NTPPF: A Framework for Educator and Administrator Effectiveness
NTPPF: A Framework for Educator and Administrator Effectiveness Janine Theiler Nebraska Department of Education [email protected]
Why Focus on Educator Effectiveness?
AQuESTT at-a-glance report accessible at aquestt.com
AQuESTT at-a-glance report accessible at aquestt.com
AQuESTT at-a-glance report accessible at aquestt.com
NE Population Growth Projected percent change in population by decade
2000-2010 net migration by county size
(e.g., change between 1990-1999)
37,920 12.0%
-9,231
NE
-4,244
US 8.4%
8.7% 5.9%
-12,444
4.8% 5.3% 4.0% 4.3%
5,596
County Size
1990s*
2000s*
* Actual percent change
2010s
-6,405
Net Migration
7.3%
2020s
2030s
50K+ people*
49.9K-10K people
9.9K-5K people
4.9K-2.5K people
Below 2.5K people
Total NE
2040s * Includes: Douglas, Sarpy, Lancaster, and Hall Counties
The only four counties to have seen net positive migration contain, or are near, metro areas
Source: UNO Center for Public Affairs Research, American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau
NE Minority Population Growth Nebraska net migration rate by age (to 64) from 2000 to 2010 Net migration of minority populations vs. white (non-Hispanic) populations (rate per 1,000) White (Non-Hispanic)
Under 5 5 to 9
18
22 0
15 to 19
35 to 39 40 to 44
41
-7
40
-11 23
-8 12
-4
-1
50 to 54
-1
55 to 59
-1 -2
These demographic changes have been concentrated in specific communities across the state, specifically in Colfax, Dakota, Dawson, Hall, and Scottsbluff counties
11
-1
45 to 49
60 to 64
27
-1
20 to 24
30 to 34
The white (non-Hispanic) population barely grew (0.4% growth) over the same time period
29
-6
10 to 14
25 to 29
The Hispanic population grew by 77% in the 2000s, which accounted for nearly 2/3rd of the state’s overall growth
Minority
-8
Key takeaways
11 9 8 2
Source: UNO Center for Public Affairs Research, American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau; FSG interviews
© FSG | 16
NE Pockets of Poverty Nebraska’s statewide poverty rate of 12.8% has remained steady and is lower than the national rate of 15.4%, but some areas and specific populations have seen significant increases in poverty Changes in percent of persons in poverty (2000 vs. 2015)
2015
In specific areas and among specific populations
Hispanics
2000 28.0% 20.0% 18.0%
Children 12.3% 14.3%* Douglas County
9.8%
*Data was last collected in 2013 Source: American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau;
© FSG | 17
NE Achievement Gap Third grade reading proficiency has increased by 11% over the past five years Percentage of third grade students proficient in reading Percentage of third graders scoring meets or exceeds standards on Reading NeSA (2010-2015) 77%
77%
79%
82%
2011-2010
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
71%
2010-2011
White third graders are proficient in reading at a significantly higher rate than their minority counterparts Percentage of third grade students by race proficient in reading in 2015 Percentage of third graders scoring meets or exceeds standards Reading NeSA (2015) 87%
82%
82%
74% 63%
White Source: NDE 2014-2015 State of Schools Report
All students
Asian
Hispanic
57%
African American Native American
NE Achievement Gap: NeSA
Key takeaways
8th Grade Math NeSA Performance (2015) Basic (below passing)
Proficient
Advanced
32%
46%
22%
All students White
24%
Asian
26%
50%
31%
34%
35%
Hispanic
About one third of all students test at below passing for math:
49%
40%
11%
Native American
67%
26%
Black Free and reduced lunch
66%
29%
49%
7% 5%
41%
10%
Black and Native American students are more than twice as likely to test at below passing than white students Low income (i.e., free and reduced lunch) students are less than half as likely to be advanced in math as the average
8th Grade Reading NeSA Performance (2015) Basic (below passing) All students White Asian Hispanic Native American Black Free and reduced lunch
