1

Teacher Evaluation System Update

Presented by Luis Tamez, Director Human Resources Veronica Garcia, Director Human Resources

Dr. Claudia Rodriguez, Chief of Staff

February 9, 2012

Board Update Summary

Engagement
SBDM Feedback
41 schools and 278 respondents (as of 1/20/12) Will share rubric for review with all SBDMs in February

Design
Define teacher rubric
Draft rubric of effective teaching 4 domains, 22 indicators 4 performance categories

Focus groups and interviews

100+ Principals engaged 300+ Teachers engaged
Campus Instructional Leadership Teams Counselors, Librarians, Special Education teachers, Multilingual teachers, Psychologists, Fine arts, PE. Teacher organization working session

Testing in Spring 2012

Over 10 volunteering principals representing every learning community and at least one at every level Testing only qualitative components in Spring 2012
Administrator Observations Content Expert Observations Peer Observations Rubric of Effective Teaching Portfolio creation and use Video and Self-reflection Student feedback

50+ Parents engaged PTA engaged for feedback

Committees / Virtual feedback panel

12 Principals engaged, 109 Teacher engaged, 17 Parents engaged

Pushed communication
Monthly E-blasts, website updates Teacher Evaluation System flyer sent to parents

Train all volunteering schools Develop an evaluation plan for tested components Pilot planning for launching the system in volunteering schools in 2012-2013

Upcoming activities in February

Gather feedback from SBDMs on initial design of the rubric Share an informational flyer to all parents to provide feedback Training of volunteering schools for Spring 2012 testing Teacher Evaluation System Input Committee Meeting Design Committee Meeting Sub-committee meetings
3

Vision of Teacher Evaluation

Identify excellence Help every teacher get better
Multiple forms of feedback for every teacher
Written feedback Verbal feedback Multiple forms of student data

Create lasting impact

Alignment with HR and T&L
Teacher advancement plans Professional learning opportunities Recognizing effective teachers

Rubric of effective teaching Multiple measures

Classroom observations Portfolio review Student data

From multiple sources

Administrators Content experts Peers

4 4

Brief Review of Design Methodology

from the Dallas ISD community
Approx. 3/4 of principals want to spend at least 40% of their time on teacher appraisals 50% of teachers want administrators to provide feedback at least every month 81% of SBDM members agree mini-observations by administrators should be included

from best practice research

Multiple miniobservations by administrators

Kim Marshalls evaluation suggests 10 mini observations for every teacher Danielson and Marzano describe multiple observations as a way to understand daily practice to make a reasoned judgment about a teachers overall practice

69% of principals and 65% of teachers agreed with content experts providing evaluations 67% of SBDM members agreed that content expert observations should be included Both principals and teachers believed content knowledge was the most important area of teaching Special groups of teachers (fine arts, librarians, counselors) believe that content expert observations would provide valuable feedback 69% of teachers felt that peer feedback was relevant to an evaluation Librarians and fine arts teachers believe peer observations would be very valuable since their skill is specialized 81% of SBDM members agree that non-evaluative peer observations would provide helpful feedback

Observations by Content Experts

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality warns of the limitations of principal observations for specialized content areas or instructors. The DC IMPACT system hires specialists to provide content-based observations Under the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), master teachers participate in teacher evaluations along with administrators Under the North Carolina Teacher Evaluation Process (TEP), teachers will be observed once by a peer for feedback Under TAP, outstanding teachers provide mentoring and coaching to peers In Hillsborough County, FL, a forward- thinking district, 30% of a teachers evaluation is based on a peer evaluation

Observations and feedback by Peers

Design Methodology Cont

from the Dallas ISD community
94% of teachers believed that self-reflection should be included in the evaluation system Dallas ISD teachers participating in TAP have positive feedback for the use of videos for development

from best practice research

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards The Gates Foundation Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project in DISD found that the video observation tool holds great promise for feedback, reducing subjectivity, and tracking professional growth

Video and selfreflection tool

83% of teachers believe reviewing a portfolio is at least somewhat important to determine effective teaching Focus group participants thought it was a good view into planning and preparation but can be time consuming 75% of SBDM members agreed that the portfolio review should be included in the evaluation

Portfolio review

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Higher education teaching staff rely on portfolios to document the multitude of activities that go into enriching student learning Districts such as Cincinnati, the State of Wisconsin, the State of Indiana all require the evaluation of portfolios

51% of teachers ranked evaluation outcomes should provide teachers with opportunities for targeted feedback and one-on-one coaching as most important Focus group participants want a system that provides a way for them to advance to the next level 78% of SBDM members agreed that the Teacher Advancement Plan should plan for leadership development

Teacher Advancement Plan

TAPs evaluation system is aligned with different teacher career paths and individual growth plans Cincinnati Public Schools career-in-teaching program allows teachers to work toward achieving lead teacher status The 1996 report of the National Commission on Teaching & Americas Future (NCTAF) called for a revamping and restructuring of the teaching profession that supported and rewarded excellent educators

