Mississippi Teacher/Principal
Evaluation System
MASA Presentation
October 14, 2013
Expectations
• Working alone, write on an index card the three most
important things you are hoping to get out of
today’s session.
• Discuss with your neighbor expectations for today’s
session. Combine your individual lists into a single list
and reach a consensus about your top 3
expectations.
• Be ready to share the top 3 with your neighbor.
• Evaluate today’s session based on these
expectations.
Mississippi Teacher Evaluation
System (M-STAR)
Implementation Timeline
 Pilot Implementation ………………………………………..2011 – 2012
 Focus Group Review and Feedback………….January – July 2012
 Training on M-STAR…………….………………….July 2012 – July 2013
 Field Test M-STAR and School Wide Growth……….2013 – 2014
 (Note: All districts must use M-STAR this year.)
 Implementation of M-STAR , Individual Growth, and School
Wide Growth; Train on Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) and
Professional Growth Goals (PGGs) ………………………2014 – 2015
 Full Implementation; M-STAR, PGGs, School Wide Growth,
Individual Growth or SLOs
……………………….………………………..............................2015 - 2016
2013-2014
Implementation of Teacher Evaluation Components
State Tested and
Non-State Tested Teachers
• M-STAR: 50%
• School-wide Growth: 50%
The ultimate
goal
of M-STAR is…
TO IMPROVE
TEACHING
AND
LEARNING!
Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)
A research-based instrument to evaluate teacher effectiveness
M-STAR’s Goal: To improve teacher practice and positively impact
student learning
M-STAR:
• provides a reliable and valid system of assessments based on
common standards,
• includes multiple measures,
• identifies areas of strength and challenge, and
• helps track educational progress to improve the performance of
teachers.
7
Formal Observation Cycle
Includes three main activities:
The pre-observation conference (10-20 minutes)
The lesson observation (bell to bell or length of the
lesson)
The post-observation conference (20 – 30 minutes)
Pre-Observation
Conference (10-20
minutes)
Observation (bell to bell
or length of the lesson)
Post-Observation
Conference (20-30
minutes)
Formal Observation Cycle
Review lesson
plan,
understand
context,
& ask clarifying
questions
Pre-Observation
Conference
1-2 days prior to
observation
Key Questions:
What are students
learning?
What is the evidence
of this learning?
Observation
PostObservation
Conference
Within 1 week of
observation
Effective,
concrete
feedback &
next steps are
critical.
Follow up
Walkthrough
Within 2 weeks of
post-observation
conference
Observe feedback
in action
Mississippi Statewide
Teacher Evaluation Rubric (M-STAR)
Five domains (weighted
equally)
1. Planning
2. Assessment
3. Instruction
4. Learning Environment
5. Professional
Responsibilities
20 Standards
Mississippi Teacher Evaluation System
Rating Levels
A teacher’s performance on each standard will be
appraised in accordance with a four-level rating scale:
Level 1
Indicates that
the teacher’s
performance
does not meet
expectations
Level 2
Indicates that
the teacher’s
performance
inconsistently
meets
expectations
Level 3
Indicated that
the teacher’s
performance
meets
expectations
Level 4
Indicates that
the teacher’s
performance
consistently
exceeds
expectations.
Summary Scoring
 Teachers will receive a rating (on a point scale) for
each standard
 Distinguished – 4 points
 Effective – 3 points
 Emerging – 2 points
 Unsatisfactory – 1 point
 Within each domain, the points will be averaged.
 The averages from each domain will be weighted
equally to arrive at a summative rating.
1 point
2 points
3 points
4 points
Standards
Score
Domain I: Planning
1. Plans lessons that demonstrate knowledge of content and pedagogy.
X
3
2. Plans lessons that meet the diversity of students’ backgrounds, cultures,
skills, learning levels, language proficiencies, interests, and special needs.
X
3
3. Selects instructional goals that incorporate higher level learning for all
students.
4. Plans units of instruction that align with the Mississippi Curriculum
Framework or, when applicable, the Common Core State Standards.
X
X
2
3
Domain score (average of standard scores)
2.75
Domain II: Assessment
5. Collects and organizes data from assessments to provide feedback to
students and adjusts lessons and instruction as necessary.
