This blog post provides an update on progress made by the teacher evaluation committee. The entire committee met on September 25th. Present at that meeting were:
Wyatt David, Linda Lazar, Wanda Beydoun, Chris Sipperley, Glenn Maleyko, Hassane Jaafar, Fatme Faraj, Nicole Chubb, Kathy Klee, Julie Maconochie, Guest Michael Shelton, Maysam Alie-Bazzi, Jill Chochol, Rob Seeterlin, and Shannon Peterson.
We discussed changes to our current plan and we developed a subcommittee to work on the student growth formula which accounts for 25% of teacher evaluations. The sub-committee met on September 30th. Present at the Subcommittee meeting was Chris Sipperley, Linda Lazar, Kathy Klee, Fatme Faraj, Shannon Peterson, Maysam Alie-Bazzi and Glenn Maleyko.
The subcommittee then formulated recommendations that went to the entire committee which met again on October 15th. Present at that meeting were Wyatt David, Linda Lazar, Wanda Beydoun, Chris Sipperley, Glenn Maleyko, Gail Shenkman, Greg Oke, Fatme Faraj, Nicole Chubb, Kathy Klee, Julie Maconochie, Guest Michael Shelton. Maysam Alie-Bazzi, Jill Chochol, Rob Seeterlin, Shannon Peterson.
All recommended changes by the committee went to the superintendent and cabinet for approval. Please be aware that we have a formulated an excellent committee with representation from the DFT, ADSA, and central administration. The committee has worked very hard to develop a fair process given the legislation that has been mandated by the state. The state has provided little or no direction on growth formulas. In addition, they were supposed to have an evaluation model in place by 2012 but we are still waiting for them to pass new legislation in order to give us a clear direction regarding the specific areas of change that are needed with our current model. We are very proud of our model given the mandates from the state and the lack of support provided up until this point. We are confident that we are leading the way with our model and we believe that our process of collaboration and shared leadership is essential to creating an effective model.
Listed below are the changes to the evaluation process that will be enacted for the 2014-15 school year. Please be aware that rumor has it that Lansing may pass evaluation legislation in the lame duck congress so more changes are possible.
- We have developed and/or are in the process of developing specialized rubrics that are aligned with our current evaluation rubric for special education faculty. The special education department and Nicole Chubb along with Michael Shelton presented on the models that they created which were approved by the committee. There will soon be a link to the rubric and process for all ancillary special ed staff which includes social workers, psychologists, Speech and Language Pathologists, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists, Nurses, Audiologists, and Behavioral Specialists. The committee is open to any other non-classroom departments that would like to take the initiative and create rubrics in alignment with our district model.
- We are beginning the preparation of moving towards the 2013 Danielson evaluation model. Our current model is aligned with an earlier version of her model. However, we anticipate that the state will adopt her more recent model as one of the approved models. In addition, all administrators in the district have spent numerous hours receiving evaluation training that is aligned with the Danielson 2013 model. This includes between 20-40 hours of training and a final examination. All administrators in Dearborn are required to participate in and pass the Danielson Teachscape Training module.
- Since we are moving to the 2013 Danielson model we are planning to begin the process of moving to the teachscape evaluation on-line management system. Teachscape has the copyright privileges over the Danielson model so once we adopt her model we would need to use a system that is licensed by the Danielson group. The work that we did with Stages is extremely helpful. We had a consultant meet with us on September 30th from Teachscape. We invited individuals from schools that use the Stages software to participate in the meeting. There was a consensus from the committee participants that Teachscape offered a better and more efficient on-line management system.
- State law allows teachers who have received a highly effective rating 3 years in a row to receive biennial evaluations. The state law does not mandate this but it simply allows for this provision pending decisions by individual districts. The committee has deliberated on this issue and believes that all teachers need to complete yearly goals. Thus all teachers, even those who receive a highly effective rating 3 years in a row, must create goals and receive a final year end evaluation. However, we are going to allow for an exception where teachers who have been rated highly effective 3 years in a row, are not required to be observed formally. This does not mean that a principal can not complete a formal observation. A teacher who is not observed formally multiple times during the school year because of a highly effective rating 3 consecutive years,in alignment with our process, can not receive a minimally effective or ineffective year end evaluation. Please be aware that this is only allowed for one year and the following year the teacher must be fully evaluated with multiple formal observations.
- We have come up with a set of rules regarding the end of year rankings for teachers. The following new rules will be instituted.In order for a teacher to be rated highly effective in a year end evaluation, the following conditions must apply in alignment with our process:
- Receive a Highly Effective Rating in Standard #3 Instruction plus at least two other Standards.
- No ineffective Elements can be present
- Receive a Highly Effective or Effective Rating in all Standards.
- The majority of elements in a Standard must be highly effective in order to receive a highly effective rating in that Standard.
6. Growth Formula.
There are changes to our current growth formula which accounts for 25% of the teacher evaluation. Please see the changes below effective this school year. Please be aware that this is the first year we are administering the NWEA so once we get better accustomed to the assessment we may tweak the formula in future school years. In addition, we will work with Dr. Klee on NWEA administration timelines for the subsequent school year. No changes in administration timelines or evaluation deadlines will occur this year. If we were to delay this process then it would delay our transfer process, hiring process, and layoff and recall process. Evaluations are now directly connected to those processes per state legislation. In addition, it is likely that the state will make further changes to the growth measure process when and if they get their accountability measures straightened out.
Student Growth Data (25%). The administrator and teacher will meet to determine growth measures that follow the weighted formula listed below. All teachers will have the following student growth goal: All students must show growth or maintain proficiency based on growth measures that are used for the evaluation. It is understood that this does not mean that every student will necessarily be on grade level as we measure growth vs. achievement data. For the NWEA if they maintain or exceed their RIT status for their grade level norm, that is considered growth.
- We will continue to meet and revisit our process.
- We are trying to be flexible given the state mandates.
- We are getting better each year at measuring student growth data and will continue to enhance that process.
5% District growth based on state accountability measures and other student growth measures available to the District. We will continue to monitor state progress in this area.
10% Building Growth based on multiple measures which must include NWEA (reading, Language Usage, math and science), Explore, Plan, MME and State Accountability growth measures (when state data is made available).
10% Classroom Growth based on NWEA for the specific subject area, State Assessments, Classroom Assessments, DRA, Performance or product measures, other formative assessments, pre and post tests (specific % proficient) are required.
*The goals must include student growth data and standards for effective teacher best practice professional growth. This means that Standard IV and specifically Element 5 Student Growth and Assessment must be addressed on the Year End Evaluation and it must be weighted at 25% of the evaluation ranking.