Feedback from the Dallas ISD Community

Teacher feedback:
While the involvement of content experts certainly has value, the scope/weight of their involvement might call for more discussion. Feedback from experts might accomplish more if perceived and utilized as a component of ongoing development rather than evaluation. However, given that it is not a deciding factor, its inclusion in the evaluation may still have credence. I believe the greatest strength is the number of feedback items available for the classroom teacher. It is always a plus to have a colleague with ideas to help engage at higher levels, find ways to incorporate missing elements, or even to hear that you are doing a great job! I think the varying levels of observation and team work shows a real commitment to finding and keeping great teachers in the classroom. The conferences with the principal are valuableJust as different students learn in different ways, teachers need built-in flexibility regarding teaching practices rather than being required to fit into a certain mold. I'm having a hard time understanding how we can front the money to research and develop this project when we are in a crunch with the budget. I realize the need to evaluate teachers and make sure we have great people teaching our kiddos, but when schools are cutting back and going without in major areas, I don't understand how this is a priority toward which the district should funnel money.

Principal feedback:
If the teacher evaluation system is about professional development, it should consist of several shorter walk-throughs ranging from 15-30 minutes that occur more frequentlyso that teachers can grow as the year progresses. At least one walk-through should required per six weeks to get a better snapshot of the teacher's performance. A suggestion for improvement, the evaluation instrument might include a pre conference to set the stage for the evaluation, and post conference to allow time to debrief and develop next steps after the evaluation.

Parent feedback:
This tool should accomplish three tasks: First, it should be used by administrators to improve instruction by improving teachers. This is done by focusing upon the weak aspects of a teachers instructional quality, by targeting places for improvement, by improving their teachers ability to affect student learning, thereby, impacting student achievement. Second, this tool should be used directly to focus administrators attention upon mentoring all teachers, indirectly, by focusing their attention upon instructional areas of need to be improved upon; thereby, directly impacting student learning and directly increasing students test scores. Lastly, by designing the instrument to focus upon improving the quality of instruction rather than focusing upon weeding out "bad teachers", it will directly impact teacher turnover by dramatically lowering turnover.

Spring 2012 Testing

Volunteering schools:
Elementary Schools: Herbert Marcus, DeGolyer, Hexter, Sidney Lanier, Charles Rice, Whitney Young, Edna Rowe and Preston Hollow Middle Schools: Dealey Montessori, Obama Leadership, TBD (1 more) High Schools: Seagoville, Thomas Jefferson, Booker T. Washington, Obama Leadership

What we will be testing:

Technology tools to facilitate observations Usability and usefulness of Rubric of Effective Teaching Peer observations Content expert observations Portfolio creation and review Video and self-reflection Student feedback

Project Timeline
Planning & Stakeholder Engagement July - October
Gather stakeholder input

Design December January 2012

Communication and stakeholder engagement (all teachers invited) Committee meetings & design Select qualitative components of evaluation and weighting system Create process and protocol Determine quantitative components

Testing February 2012July 2012

Communication and stakeholder engagement (all teachers invited) Committee meetings & testing Test tools, gather feedback, and adjust Design training process and materials Develop training schedule and train the trainers

Implementation August 2012

Continue communication with stakeholders (all teachers invited) Committee meetings & rollout Roll-out to schools Provide training to principals and teachers Provide support, technology, tools Track progress of implementation

November
Communications and stakeholder engagement (all teachers invited)

Launch subcommittees Committee meetings & (rubric, qualitative, design quantitative) of principals, teachers and Establish vision with central office chosen teachers and led by Design Drive content forward committee through sub-committees Establish key design led by Design questions Committee Begin to establish vision

Progress Report
What has been completed (Jul-Jan)
See calendar for specifics
E-Blasts to all staff Website launched and updated Virtual feedback panel convened (111 members) SBDMs engaged (41 schools as of 1/20/12) Principals engaged 145 principals surveyed 100+ principals engaged through focus groups 9 Learning Community presentations Teachers engaged 3,688 teachers surveyed 138 teachers engaged through focus groups 100+ teachers engaged in working session 50+ parents engaged through focus groups Committees formed Teacher Evaluation System Input Committee meeting 8/30, 9/20, 10/18, 11/08, 12/06, 1/10 Design Committee meetings 7/18, 8/10, 8/31, 9/21, 10/19, 11/09, 12/07, 1/11 Steering Committee meetings 7/20, and 8/29, 9/12, 10/10, 11/07, 12/12, 1/24 Convened sub-committees of teachers, principals and central office chosen and led by design committee Dallas ISD students engaged Public Information Sessions by trustee district: 10/12, 10/19, 10/25, 11/7, 11/8,11/8,11/14, 11/29 Gathered and analyzed Dallas ISD 2010-2011 data on teacher evaluation

What is currently underway (Feb)

See calendar for specifics
E-Blast to all staff (minimum monthly) Website updated (minimum monthly) Virtual feedback panel engagement Engagement opportunities: 11+ schools involved in training on new teacher evaluation system components SBDM feedback Committee meetings Teacher Evaluation System Input Committee meeting 2/21 Design Committee meeting 2/22 Steering Committee meeting 2/22 Sub-committee meetings to plan training and initial testing for spring Quantitative components Rubric of effective teaching Preliminary design of system continued to be shared broadly for feedback and input Finalize components for testing in March including training materials and technology tools Training of volunteer schools on their components for testing including participating teachers, content experts, principals, etc.

