 70% of observations were announced and � 77% of those announced observations included a pre-observation conference � Bottom Line – Not a big shift from previous evaluator practice. 6 1

Consideration: Post-conference timing � 13 -14 SY Requirement: Post-Conferences must occur within 15 days of any observation � Note: But for tenured teachers not on a CAP, these can be “informal” post- conference through the Bloom. Board system � In 12 -13 SY, 88% of post-obs conference occurred within 15 days Percent of observations that take place within a given timeframe 72% 13% Less than 10 days 5% 10 to 15 days 15 to 20 days More than 20 days � Bottom line – Not a big shift from last practice. 6 2 10%

Consideration: Timing of observations � 13 -14 SY Requirement: At least one observation must occur in each 100 90 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 6. 14 . 2 01 3 5. 14 . 2 13 20 4. 14. 01 3. 2 14 3. 01 3. 2 14 2. 01 3 1. 14 . 2 2 4. 20 1. 1 11 4. 20 1. 1 10 20 2 0 9. 14. 6 3 Start of the 3 rd marking period 80 12 Number of observations semester � In 12 -13 SY, the majority of observations took place in the first semester

SCORING 64

Scoring remains the same in SY 2013 -2014 4 points 1, 0, -2 or -6 Based on a preponderance of evidence, evaluators: • Assign a rating of Highly Effective, Partially Effective or Ineffective on Competencies 1 -4 • Assign a rating of Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Slightly Below Expectations, or Significantly Below Expectations on Competency 5 The evaluation rating is determined based on the teacher’s total score on all 5 competencies out of 17 points 65

However, scoring will be slightly different for short vs. long observations Short Observations Long Observations Evaluators will report: • Ratings at the indicator and competency level for which they have sufficient evidence • An overall rating for the observation based on preponderance of evidence No formula to determine full rating Evaluators will report: • Ratings at the indicator level for which they have sufficient evidence • Ratings required for each competency based on preponderance of evidence • Rating is determined by adding up competency ratings 66

MID-YEAR REVIEWS 67

The Mid-Year Conference is a chance to review evidence and assess progress towards goals Goal. Setting Conference • Set student learning and professional development goals • Finalize forms, including CAPs for applicable teachers Mid-Year Conference • Review evidence of all indicators and assess progress towards goals • Adjust approach to goals to move toward meeting goals • Provide a rating based on evidence collected so far By 9/15 for teachers on a CAP; by 9/30 for all others By 2/15 for all teachers 68

ANNUAL REVIEWS 69

At the Annual Conference, evaluators review evidence and assign ratings to Competencies Goal. Setting Conference • Set student learning and professional development goals • Finalize forms, including CAPs for applicable teachers Mid-Year Conference • Review evidence of all indicators and assess progress towards goals • Adjust approach to goals to move toward meeting goals • Provide a rating based on evidence collected so far Annual Conference and Evaluation • Assess all evidence, including whether or not student learning goals were met • Rate each indicator and competency based on all evidence to determine final evaluation score By 9/15 for teachers on a CAP; by 9/30 for all others By 2/15 for all teachers By 4/15 for non-tenured; 5/15 for tenured teachers on CAPs; and 6/15 for all others 70

Quick Quiz How many annual evaluations were completed on time? 71

Consideration: Deadlines for Annuals � Deadlines will stay the same (with the new addition of the May 15 th deadline for tenured teachers on CAPS) � 74% of annual evaluations are completed on time (for April 15 th and June 15 th deadlines) � 100% on time: American History Program, Fourteenth Ave. , Ridge St. , Roberto Clemente, Samuel L. Berliner, Science High � However, evaluations completed on time received higher ratings: 70% On time 67% Not on time 21% 12% 15% 8% Highly Effective 7 2 Effective Partially Effective 4% 3% Ineffective

Summary of Deadlines Item Deadline CAPs finalized with student learning goals at beginning of year conference for all applicable teachers September 15, 2013 IPDPs finalized with student learning goals at beginning of year conferences for all other teachers September 30, 2013 Observations At least one in the first semester Mid-Year Reviews complete for all teachers February 15, 2014 Observations At least one in the second semester Annual Reviews complete for non-tenured teachers (whether or not on CAPs) April 15, 2014 Annual Reviews complete for tenured teachers on CAPs May 15, 2014 Annual Reviews complete for all other tenured teachers June 15, 2014 73

Supports for implementing the evaluation system Bloom. Board: Sophisticated data collection Early September Teacher Evaluation Guidebook: Clear policies and procedures Early September Successful Implementation Instructional Resource Center and Bloom. Board: Easy access to supplemental resources Now Peer Validation: Additional support for evaluators and teachers October 74

School Improvement Panels (SIP) Membership: � Each SIP must include the school’s principal, vice principal, and a teacher. � SIPs may have more members, but at least 1/3 of the SIP’s members must be teachers. The deadline for finalizing SIP membership is August 31, 2013. Function: � Oversee the mentoring and evaluations of teachers, conducting a midyear evaluation of a teacher who may receive an IE or PE rating at the Annual � Identify professional development opportunities for instructional staff members that are tailored to meet the unique needs of the students and staff of the school. � Request Peer Validators 7 5

In summary, while there are some changes, the core elements of evaluation remain the same, What stays the same What changes • Framework at the core of every teacher’s observation • A beginning-of-year conference to start the year focused on growth and development • Better, more detailed tools with some new tools for structured goal setting of both adult and student learning goals • Requirements for the # of observations captured in the online system • A more sophisticated data system providing better tools and resources • Multiple observations for each teacher allow ample opportunities to collect evidence • Mid-year and end of year review conferences to check in on goals • Online data entry for real-time reporting and monitoring 76

REFLECTION AND WRAP UP 77

Who are the Irreplaceable teachers in your building? • How do you know? • What strategies could you employ to support those teachers? • How do you help your other teachers become Irreplaceable? • How can implementing the Framework for Effective Teaching support you in identifying, developing and retaining Irreplaceable teachers? 78

Next Steps: Your critical role in ensuring your teachers understand the evaluation system this year. Date Activity First week of September Teacher Evaluation Guidebook distributed to all teachers and staff Early September Online trainings on using the Bloom. Board data system By mid-September Present training information to teachers in a one-hour meeting (potentially with A Supt, SATQ) 79

SURVEY Please complete the exit survey and drop it on the table in the back of the room before you leave. 80