3. Purpose
Help the educator grow professionally
Improve the effectiveness of instruction
Relate to the future employment of the
educator
3
4. Educator Evaluation Requirements
Information Sources
Observations
Information from
parents, students, et
c.
Other information
(as determined by the
district)
Unsatisfactory
on 1 or more
standard
Understanding
Student Needs
Content Knowledge
& Instruction
Assessment
Learning
Environment
Family & Community
Professional Practice
*Two to four
valid, reliable
measures of student
growth including
statewide
assessments
Plan of
Improvement
Differentiation
Cultural Standards
(district may select a
nationally recognized
framework approved by
the department)
Results & Actions
Evaluation Components
Student Learning Standard
Performance
Rating on each
of the
eight (8)
standards.
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Proficient
Exemplary
Basic on 2 or
more standards
Proficient or
higher on 7
standards and
no
unsatisfactory
ratings.
__________
Exceeds the
districts
performance
standards (as
determined by the
district)
District Support
OR
Plan of
Professional
Growth (optional)
Professional
Learning Focus
for district &
teacher.
________
Annual Evaluation
Alternative for the
following school
year
(as determined by
the district)
4
5. Information Sources
Districts:
Qualitative
Observations (district
may select a nationally
recognized framework
approved by the department)
Information from
parents, students, etc.
Other information
(as determined by the district)
• may select a nationally recognized
observational framework approved
by the department or continue to
use the observation tools they have
previously adopted.
• must have a procedure and a form
to collect information concerning
an educator’s performance from
students, parents, and other
stakeholders.
• may use other information like
surveys, self-assessments,
portfolios, etc. to gather
information concerning an
educator’s performance.
5
6. Information Sources
Districts must:
Quantitative
Two to four
valid, reliable
measures of
student growth
including
statewide
assessments
• Select appropriate measures of student
growth with the input of the educators
being evaluated.
• Establish standards and performance
levels for student learning data.
• Develop procedures based on objective &
measurable criteria to ensure that data
used accurately reflects student growth
based on the educator performance.
• Use statewide assessment data for
teachers who provide instruction in the
content areas assessed.
6
7. Aligning Information Sources to
Evaluation Components
Information Sources
Observations (district may
Educator Evaluation Components
Understanding
Student Needs
Information from
parents, students, etc.
Assessment
Other information
(as determined by the district)
Two to four valid, reliable
measures of student growth
including statewide
assessments
Content Knowledge
& Instruction
Learning
Environment
Family &
Community
Professional
Practice
Cultural Standards
select a nationally recognized
framework approved by the
department)
Differentiation
Performance
Rating on each of
the
eight (8)
standards.
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Proficient
Exemplary
Student Learning
Standard
7
8. Levels of Performance
Performance Levels
Standards
Performance Rating on
each of the 8 standards.
E
P
B
U
Understanding Student Needs
Differentiation
Unsatisfactory (U)
Basic (B)
Proficient (P)
Content Knowledge &
Instruction
Assessment
Learning Environment
Family & Community
Exemplary (E)
Professional Practice
Student Learning
8
9. Linking Levels of Performance to
Results & Actions
Performance Levels
Standards
Understanding Student Needs
E
P
B
Unsatisfactory on
1 or more
standard
U
Basic on 2 or
more standards
Differentiation
Content Knowledge &
Instruction
Assessment
Learning Environment
Family & Community
Professional Practice
Student Learning
Plan of
Improvement
Proficient or
higher on 7
standards and no
unsatisfactory
ratings
______________
Exceeds the districts
performance
standards (as
determined by the
district)
District Support
OR
Plan of Professional
Growth (optional)
Professional
Learning Focus for
district & teacher.
_______________
Annual Evaluation
Alternative for the
following school year
(as determined by
the district)
9
10. Results & Actions
Performance Levels
Standards
Understanding Student Needs
E
P
B
U
Plan of
Improvement
Differentiation
Content Knowledge &
Instruction
Assessment
Learning Environment
Family & Community
If, at the conclusion of a plan
of improvement, the
educator’s performance does
not meet district standards
the educator may be nonretained.
Professional Practice
Student Learning
10
11. Results & Actions
Performance Levels
Standards
E
P
B
U
District Support
or
Understanding Student Needs
Differentiation
A Plan of Professional
Growth (optional)
Content Knowledge &
Instruction
Assessment
Learning Environment
Family & Community
Professional Practice
If, at the conclusion of a plan of
professional growth, the
educator’s performance is not
proficient or exemplary, the
district may place the educator
on a plan of improvement.