What is going to happen next (March)

E-Blast to all staff (minimum monthly) Website updated (minimum monthly) Informational video launched at every campus level Engagement goals: Teachers: 4 opportunities for focus group participation, on-going virtual feedback opportunity Principals: 3 opportunities for focus group participation Parents: 1 opportunity for focus group participation Continue engaging SBDMs Committee meetings Design Committee meeting Steering Committee meeting Quantitative sub-committee Begin testing of various teacher evaluation components Create monitoring tools to track compliance and effectiveness of various components Begin planning for pilot roll out

10

Design Work Progress Report

Design steps completed (Jul-Nov)
Step 1: Begin to define project direction Obtained teacher input regarding strengths and areas of improvement with current teacher evaluation system Established a common understanding on the project direction Worked with teachers to identify best starting point for teacher evaluation system design Followed up with teachers on each committee for feedback

Design steps currently underway (Dec-Feb)

Step 1: Continue to refine project direction Work with teachers to establish a common vision for the project to be understandable and fair Step 2: Define teacher rubric Work with teachers to create a rubric with domains and proficiency levels Step 3: Define components of teacher evaluation Work with teachers to establish quantitative and qualitative components to include in the system

Design steps to happen next (Jan-April)

Step 4: Define weighting of components Work with teachers to determine weighting of each evaluation system component for teachers and other staff Step 5: Align evaluation system Work with teachers to align evaluation system across Dallas ISD systems related to teacher effectiveness including professional development, recruiting, principal evaluations, compensation, curriculum and instruction, etc.

11

System Design Update

Subcommittee:

Effective teaching
Deliverable: Draft rubric of effective teaching
4 domains 22 indicators 4 performance categories

Qualitative

Quantitative

Evidence to rate rubric

Potential components of a portfolio review: Portfolio Video/Self-reflection

Quantitative elements
Considering a mix of student growth and value-added, school performance

Process: Currently incorporating feedback from Teacher Working Session in January In process of developing protocols for portfolio review Outlining options and developing prototypes Reviewing internal and external models
12

Communication Plan
What has been completed (July to December)
Committee meetings Website launched Public Information Sessions led by DMC/Dallas ISD All teacher survey completed Conducted multiple focus groups and interviews Teacher working session Invited and participated in committee meetings Initiated parent interviews Kicked off monthly focus group Conducted multiple interviews and focus groups Introduction at LC meetings Updates at all principal and feeder mtgs All principal survey launched Interviewed Invited and participated in committees Working session at Alliance AFT Interviewed Interviewed Interviewed In-depth meetings on student data Interviewed Board briefings (6 Aug-Jan)

What is currently underway (February)

Committee meetings Website update with preliminary design / Virtual feedback panel SBDM meetings Training for Spring 2012 Testing All teacher E-blast on website Virtual feedback committee Training for Spring 2012 Testing SBDM feedback participation Monthly focus group SBDM feedback participation

What is going to happen next (March)

Committee Meetings Website update on preliminary design Virtual feedback panel SBDM meetings Spring 2012 Testing Launch Participate in Spring 2012 Testing Monthly E-blast SBDM feedback participation PTA engagement and feedback Monthly focus group SBDM feedback participation PTA engagement and feedback Participate in Spring 2012 Testing Monthly E-blast SBDM feedback participation

ALL GROUPS

Teachers

Parents

Principals and APs

Conduct interviews and focus groups Updates at Principal Meetings Training for Spring 2012 Testing SBDM feedback participation Continue interviews

Teacher Organizations Business/ Community Senior EDs Central staff Trustees

Follow-up interviews Engage to reach teachers Follow-up interviews Follow-up interviews Follow-up interviews Monthly E-blast Monthly board briefing 13

Follow-up Interviews Follow-up interviews Follow-up interviews E-Blast reminder on website Monthly board briefing

Current Calendar (February)

Monday Tuesday
1

Wednesday
2

Thursday
3

Friday

10

13

14

15 Testing Training

16 Testing Training

17

20 Testing Training

21 DAC Presentation Teacher Evaluation System Input Committee Meeting Testing Training 28

22 Design Committee Meeting Quantitative sub-committee Testing Training

23 Testing Training

24 Testing Training

27

29

14

Teacher Evaluation System Update

Q&A
15

16