Proficient
Advanced
43%
36%
21% 15%
42%
26%
43% 33%
41%
33% 25%
20%
47%
25%
50%
44% 35%
Source: NDE 2014-2015 State of Schools Report
Overall students perform better in reading than math; however, the achievement gap is still present:
41% 45%
15% 20%
Black and Hispanic students are more than twice as likely to be below passing in reading than white students Students on free and reduced lunch are just over half as likely to be advanced in reading as white students
Widening Gap: NeSA 3rd
White Asian Hispanic
Proficient
Advanced
49%
33%
18% 13%
48%
18%
40%
44%
39%
26%
Native American
17%
56% 43%
14%
43%
37%
Black Free and reduced lunch
The achievement gap for reading persists between the 3rd and 8th grade:
Grade Reading NeSA Performance (2015)
Basic (below passing) All students
Key takeaways
15%
48%
27%
19%
54%
A larger percentage of 8th graders than 3rd graders all racial groups, except Native American, test below passing for Reading There is a larger achievement gap between Black and Hispanic students and their white counterparts in the 8th grade than in the 3rd grade – 3rd grade White and Hispanic reading: 13 percentage point difference
8th Grade Reading NeSA Performance (2015) Basic (below passing) All students White Asian
Hispanic Native American Black Free and reduced lunch
Proficient
Advanced
43%
36%
21% 15%
42%
26%
41%
33%
20%
47%
25%
50% 44%
35%
Source: NDE 2014-2015 State of Schools Report
The achievement gap is also growing for low income (i.e., free and reduced lunch) students
43%
33%
25%
– 8th grade White and Hispanic reading: 18 percentage point difference
41% 45%
15% 20%
– 3rd grade White and FRL reading: 14 percentage point difference – 8th grade White and FRL reading: 20 percentage point difference © FSG | 48
NE Graduation Rate Average statewide high school graduation rates National ranking
Public high-school data 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; 2012-13 Nebraska
90%
1
Iowa
90%
1
Wisconsin
88%
5
Texas
88%
5
Kansas
86%
Utah National Minnesota Colorado
Source: Strauss, Valerie. "Latest High School Graduation Rates — State by State.” Washington Post. 12 Feb. 2015; FSG interviews
83% 81% 80% 77%
11 26 N/A 34
37
© FSG | 23
NE ACT Scores Average composite ACT scores Percentage of graduates tested
Public high school data 11th graders; 2015
22.7
Minnesota
78%
Iowa
22.2
67%
Wisconsin
22.2
73%
21.9
Kansas Nebraska
21.5
74%
88%
National
21.0
59%
Texas
20.9
41%
Oklahoma
20.7
80%
Colorado
20.7
100%
Utah
Source: 2015 ACT National and State Score (https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2015/states.html)
20.2
100%
© FSG | 24
NE College-Going Rate Statewide college-going rates of high school graduates
National ranking
U.S. Census Bureau data for students matriculating directly from high school (2010)
Minnesota
70.9%
6
Nebraska
69.5%*
7
Iowa
66.6%
Kansas
64.7%
National
62.5%
Colorado
61.2%
Wisconsin
60.4%
Texas Utah
56.2% 53.3%
13
17 N/A 32 37 42 44
*In 2013, the college-going rate was 72%
Source: NCHEMS Information Center: http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=32; FSG interviews
© FSG | 25
Charting the Future
AQuESTT at-a-glance report accessible at aquestt.com
Educator Effectiveness The State Board believes that students should be surrounded by effective educators throughout their learning experiences such that schools and districts develop effective teachers and leaders who establish a culture of success. Areas of Focus • Nebraska Teacher & Principal Performance Framework • Professional Development • Building Leadership Supports
• Effective Local Policy Makers & Superintendents
Educator Effectiveness and Student Achievement Robert Marzano (2005): Nearly 60 percent of a school’s impact on achievement is attributable to principal and teacher effectiveness. About 35 percent can be credited to teacher effectiveness alone.