X
4
6. Incorporates assessments into instructional planning that demonstrate high
expectations for all students.
X
4
Domain score (average of standard scores)
4
Domain III: Instruction
7. Demonstrates deep knowledge of content during instruction.
X
8. Actively engages students in the learning process.
9. Uses questioning and discussion techniques to promote higher order
thinking skills.
10. Brings multiple perspectives to the delivery of content.
11. Communicates clearly and effectively.
X
X
3
X
2
X
2
3
4
Domain score (average of standard scores)
2.8
13
1 point
2 points
3 points
4 points
Standards
Score
Domain IV: Learning Environment
12. Manages classroom space and resources effectively for student learning.
13. Creates and maintains a climate of safety, respect, and support for all
students.
14. Maximizes time available for instruction.
15. Establishes and maintains a culture of learning to high expectations.
16. Manages student behavior to provide productive learning opportunities for
all students.
X
4
X
4
X
3
X
3
X
2
Domain score (average of standard scores)
3.2
Domain V: Professional Responsibilities
17. Engages in continuous professional development and applies new
X
3
information learned in the classroom.
18. Demonstrates professionalism and high ethical standards; acts in
X
3
alignment with Mississippi Code of Ethics.
19. Establishes and maintains effective communication with families.
X
2
20. Collaborates with colleagues and is an active member of a professional
X
2
learning community in the school.
Domain score (average of standard scores) 2.5
M-STAR score (see calculation example below) 3.05
Domain I
Domain II
Domain III
Domain IV
Domain V
2.75
4
2.8
3.2
2.5
Example
15.25 ÷ 5 = 3.05
Four Levels of Effectiveness:
• Distinguished - Level 4: The most effective level; rating at this
level indicates that the teacher’s performance is exemplary,
consistently exceeding expectations.
• Effective - Level 3: The minimum expectation for all teachers.
Rating at this level indicates that the teacher’s performance
consistently meets expectations.
• Emerging - Level 2: Indicates a beginning teacher or a teacher
who needs focused professional development. Rating at this
level indicates the teacher is sometimes meeting
expectations, but not doing so consistently. Teachers should
receive PD/support.
• Unsatisfactory - Level 1: The least effective level; rating at this
level indicates the teacher’s performance is not acceptable.
Teachers receiving this rating rarely meet expectations and
should receive comprehensive PD/support.
2014-2015
Implementation of Teacher Evaluation Components
• M-STAR: 50%
• Individual Growth: 30%
• School-wide Growth: 20%
• M-STAR: 50%
• School-wide Growth: 50%
Student Growth Percentiles
The Growth Model is a statistical model that
tells us how much progress a student made in
a year compared to other students who
started at the same place. It also tells us
whether or not that student is on track to be
proficient, and provides information about the
degree to which the student is growing, no
matter where he or she started.
2015-2016
Implementation of Teacher Evaluation Components
•
•
•
•
M-STAR: 30%
PGGs: 20%
Individual Growth: 30%
School-wide: 20%
• M-STAR: 30%
• PGGs: 20%
• Student Learning Objectives
(SLOs): 30%
• School-wide: 20%
Professional Growth Goals (PGGs)
What are PGGs?
Why are PGGs important?
How are PGGs developed?
Do PGGs count in a teacher’s overall
evaluation rating?
How are PGGs evaluated?
Professional Growth Goals
• Professional Growth Goals (PGGs) are
ANNUAL individualized goals designed to
direct a teacher’s path in professional
development activities that enhance the
teaching performance and promote student
achievement. The two PGGs will be the
teacher’s growth focus areas for the upcoming
school year.
Professional Growth Goals
• It is important that the administrator and teacher
meet during the M-STAR summative post
observation conference in the spring to determine
areas for growth, set SMART goals, and commit to
the PGGs. If a new teacher begins in August, PGGs
will be set then to assist him/her with the transition
to the school. This will allow the teacher adequate
time to receive targeted professional development to
implement into his/her teaching practices during the
upcoming school year.