Student Learning
11
12. Results & Actions
Performance Levels
Standards
Understanding Student Needs
Differentiation
E
P
B
U
Professional Learning
Focus
for teachers & district
Content Knowledge & Instruction
Assessment
Learning Environment
Family & Community
Professional Practice
Student Learning
12
13. Overall Rating &
Student Learning Data
A district will evaluate whether an educator’s overall
performance is exemplary, proficient, basic, or
unsatisfactory.
A district may not give an educator an overall
performance rating of proficient or higher if the educator
has been evaluated to be performing at a level of basic or
lower on one or more of the content standards or other
criteria for which evaluation is required.
13
14. Overall Rating &
Student Learning Data
A district shall include student learning data in teacher and
administrator’s overall rating according to the following
schedule:
• SY 2015‐16 & SY 2016‐17, at least 20%
• SY 2017‐18 at least 35%
• SY 2018‐19 and after, at least 50%
14
15. District Reporting
School Year 2015-2016 & School Year 2016-2017
Student
Learning
Standard
Alaska Teacher Standards
Understanding
Student Needs
Content Knowledge
& Instruction
Assessment
Learning Environment
Family & Community
Cultural Standards
Differentiation
Student
Learning
Standard
20%
Rating on each
of the 7
Content
Standards.
Exemplary
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Overall
Content
Rating
Standard
Exemplary
Proficient
Student
Learning
Standards
80%
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Professional Practice
Proficient
or higher
on all
standards
Basic or
Unsatisfa
ctory on
any one
standard
15
Exemplary
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Notas do Editor
Welcome everyone! It is good to see all of you…{Introduce yourself} Today, we will be sharing information about EED’s new initiative: Preparing College-, Career-, & Culturally- Ready Graduates.<Click> In this session, we will be discussing Accountability. Accountability addresses both the <c> Educator Accountability and <c> the new Districts & Schools accountability. Educator Accountability will be the focus of this presentation.More precisely, we will be sharing with you an overview of information concerning the recent changes made to the Educator Evaluation Regulations by the State Board of Education.
The recommendations of these stakeholders led to the adoption of the new educator evaluation regulations by the State Board of Education in December 2012. A copy of this timeline is in your packet. It provides the 30,000 ft. view of what needs to happen in the next few years and highlight the deadlines set out in regulations.The regulations required that local school boards adopt an educator evaluation system consistent with the new regulations by July 1, 2015.Which will lead to the full implementation for the 2015-2016 school yearBy July 10, 2016, the regulations requires that district report to the department the overall ratings of the educators for the first time.
With the new adoption, the State Board of Education reinforced the purpose of educator evaluation.As in the past, the State Board emphasized that assisting the educator to grow professionally and the improvement of instruction are the two most important purposes of educator evaluation. This focus clearly aligns with the work of Marzano and Danielson. Constructive feedback, professional learning, and self-reflection can be effective catalysts for the improvement of an educator’s practice. However, if an educator’s practice doesn’t move in a positive direction, the third purpose offered by the State Board, points to reassignment or non-retention of the educator.
In an attempt to streamline everyone’s understanding, we have divide the requirements into three categories:<Click One> Information Sources<Click Two> Evaluation Components, and<Click Three> Results & Actions
Moving from left to right, we will start with information sources.Information sources are broken down into qualitative and quantitative elements. Qualitative information has traditionally been the primary source for educator evaluation. I am sure that all of us have experienced observations throughout our careers. A few of us may have also experienced student & parent surveys, self-assessments, or portfolios as part of our evaluation.Observations continue to be a requirement. <c> However, the new regulations encourages the use of a national recognized observational framework.Information gathered from stakeholders, like students, parents, and other teachers, have been a requirement in an educator’s evaluation since 1996. <c> The new regulations further expands the statutory requirements by requiring the district to notify stakeholders of this opportunity. To this end, a form or an electronic means must be provided to the stakeholders for the purpose of gathering information concerning an educator’s performance.While it is not mandated, <c> the new regulations continue to encourage districts to consider the use of surveys and other information sources as part of their evaluation systems.