Eric Hanushek (2010): “The magnitude of the
differences is truly large, with some teachers producing 1½ years of gain in achievement in an academic year while others with equivalent students produce only ½ year of gain.”
Improving Educator Effectiveness
“We need a consistent definition of good teaching – describing not only the work in the classroom but also the behind-the-scenes work of planning and other professional work.” Charlotte Danielson
How do we define Effective Educator?
Nebraska Teacher and Principal Performance Framework - Approved, November 2011 Defined a set of Effective Practices for Teachers and Principals
Seven Effective Practices for Teachers • • • • • • •
Foundational Knowledge Planning and Preparation Learning Environment Instructional Strategies Assessment Professionalism Vision and Collaboration
Eight Effective Practices for Principals
• • • • • • • •
Vision for Learning Continuous School Improvement Instructional Leadership Culture for Learning Systems Management Staff Leadership Developing Relationships Professional Ethics and Advocacy
The NE Effective Practices define “good teaching – describing not only the work in the classroom but also the behind-the-scenes work of planning and other professional work.” They serve as the cornerstone of the Nebraska Teacher Evaluation Model.
The primary purpose of the teacher and principal evaluation models is the improvement of instruction and leadership based on the Nebraska Teacher and Principal Performance Framework. The teacher and principal evaluation should be based on multiple measures of performance with data gathered multiple times, leading to long-term performance improvement.
Components • Effective Practices Rating Uniform Instructional Framework Additional Effective Practices
• Student Achievement Rating Student Learning Objectives
Exemplary Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory
• Professional Development Rating Individual Professional Development Plan
• Local Factors Rating Optional
CCSSO Principles
Nebraska State Board of Education Study Committee on Teacher and Principal Evaluation Final Report March 4, 2016
State Board Study Committee Recommendations (3/2016) • The State Board adopts the Teacher and Principal Performance Framework as the minimum requirements for effective practices for teachers and principals. • The State Board directs NDE to develop effective practices for all other certificated employees. • The State Board recognizes that the effective practices and models, developed through the pilot process, are aligned with existing NDE Rules.
• The State Board believes that a quality evaluation model includes the following components: evaluation of effective practices, measures of student and school progress, plans for ongoing professional learning, and other locally determined components.
• The State Board directs that the evaluation models and supporting information developed through the pilot schools become open source for all school districts by June 1, 2016. • The State Board charges NDE to transition to a support and resource system for continued review and revision of the effective practices, evaluation models, and subsequent materials for school districts.
ESU Instruction Bucket Group, ESU 6 Instructional Model Implementation Guide, 2015
Educator Effectiveness Activites in Nebraska
AQuESTT at-a-glance report accessible at aquestt.com
Evidence-based Analysis Results • Activities: • Policies, Practices, Procedures
• Supports: • Professional Development, Technical Support, Other Resources
AQuESTT Evidence-based Analysis Activities
Supports
AQuESTT Evidence-based Analysis Activities
Supports
Top Requests for Professional Development Among Schools Classified as Needs Improvement, Good, Great, or Excellent* Rank Order
Tenet
EBA Item
1
Positive Partnerships, Relationships and Student Success
Q.5.E. Strategies to support students in monitoring and managing their own learning Q. 5.M.H. Student Personal Learning Plans
2
Positive Partnerships, Relationships and Student Success
Q4. Measuring and addressing student engagement
3
College and Career Ready
Q2. Curriculum alignment to Career Ready Standards
4
College and Career Ready
Q.5.E. Career awareness instruction* Q.5.M. Career exploration instruction* Q.5.H. Career preparation instruction*