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
• A Student Learning Objective is a long-term
academic goal that teachers and evaluators
set for groups of students. It must be:
– Specific and measureable
– Based on available prior student learning data
– Aligned to state standards
– Based on growth and achievement
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
Components
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Population
Learning Content
Interval of Instructional Time
Evidence
Baseline
Target(s)
Scoring
Rationale
SLOs and PGGs
 Develop SLOs and PGGs ……..……..2013 – 2014
 Train on SLOs and PGGs ……………..2014 – 2015
 Add Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) and
Professional Growth Goals (PGGs) to the
Teacher Evaluation System……….....2015 - 2016
Reporting Teacher Evaluation Data
•
•
•
The Educator Licensing Management System (ELMS) will be used to capture and
display teacher evaluation information. To manage teacher evaluations, the
principal will log onto the system and go to the “Teacher Evaluations” tab. Once
there, the principal is provided with search options to find the evaluation and
educator they want.
The teacher evaluation is accomplished by completing a list of activities. There are
several types of activities. They include a mixture of meetings, documentation and
scoring. Collecting this information allows the principal to determine a Teacher
Effectiveness label. The label for an educator is determined by taking a list of
scoring details and applying a distribution factor to each one. Next the details are
summed. This cumulative score is then compared to a range of values to
determine the Teacher Effectiveness label.
All evaluations will have a formative and a summative score although the
formative may be optional. The documents used to determine the score will be a
mixture of paper and electronic forms. Some of these forms will be completed by
the educator, others by the principal. The ELMS teacher evaluation module
provides the capacity to determine whether principals, educators, or both can see
a document that has been entered into the system.
Reporting Teacher Evaluation Data
• The Educator Licensing Management System (ELMS) will be
used to capture and display teacher evaluation information.
• Principals will be responsible for entering teacher scores into
ELMS.
– Note : Only principals who attend the two-day M-STAR
training can enter the scores.
• Teacher ratings must be entered into the system by June 1.
• Teachers with missing data will not receive a rating.
• Only M-STAR observation ratings will be entered into ELMS.
Reporting Teacher Evaluation Data
• Principals create ELMS
account
• Verify teacher roster for
evaluation purposes
• Enter formative teacher
evaluation data in ELMS
(optional for 2014)
• Enter summative teacher
evaluation in ELMS
• Teacher Evaluation Report
• December 2017
• January 2014
• February 2014
• March – June 1, 2014
• June 30, 2014
Reminders
10. M-STAR will be used to evaluate all classroom teachers and librarians in
2013-2014.
9.
Ultimately, evaluation instruments will be developed for other licensed
employees (school counselors, speech-language pathologists, school
psychologists, social workers etc.). Until that time, administrators will
continue to use the existing evaluation process.
8. Pre-observation conferences and post-observation conferences are worth
the extra time! The pre-conference provides the evaluator with
background information about the lesson, the students and other details
that may help him/her understand the context of the classroom. It also
provides an opportunity for the teacher to ask clarifying questions about
the formal observation process.
Reminders
7. The post-observation allows the evaluator to ask questions
about what he/she observed during the lesson and any
outcomes after the lesson.
6. Both formal observations are scored; however, the mid-year
observation score is used for formative purposes only. The
performance score on the spring evaluation is the official
score.
5. Evaluators decide on a score based on two things: the
preponderance of evidence and professional judgment.
Reminders
4. Someone other than a principal can evaluate a teacher as long
as the person has completed an MDE approved training.
3. Evaluation data will be reported and stored in the MS
Educator Licensure Management System (ELMS). Individual
teacher ratings will not be made public.
2. Evaluation information is posted on the Mississippi Teacher
Center’s website at www.mde.k12.ms.us/teacher-center.
Reminders
1. The overriding goal of M-STAR is to
improve the practice of teachers!
Questions/Discussion
MDE Contacts
www.mde.k12.ms.us/teacher-center
Select Mississippi Teacher Evaluation System on the
left side of the page.
Daphne Buckley
Cecily McNair
Tarance Hart
601-359-3631
m-star@mde.k12.ms.us
Mississippi Principal Evaluation
System (MPES)
Mississippi Principal Evaluation
System (MPES)
“Talent matters tremendously in education.
Great principals lead great schools. Great
teachers do miraculous things with children”
–Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education
“The program helps to facilitate focused conversations about goal setting and best
instructional practices among district and building level administration, as well as
faculty and staff.” –Austin Brown, Principal
“I find it great to be as objective as possible when evaluating the performance of a
principal. MPES will allow more opportunity to do such.”