A major change to the evaluation requirements is the use of quantitative information, specifically measures of student growth including statewide assessments. <c> With the input of the educators being evaluated, the district must select two to four valid, reliable measures of student growth.<c> Using the selected measures of student growth, the district must also establish standards and performance levels for educator in regards to student learning. Educators subject to the evaluation system must participate in this process as well.<c> Objective & measurable criteria must be developed to ensure that the data used to rate the educator’s performance in the area of student growth accurately reflects the efforts of the educator being evaluated. For example, a district may want to establish a threshold for student’s attendance.<c> If appropriate statewide assessment data is available, the district must use that information in the evaluations of teachers and administrators who have responsible for the content assessed. As our current SBAs are not vertically aligned, they are not appropriate to use for the purpose of educator evaluation. However, when we move to a new statewide assessment system aligned to our new state standards, the resulting data should be appropriate for the use in teacher’s and administrator’s evaluations.Both teachers and administrators must have information gathered from measures of student growth included as part of their evaluations. However, this is not a requirement for special service providers.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with each other concerning information sources for educator evaluation. Let’s move on to the connection of the information sources to the required evaluation components.<c> The information gathered through observation, parent and student input, and selected measures of student growth will be use to inform each component <c> of an educator’s evaluation. For a teacher, the new regulations require the district to evaluate teacher content standards 2 though 8. <c> These seven-required teacher content standards have not changed. (It is worth noting the standard concerning the teacher’s philosophy is no longer required as part of the evaluation.) This graphic illustrates teacher evaluation. For an administrator, the standards that must be assessed are the 10 administrator content standards which are also found in regulation. For special service providers, district must establish standards that address the context of the individuals job requirements.<c> In addition to the content standards, the new requirement include the consideration of the cultural standards for educators. Districts are expected to incorporate the four adopted cultural standards for educators into the existing content standards. For the most part, the qualitative information sources will be used to evaluate the content & cultural standards.<c> As mentioned before, for teachers and administrators, the measures of students growth must be used to determine the performance in the area of student learning. Districts will work with the educators to determine appropriate growth targets and establish the performance standard for student learning.<c> For each standard, including student learning, the district must rate the educator as exemplary, proficient, basic or unsatisfactory. The rating on each standard will determine the actions that must take place as a result of the evaluation.
Once the result of the evaluation has been finalized, the actions that must be taken by the district are described in the new regulationsIn the case of a teacher who is determined to be proficient or higher on seven (7) standards and does not have an unsatisfactory rating, the teacher would use the results of the evaluation to focus her professional learning. The district would use the results of all their educators’ evaluations to inform the district’s professional development plan.In an educator is rated as basic on two or more standards, the district must provide direct support to the educator. The direct support may take the form of a Plan of Professional Growth if the district elects to incorporate a formalized plan into their evaluation system. If an educator does not make the improvements outlined in a Plan for Professional growth, the district may move the educator to a Plan of Improvement. For an educator who receives an unsatisfactory rating on any one standard, including the standard for student learning, the district must place the educator on a plan of improvement as described in statutes.
Here is an example of a teacher’s performance that requires a plan of improvement. If, at the conclusion of the plan, the teacher’s performance does not meet district standards, the district may non-retain the teacher.
In this examples, the teacher received two ratings of basic. This will require the district to offer support to the teacher.If the district has chosen to include a Plan of Professional Growth in itsevaluation system, the support provided by the district would be formally outlined in a plan. If, at the conclusion of the plan, the educator’s performance is still not proficient or higher, the district may place the educator on a plan of improvement that could lead to non-retention.
In this examples, the teacher received one ratings of basic. The teacher should use the information from the evaluation to determine individualized professional learning focus for the following school year.The district should use the evaluation information to plan for district- or school- wide trainings or inservice.
<c> The overall performance ratings are the same as those for the individual standards within the evaluation systems: Exemplary, Proficient, Basic, and Unsatisfactory.<c>A district may not give an educator an overall performance rating of proficient or higher if the educator has been evaluated to be performing at a level of basic or lower on one or more of the content standards or other criteria for which evaluation is required.
<c> The district must weight the student learning data in the teacher and administrator’s overall rating according to the following schedule:SY 2015‐16, at least 20% SY 2016‐17, at least 20% SY 2017‐18 at least 35% SY 2018‐19 and after, at least 50%
For the 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 school years, the overall rating calculation would resemble this slide, with the student learning data consisting of 20% of the overall rating. Districts have discretion to determine the weight of the other standards or even to include other elements into their overall rating calculation.