4
Assessment
Q2. Utilize formative, classroom-based assessments
5
Educator Effectiveness
Q1. Measuring and addressing teacher engagement
Note: *top five request for support unique to schools classified as Good, Great, and Excellent
Top Requests for Technical Support Among Schools Classified as Needs Improvement, Good, Great, or Excellent* Rank Order
Tenet
EBA Item
1
Educator Effectiveness
Q5. Technology to support teaching and learning
2
Educational Opportunities and Access
Q2. Supplementing face-to-face instruction with opportunities for online learning
3
Positive Partnerships, Relationships and Student Success
Q5.E. Strategies to support students in monitoring and managing their own learning Q5.M.H. Student Personal Learning Plans
4
Positive Partnerships, Relationships and Student Success
Q4. Measuring and addressing student engagement*
4
Assessment
Q3. Sharing assessment results in a timely manner
5
Educator Effectiveness
Q3. Utilizing a formal staff evaluation process aligned to the NTPPF*
5
Educational Opportunities and Access
Q5. Evaluating new educational programs
Note: *top five request for support unique to schools classified as Good, Great, and Excellent
Wind and Solar Energy Grants $5,000 grants awarded to each of 32 districts and 7 higher education institutions (200+ attendees). Two-day training at each of 6 regional locations Support alignment of current systems of evaluation with the NE Model for Evaluation or development of new evaluation system. Ongoing support (TBA)
June 1, 2016: Official Release
https://goo.gl/VKHYzU
How can NDE and ESU staff support your immediate needs? Provide strategies/activities to build awareness and buy-in Share existing models/tools being used by schools Provide SLO trainings/tools Provide PLC platform centered on any/all of the above Provide Train the Trainers How can NDE and ESU staff support your long term needs? Create annual training for new hires/refresher Provide trainings and tools for Growth Plans and SLOs Share more models/examples Develop Tools What Innovative approaches would you recommend? Connect schools with others doing similar things Arrange visits to schools with model systems Provide Teleconference/Webinar/Videos Provide Train the trainers
Possibilities? Ongoing support as requested Train the Trainers (Systems of Evaluation) Better Observations and Feedback Student Learning Objectives
Your input?
Beyond Systems of Evaluation for Educator Effectiveness
CCSSO (2015). Framework for Transforming Education Workforce Systems. From 2016 SCEE Conference in Salt Lake City, UT.
Thank you.
Why Focus on Educator Effectiveness?
AQuESTT at-a-glance report accessible at aquestt.com
AQuESTT at-a-glance report accessible at aquestt.com
AQuESTT at-a-glance report accessible at aquestt.com
NE Population Growth Projected percent change in population by decade
2000-2010 net migration by county size
(e.g., change between 1990-1999)
37,920 12.0%
-9,231
NE
-4,244
US 8.4%
8.7% 5.9%
-12,444
4.8% 5.3% 4.0% 4.3%
5,596
County Size
1990s*
2000s*
* Actual percent change
2010s
-6,405
Net Migration
7.3%
2020s
2030s
50K+ people*
49.9K-10K people
9.9K-5K people
4.9K-2.5K people
Below 2.5K people
Total NE
2040s * Includes: Douglas, Sarpy, Lancaster, and Hall Counties
The only four counties to have seen net positive migration contain, or are near, metro areas
Source: UNO Center for Public Affairs Research, American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau
NE Minority Population Growth Nebraska net migration rate by age (to 64) from 2000 to 2010 Net migration of minority populations vs. white (non-Hispanic) populations (rate per 1,000) White (Non-Hispanic)
Under 5 5 to 9
18
22 0
15 to 19
35 to 39 40 to 44
41
-7
40
-11 23
-8 12
-4
-1
50 to 54
-1
55 to 59
-1 -2
These demographic changes have been concentrated in specific communities across the state, specifically in Colfax, Dakota, Dawson, Hall, and Scottsbluff counties
11
-1
45 to 49
60 to 64
27
-1
20 to 24
30 to 34
The white (non-Hispanic) population barely grew (0.4% growth) over the same time period
29
-6
10 to 14
25 to 29
The Hispanic population grew by 77% in the 2000s, which accounted for nearly 2/3rd of the state’s overall growth
Minority
-8
Key takeaways
11 9 8 2
