Mississippi Statewide Teacher
Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)
January 31, 2013
1
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 process based on common standards,
• includes multiple measures,
• indentifies areas of strength and challenge, and
• helps track educational progress to improve the performance of
teachers.
2
The National Perspective:
Research and Reports
Research confirms that teachers and leaders
matter most to students’ achievement.
Recent studies find current educator evaluation
systems are deficient in three key ways:
• Lack sufficient connection to goals for student
learning and growth
• Do not provide educators with adequate feedback for
improvement
• Fail to differentiate educator effectiveness
3
Trends in Teacher Evaluation
 Inclusion of student achievement growth data
represents a huge “culture shift” in evaluation
 Focus on models and measures that help
teachers/schools/districts improve performance
 Policy is way ahead of the research in teacher
evaluation measures and models
4
U.S. Department of Education Priority
for Identifying Effective Teachers
Method for determining and identifying effective and
highly effective teachers:
 Must include multiple measures
 Effectiveness evaluated, in significant part, on the basis
of student growth
 Supplemental measures may include multiple
observation based instruments
5
Defining Teacher Quality
 “Highly qualified teacher”
status:
 “Highly effective teacher”
status:
 Bachelor’s degree
 Student academic growth
 Full state certification
 Other measures
 Demonstrated knowledge
of assigned subject(s)
6
Defining Teacher Quality
 Stakeholder engagement
- Mississippi Teachers of the Year
- State Teacher Evaluation Council (STEC)
- Meetings with Teachers and Principals
- Teacher Focus Groups (2,000 Teachers)
- Teacher Organizations
- Mississippi Association of School Superintendents
 Contract with American Institutes for Research (AIR) to
streamline and redesign instrument
7
Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)
in Mississippi
•
•
•
•
•
Five Year Federal Grant
Awarded September 2010
$ 10.7 Million Award for MS
Serves 10 schools in 7 districts
Multi-strategy approach to
school improvement
8
Multiple Strategies
Five TIF Project Components for
School Improvement
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Educator Evaluation
Student Growth Data
Professional Development
Career Ladders for Teachers
Performance Based Compensation
9
M-STAR
DOMAINS, STANDARDS,
PERFORMANCE LEVELS, AND
RATINGS
10
M-STAR
Why a standardized process?
Increases the validity of the evaluation and the
reliability of the evaluation instruments
Ensures teachers are evaluated fairly, using
consistent criteria
Ensures that scores are based on evidence, not on
personal judgment or bias
Strengthens evaluative decisions
11
How is M-STAR Different?
Traditional
Observations
Evidence-Based
Observations
Single time point for classroom
observation
Multiple time points for classroom
observation
Use of “checklist” tools
(strength/weakness, yes/no)
Use of rubrics that define
instructional improvement on a
continuum
Variations in performance ratings
among teachers
High performance ratings given to
almost all teachers
Does not include student outcomes
Links teacher effectiveness to
student performance
12
Mississippi Statewide
Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)
Five domains (weighted equally)
20 Standards
1.
Planning
Four levels of effectiveness:
2.
Assessment
1.
Unsatisfactory
3.
Instruction
2.
Emerging
4.
Learning Environment
3.
Effective
5.
Professional Responsibilities
4.
Distinguished
13
A teacher’s summative rating is based on two components:
Professional Practice and Student Outcomes.
M-STAR
30%
Student
Outcomes
50%
PGGs
20%
0
Professional Practice: 50%
M-STAR: 30%
– 2 formal observations
– 5 informal observations
(walkthroughs)
Professional Growth Goals: 20%
– Self-evaluate, receive feedback,
and progress toward goals
Student Outcomes: 50%
Individual Growth
– State tested areas
OR
Student Learning Objectives
– Non-tested areas
AND
School-wide Growth
– Tested and Non-tested
14
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
15
Scoring Process
 Teachers will receive a rating (on a point scale) for each
standard
 4 points
 3 points
 2 points
 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.
16
M-STAR Ratings
A teacher’s performance will be appraised in accordance
with a four-level rating scale:

Level 4 Distinguished: indicates that the teacher’s
performance consistently exceeds expectations.

Level 3 Effective: indicates that the teacher’s performance
meets expectations.

Level 2 Emerging: indicates that the teacher’s performance
inconsistently meets expectations.

Level 1 Unsatisfactory: indicates that the teacher’s
performance does not meet expectations.
17
Example: Summative
Observation Rating
Domain
I: Planning
Domain
Score
Weight Weighted
Rating
2.75
x
.20
.55
II: Assessment
4
x
.20
.80
III: Instruction
2.5
x
.20
.50
IV: Learning Environment
3.5
x .20
.70
V: Professional Responsibilities
2.5
x .20
.50
Summative Classroom Observation Rating
3.05
(2.75 + 4 + 2.5 + 3.5 + 2.5)
5
18
MS Teacher Evaluation System
Implementation Timeline
Pilot Implementation (TIF)
2011 - 2012
Statewide Training on New System
July 2012 – July 2013
Field Test the System
2013 - 2014
Full Implementation
2014 - 2015
19
M-STAR
TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP
RESPONSES
PRE-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE
Teachers
• Clear expectations for both
teachers and principals
• Specific, timely feedback
• Principal awareness of what will
occur in the classroom
• Teacher/principal communication
• Necessity of teacher preparation
• Focus on teacher’s strengths and
weaknesses
• Teacher self-reflection
• Prior identification of potential
problems
Principals
• Clear expectations for both
teachers and principals
• Opportunity for open dialogue
• Information on what
administrators want to observe
• Easing of teachers’ anxieties
• Relationship building with
teachers
• Opportunity for knowledge
gathering
• Alerting of principals to special
circumstances
20
M-STAR
TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES
POST-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE
Teachers
• Immediate, timely feedback
• Dialogue on strengths and areas of
improvement
• Opportunity for professional
development and improvement
plans
• Self-reflection
• Teacher explanations of classroom
activities (planned and unplanned)
Principals
• Feedback on strengths and areas
of challenges
• Teacher reflection
• Open dialogue
• Provision of accommodations and
recommendations for
improvement
• Relationship building
• Teacher input regarding
professional development needs
• Time for teacher/administration
collaboration
• Opportunity for coaching and
21
professional learning
The ultimate goal
of M-STAR is…
TO IMPROVE
TEACHING
AND
LEARNING!
22
mstar@mde.k12.ms.us
23