-Frederick Hill, Superintendent
Elephant in the Room!!
ESEA Flexibility Waiver
• What does this waiver do for schools?
- Allows districts to postpone making
personnel decisions based upon the
evaluation until the 2016-17 school year
- The waiver does NOT postpone educator
evaluation implementation. Schools must still
implement the educator evaluation systems
following the state’s approved timeline.
MPES Timeline
• Pilot …………………………………………. 2012-2013
34 districts; 219 principals
• Statewide regional trainings…….. June of 2013
• Full Implementation ……………….... 2013-2014
151 districts; 1,457 school administrators
MPES
Mississippi Principal Evaluation System (MPES)
A research-based instrument to evaluate principal effectiveness
MPES’s Goal: To achieve a higher level of academic success for every
student
MPES:
•
•
•
•
Five conferences between superintendent and principal
Four deadlines for submission
Identifies areas of strength and challenge, and
Helps track educational progress to improve the performance
of student achievement.
MPES Process and Target Dates
Student/School
Growth Scored
AUGUST:
Goal Setting
Conference
DECEMBER
-JANUARY:
Formative
Conference
APRIL:
Circle
Survey
Conference
JULY:
Summative
Assessment
Conference
Professional
Growth Goals
Conference
MPES Components
Circle Survey
30%
Setting MPES Language Arts (25%)
and Mathematics Goals (25%)
• Schoolwide goals - Based on statewide tests (i.e.,
MCT2); MDE spreadsheet will assist in goal setting.
• Principals and supervisors - Set quantifiable goals
and quantifiable ways to measure progress toward
each goal.
Setting MPES Organizational Goals
(20%)
• Organizational Goals: Intended to target each
school’s area in greatest need of improvement, for
example:
 Leading indicators
 Lagging indicators
Setting Organizational Goals
Leading Indicators:
•Length of school year/school day
•Student participation rates on state assessments
•Student completion of advanced coursework (e.g.,
AP/IB), early-college high schools, dual enrollment
classes
•Dropouts during the year
•Student/teacher attendance rates
•Disciplinary incidents
•Truants
•Teachers’ performance on LEA’s teacher evaluation
Setting Organizational Goals
Lagging Indicators:
• Percentage of limited English proficient students who
attain English language proficiency
• School improvement status and AMOs met and
missed
• Graduation rates
• College enrollment rates
Note: The Language Arts and Mathematics goals
already included on Forms 2A and 2B should not be
used again in the Organizational Goals on Form 2C.
Circle Survey (30%)
•
•
•
•
•
Concise, secure online survey
Valid, reliable, and research-based
Certified staff only
30% of Summative Assessment Score
3 components:
 Teachers (10%), principal (10%), and supervisor
(10%)
Circle Survey Topics
(Sample)
• Outreach & Support
- Engages parents, community members, and other
stakeholders in the school’s success
•Management & Leadership
•Instruction
•Communication
- Listens to the concerns and/or complaints without fear of
negative repercussions
•School Environment & Climate
•Professionalism
Circle Survey Process
• Districts may choose the best methods for them:
1. Fishbowl method—login IDs are randomly
selected by each qualified participant.
2. Login IDs are randomly generated and given to
a district for distribution among schools.
CANVAS
Canvas by Instructure, Inc. (“Canvas”) is a classroom
management tool replacing Blackboard in
Mississippi’s schools. MDE purchased this tool for
the MPES submission process.
Canvas Questions?
Alexis Nordin
Leanne Long
662-325-1191
662-325-2519
alexis.nordin@rcu.msstate.edu
leanne.long@rcu.msstate.edu
MDE Contact
www.mde.k12.ms.us/federal-programs
Select MPES on the left side of the page.
Debbie Murphy
or
Ken Stamps
601-359-3499
mpes@mde.k12.ms.us
Training and Resources
Goals Training
• Bringing it all together: The Goals Implementation
Process to Support Schoolwide Plans, M-Star and
MPES
Training Dates
October 29-30: Meridian
October 31- November 1: Ellisville
November 7-8: Greenville
November 14-15: Oxford
November 21-22: Jackson
December 5-6: Gulfport