Source: UNO Center for Public Affairs Research, American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau; FSG interviews
© FSG | 16
NE Pockets of Poverty Nebraska’s statewide poverty rate of 12.8% has remained steady and is lower than the national rate of 15.4%, but some areas and specific populations have seen significant increases in poverty Changes in percent of persons in poverty (2000 vs. 2015)
2015
In specific areas and among specific populations
Hispanics
2000 28.0% 20.0% 18.0%
Children 12.3% 14.3%* Douglas County
9.8%
*Data was last collected in 2013 Source: American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau;
© FSG | 17
NE Achievement Gap Third grade reading proficiency has increased by 11% over the past five years Percentage of third grade students proficient in reading Percentage of third graders scoring meets or exceeds standards on Reading NeSA (2010-2015) 77%
77%
79%
82%
2011-2010
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
71%
2010-2011
White third graders are proficient in reading at a significantly higher rate than their minority counterparts Percentage of third grade students by race proficient in reading in 2015 Percentage of third graders scoring meets or exceeds standards Reading NeSA (2015) 87%
82%
82%
74% 63%
White Source: NDE 2014-2015 State of Schools Report
All students
Asian
Hispanic
57%
African American Native American
NE Achievement Gap: NeSA
Key takeaways
8th Grade Math NeSA Performance (2015) Basic (below passing)
Proficient
Advanced
32%
46%
22%
All students White
24%
Asian
26%
50%
31%
34%
35%
Hispanic
About one third of all students test at below passing for math:
49%
40%
11%
Native American
67%
26%
Black Free and reduced lunch
66%
29%
49%
7% 5%
41%
10%
Black and Native American students are more than twice as likely to test at below passing than white students Low income (i.e., free and reduced lunch) students are less than half as likely to be advanced in math as the average
8th Grade Reading NeSA Performance (2015) Basic (below passing) All students White Asian Hispanic Native American Black Free and reduced lunch
Proficient
Advanced
43%
36%
21% 15%
42%
26%
43% 33%
41%
33% 25%
20%
47%
25%
50%
44% 35%
Source: NDE 2014-2015 State of Schools Report
Overall students perform better in reading than math; however, the achievement gap is still present:
41% 45%
15% 20%
Black and Hispanic students are more than twice as likely to be below passing in reading than white students Students on free and reduced lunch are just over half as likely to be advanced in reading as white students
Widening Gap: NeSA 3rd
White Asian Hispanic
Proficient
Advanced
49%
33%
18% 13%
48%
18%
40%
44%
39%
26%
Native American
17%
56% 43%
14%
43%
37%
Black Free and reduced lunch
The achievement gap for reading persists between the 3rd and 8th grade:
Grade Reading NeSA Performance (2015)
Basic (below passing) All students
Key takeaways
15%
48%
27%
19%
54%
A larger percentage of 8th graders than 3rd graders all racial groups, except Native American, test below passing for Reading There is a larger achievement gap between Black and Hispanic students and their white counterparts in the 8th grade than in the 3rd grade – 3rd grade White and Hispanic reading: 13 percentage point difference
8th Grade Reading NeSA Performance (2015) Basic (below passing) All students White Asian
Hispanic Native American Black Free and reduced lunch
Proficient
Advanced
43%
36%
21% 15%
42%
26%
41%
33%
20%
47%
25%
50% 44%
35%
Source: NDE 2014-2015 State of Schools Report
The achievement gap is also growing for low income (i.e., free and reduced lunch) students
43%
33%
25%
– 8th grade White and Hispanic reading: 18 percentage point difference
41% 45%
15% 20%
– 3rd grade White and FRL reading: 14 percentage point difference – 8th grade White and FRL reading: 20 percentage point difference © FSG | 48
NE Graduation Rate Average statewide high school graduation rates National ranking
Public high-school data 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; 2012-13 Nebraska
90%
1
Iowa
90%
1
Wisconsin
88%
5
Texas
88%
5
Kansas
86%
Utah National Minnesota Colorado
Source: Strauss, Valerie. "Latest High School Graduation Rates — State by State.” Washington Post. 12 Feb. 2015; FSG interviews
83% 81% 80% 77%
