UEA Evaluation Organizing Project
August 8, 2013
Insert EOP logo
Welcome
• Thank you!
• Webinar protocol
 Please mute phone; ask any questions
through Q&A section online
 If you have technical questions start a “private
chat” with “host” Paul Chadwick
 Use “chat box” for community discussions
Agenda
• Educators Taking the Lead
• Roles and expectations
• Evaluation components
 District observation tools
• Timeline
• Communication
• Policies affecting evaluation
Roles and Expectations
• Evaluation Organizing Project (EOP)
Workgroup
• State Evaluation Experts
• UniServ/Local Evaluation Experts
• UniServ “Dream Teams”
• NEA
EOP Workgroup
• Who?
UniServ Directors, local presidents, UEA staff
• What?
Meet twice a month to identify needs and develop
resources to support UEA and UniServ work on
the Evaluation Organizing Project
Assess and adjust work based on progress and
needs in UniServs
State Evaluation Experts
• Who?
Signe Balluf (Davis)
Gay Beck (Alpine)
Dessie Olsen (Salt Lake)
• What?
Design and deliver training to UniServ
Evaluation Experts and Dream Teams
 The Utah Effective Teaching Standards and
engaging in reflective practice
 Student Learning Objectives and improving
student performance
UniServ/Local Evaluation Experts
• Who?
Highly skilled classroom teachers identified
by UniServs and locals
• What?
 Receive in-depth training on Utah evaluation
framework and evaluation issues
 Work with UniServ/local to support
evaluation organizing efforts
UniServ “Dream Teams”
• Who?
UniServ Directors, local presidents and vice
presidents, Board members, membership
chairs, etc.
• What?
Design and implement an organizing plan to
support current members and grow
membership by using evaluation-related
resources developed by the EOP Workgroup and
the knowledge of UniServ evaluation experts
NEA
• Who?
Bev Johnson and Sara Gjerdrum
• What?
Work with UniServ and local leaders
to facilitate project
Required Evaluation Components
Districts must include the following minimum criteria in
their evaluation system (although they can also
choose to include other criteria beyond those listed)
Teachers:
• Observations of instructional quality
• Evidence of student growth
• Parent and student input
Administrators:
• Observations of leadership quality
• Evidence of student growth
• Parent, student and employee input
• Effectiveness of evaluating employee performance
District Observation Tools for 2013-14
Public Educator Evaluation Requirements (PEER) Advisory Committee
District Evaluation Plan Review: August 2, 2013
Approval Status
District
NC=Non-Compliant
C=Compliant
CC=Compliant w/comments
Comments
USOE Model
Observation Tool
Teacher
Leader
Alpine
C
X
X
Beaver
C
X
X
Box Elder
C
X
X
Cache
C
X
X
Canyons
C
Carbon
C
X
X
Daggett
C
X
X
Davis
C
Duchesne
C
Emery
C
X
Creating their own
X
X
X
Observation Tools for 2013-14
District
Approval Status
Comments
(Cont.)
Teacher
Leader
X
X
Garfield
C
Grand
C
Granite
C
Iron
C
Jordan
C
Juab
C
X
X
Kane
C
X
X
X
X
Creating their own
*5 year plan
Creating their own
X
X
X
Logan
C
Piloting 2 systems
In 2013-2014
Millard
C
*5 year plan
Morgan
C
X
X
Murray
C
X
X
Nebo
C
X
X
North Sanpete
C
X
X
Observation Tools for 2013-14
Comments
(Cont.)
District
Approval Status
Teacher
Leader
North Summit
C
X
X
Ogden
C
Creating their own
Park City
C
Creating their own
Piute
C
X
X
Provo
C
X
X
Rich
C
X
X
Salt Lake
C
San Juan
C
X
X
Sevier
C
X
X
South Sanpete
C
South Summit
C
X
X
Tintic
C
X
X
Tooele
C
X
X
X
X
Observation Tools for 2013-14
District
Approval Status
Comments
(Cont.)
Teacher
Leader
Uintah
C
X
USDB
C
X
Wasatch
C
Washington
C
Wayne
C
Weber
C
X
X
Creating their own
X
X
X
2013 – 2014 Observation Tool Participants
• 12 pilot districts (remaining from the total of 16 pilot districts in 2012‐2013)
• 23 new adopting districts
• 29 districts adopting the teaching observation tool
• 36 districts adopting the leadership observation tool
• 6 districts developing different models (Davis, Grand, Granite, Ogden,
Park City, USDB, Washington)
Timeline
• Save the Date!
September 21, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.
 Training on the Utah Effective Teaching
Standards and gathering evidence to
support evaluation
 Held at the UEA Building
 Details about hotel/mileage, hours and complete
agenda will be sent in the next few weeks
Timeline
(cont.)
• Second training on the standards and
observation tool is tentatively scheduled
for November
• Training on student growth and student
learning objectives (SLOs) is scheduled
for January
 Some trainings may occur regionally rather
than at UEA
Timeline
(cont.)
• UEA Convention October 17, 2013
 Evaluation-related professional
development workshops