11 26 N/A 34
37
© FSG | 23
NE ACT Scores Average composite ACT scores Percentage of graduates tested
Public high school data 11th graders; 2015
22.7
Minnesota
78%
Iowa
22.2
67%
Wisconsin
22.2
73%
21.9
Kansas Nebraska
21.5
74%
88%
National
21.0
59%
Texas
20.9
41%
Oklahoma
20.7
80%
Colorado
20.7
100%
Utah
Source: 2015 ACT National and State Score (https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2015/states.html)
20.2
100%
© FSG | 24
NE College-Going Rate Statewide college-going rates of high school graduates
National ranking
U.S. Census Bureau data for students matriculating directly from high school (2010)
Minnesota
70.9%
6
Nebraska
69.5%*
7
Iowa
66.6%
Kansas
64.7%
National
62.5%
Colorado
61.2%
Wisconsin
60.4%
Texas Utah
56.2% 53.3%
13
17 N/A 32 37 42 44
*In 2013, the college-going rate was 72%
Source: NCHEMS Information Center: http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=32; FSG interviews
© FSG | 25
Charting the Future
AQuESTT at-a-glance report accessible at aquestt.com
Educator Effectiveness The State Board believes that students should be surrounded by effective educators throughout their learning experiences such that schools and districts develop effective teachers and leaders who establish a culture of success. Areas of Focus • Nebraska Teacher & Principal Performance Framework • Professional Development • Building Leadership Supports
• Effective Local Policy Makers & Superintendents
Educator Effectiveness and Student Achievement Robert Marzano (2005): Nearly 60 percent of a school’s impact on achievement is attributable to principal and teacher effectiveness. About 35 percent can be credited to teacher effectiveness alone.
Eric Hanushek (2010): “The magnitude of the
differences is truly large, with some teachers producing 1½ years of gain in achievement in an academic year while others with equivalent students produce only ½ year of gain.”
Improving Educator Effectiveness
“We need a consistent definition of good teaching – describing not only the work in the classroom but also the behind-the-scenes work of planning and other professional work.” Charlotte Danielson
How do we define Effective Educator?
Nebraska Teacher and Principal Performance Framework - Approved, November 2011 Defined a set of Effective Practices for Teachers and Principals
Seven Effective Practices for Teachers • • • • • • •
Foundational Knowledge Planning and Preparation Learning Environment Instructional Strategies Assessment Professionalism Vision and Collaboration
Eight Effective Practices for Principals
• • • • • • • •
Vision for Learning Continuous School Improvement Instructional Leadership Culture for Learning Systems Management Staff Leadership Developing Relationships Professional Ethics and Advocacy
The NE Effective Practices define “good teaching – describing not only the work in the classroom but also the behind-the-scenes work of planning and other professional work.” They serve as the cornerstone of the Nebraska Teacher Evaluation Model.
The primary purpose of the teacher and principal evaluation models is the improvement of instruction and leadership based on the Nebraska Teacher and Principal Performance Framework. The teacher and principal evaluation should be based on multiple measures of performance with data gathered multiple times, leading to long-term performance improvement.
Components • Effective Practices Rating Uniform Instructional Framework Additional Effective Practices
• Student Achievement Rating Student Learning Objectives
Exemplary Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory
• Professional Development Rating Individual Professional Development Plan
• Local Factors Rating Optional
CCSSO Principles
Nebraska State Board of Education Study Committee on Teacher and Principal Evaluation Final Report March 4, 2016
State Board Study Committee Recommendations (3/2016) • The State Board adopts the Teacher and Principal Performance Framework as the minimum requirements for effective practices for teachers and principals. • The State Board directs NDE to develop effective practices for all other certificated employees. • The State Board recognizes that the effective practices and models, developed through the pilot process, are aligned with existing NDE Rules.
• The State Board believes that a quality evaluation model includes the following components: evaluation of effective practices, measures of student and school progress, plans for ongoing professional learning, and other locally determined components.
• The State Board directs that the evaluation models and supporting information developed through the pilot schools become open source for all school districts by June 1, 2016. • The State Board charges NDE to transition to a support and resource system for continued review and revision of the effective practices, evaluation models, and subsequent materials for school districts.
ESU Instruction Bucket Group, ESU 6 Instructional Model Implementation Guide, 2015
Educator Effectiveness Activites in Nebraska
AQuESTT at-a-glance report accessible at aquestt.com
Evidence-based Analysis Results • Activities: • Policies, Practices, Procedures
• Supports: • Professional Development, Technical Support, Other Resources
AQuESTT Evidence-based Analysis Activities
Supports
AQuESTT Evidence-based Analysis Activities
Supports
Top Requests for Professional Development Among Schools Classified as Needs Improvement, Good, Great, or Excellent* Rank Order
Tenet
EBA Item
1
Positive Partnerships, Relationships and Student Success
Q.5.E. Strategies to support students in monitoring and managing their own learning Q. 5.M.H. Student Personal Learning Plans
2
Positive Partnerships, Relationships and Student Success
Q4. Measuring and addressing student engagement
3
College and Career Ready
Q2. Curriculum alignment to Career Ready Standards
4
College and Career Ready
Q.5.E. Career awareness instruction* Q.5.M. Career exploration instruction* Q.5.H. Career preparation instruction*
4
Assessment
Q2. Utilize formative, classroom-based assessments
5
Educator Effectiveness
Q1. Measuring and addressing teacher engagement
Note: *top five request for support unique to schools classified as Good, Great, and Excellent
Top Requests for Technical Support Among Schools Classified as Needs Improvement, Good, Great, or Excellent* Rank Order
Tenet
EBA Item
1
Educator Effectiveness
Q5. Technology to support teaching and learning
2
Educational Opportunities and Access
Q2. Supplementing face-to-face instruction with opportunities for online learning
3
Positive Partnerships, Relationships and Student Success
Q5.E. Strategies to support students in monitoring and managing their own learning Q5.M.H. Student Personal Learning Plans
4
Positive Partnerships, Relationships and Student Success
Q4. Measuring and addressing student engagement*
4
Assessment
Q3. Sharing assessment results in a timely manner
5
Educator Effectiveness
Q3. Utilizing a formal staff evaluation process aligned to the NTPPF*
5
Educational Opportunities and Access
Q5. Evaluating new educational programs
Note: *top five request for support unique to schools classified as Good, Great, and Excellent
Wind and Solar Energy Grants $5,000 grants awarded to each of 32 districts and 7 higher education institutions (200+ attendees). Two-day training at each of 6 regional locations Support alignment of current systems of evaluation with the NE Model for Evaluation or development of new evaluation system. Ongoing support (TBA)
June 1, 2016: Official Release
https://goo.gl/VKHYzU
How can NDE and ESU staff support your immediate needs? Provide strategies/activities to build awareness and buy-in Share existing models/tools being used by schools Provide SLO trainings/tools Provide PLC platform centered on any/all of the above Provide Train the Trainers How can NDE and ESU staff support your long term needs? Create annual training for new hires/refresher Provide trainings and tools for Growth Plans and SLOs Share more models/examples Develop Tools What Innovative approaches would you recommend? Connect schools with others doing similar things Arrange visits to schools with model systems Provide Teleconference/Webinar/Videos Provide Train the trainers
Possibilities? Ongoing support as requested Train the Trainers (Systems of Evaluation) Better Observations and Feedback Student Learning Objectives
Your input?
Beyond Systems of Evaluation for Educator Effectiveness
CCSSO (2015). Framework for Transforming Education Workforce Systems. From 2016 SCEE Conference in Salt Lake City, UT.
Thank you.