What Teachers Can Do to Take Charge
of Their Own Professionalism

Making the New Utah Effective Teaching
Standards Work for You (NEA Academy)
Communication
• Back to school email message and video
• “Welcome Back” letter
• EOP Meeting Summary
• Monthly UEA eNewsletter article highlighting
the Educators Taking the Lead project
• Monthly UEA eNewsletter article highlighting
one or two teaching standards
Communication (cont.)
• eNewsletter articles on the standards
September
Standard 9: Leadership & Collaboration
Standard 10: Professional & Ethical Standards
October
Standard 6: Instructional Planning
November
Standard 7: Instructional Strategies
December
None
January
Standard 1: Learning Development
Standard 2: Learning Differences
February
Standard 3: Learner & Learning Environments
March
Standard 8: Reflection & Continuous Growth
April
Standard 4: Content Knowledge
Standard 5: Assessment
Policies Affecting Evaluation
• Computer Adaptive Testing
• School Grading
Computer Adaptive Testing
• Student Assessment of Growth and
Excellence (SAGE)
 Replaces current CRTs
 Aligned to the new Utah Core Curriculum
 Assesses ELA, Math, Science grades 3-12
 Summative, interim and formative
assessments available
Computer Adaptive Testing
(cont.)
• Implementation
 Fall 2013: Formative assessments available

Replaces UTIPS but UTIPS available during transition
 Spring 2014: Summative assessments begin

Results not available until July 2014
 Fall 2014: Interim assessments available
 Spring 2015: Summative assessments continue

Results available immediately
 A professional development plan for educators about the new
assessment system is included in the implementation process
but has not yet been developed
• SAGE details available at
http://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/Adaptive-AssessmentSystem.aspx
School Grading
• Utah Comprehensive Accountability
System (UCAS)
 Resulted from SB 59 in 2011 legislative session
 UEA opposed
SB 59 but once it passed participated in
a workgroup with USSA, USBA, PTA, USOE and
districts to help design UCAS
 Replaced UPASS as school accountability
system
 Provides school level assessment and
accountability information to the public
 First reports published in 2012 (no letter grades
assigned)
 Adopted as Utah’s federal accountability system
School Grading (cont.)
• SB 271 3S School Grading Amendments
 Passed 2013 Legislature
 UEA opposed
SB 271 3S during legislative session and
asked Governor to veto the bill when it passed the
legislature
 Creates a second, separate accountability system
 UCAS
will report school performance for federal
requirements and SB 271 3S will report school
performance for state requirements
 School grades expected to published Sept 1,
2013
School Grading (cont.)
UCAS
SB 271 3S
Student growth is measured
along a continuum and
counts for every student:
Requires a fixed standard
to measure “sufficient
growth”, currently set at the
40th percentile:
• Low growth = low points
• High growth = high points
• Students below 40th
percentile = zero points
• All students above 40th
percentile = same points
School Grading (cont.)
• Currently, it is expected that both UCAS
and SB271 3S school performance reports
will be calculated and published separately
on the USOE website on Sept 1, 2013
• The State Board of Education has
indicated that school grades will only be
published for SB 271 3S (as required by
law)
Questions?