EDUCATOR
EFFECTIVENESS:
An Orientation for Principals
and Assistant Principals
1
The purpose of the Wisconsin
Educator Effectiveness System is to
help educators grow as professionals
in order to increase student learning.
2
The Educator Effectiveness System in
Wisconsin
• DPI has established minimum expectations for
educator evaluation.
• Districts have the authority to add to the
system requirements but cannot do less (i.e. A
district could require 2 SLOs each year)
• There are aspects of the EE System that are
left to local discretion (Which educators fit the
definition of teacher)
3
Who is in Which Year of the Cycle?
Supporting Year 1?
Supporting Year2?
Summary Year?
4
Continuous Improvement Using
Multiple Measures
Practice
Outcomes
Changing Our Thinking…
TRADITIONAL EVALUATION
• If you are good at
something, it isn’t hard
• You set goals to
“demonstrate” your
strengths and abilities
• Struggles or challenges
demonstrate weakness
WI EE
• The path to mastery is hard
• Educators set goals to focus their
improvement efforts
• From the most novice to the most
expert, everyone can improve
some aspect of their practice
6
THE EFFECTIVENESS
CYCLE
7
First year, and every third year after
MULTIPLE
MEASURES
9
Balancing Multiple Measures
A Summary
based on
evidence of
Educator
Practice
A Summary
based on
evidence of
Student
Outcomes
Educator Practices
The Educator Practices Summary is comprised
of scores for each of the components in the
Wisconsin Framework for Principal Leadership.
12
Assistant Principal Evaluation Components
1.1.3 and 1.2.5 are added if an
Assistant Principal evaluates teachers
13
Required Principal Observations
Announced School Visit
Observation (no specified
length)
*School Sampling
Visits
*School Sampling
Visits
+
*School Sampling Visits are less formal opportunities for the principal’s
evaluator to get a sense of the normal flow of the school day and observe the
principal in their varied roles.
Collecting Evidence of Practice
• Evidence can be collected through scheduled
observations and school visits as well as
through other sources such as interviews,
surveys, or artifacts as determined during the
planning session.
• A list of possible artifacts linked to
subdomains and components can be found in
Appendix C of the Principal Process Manual.
15
What is an Artifact?
• A source of evidence used to document
effectiveness at the component level
• Some artifacts will provide evidence for
multiple components
• Evaluators will use the rubric to identify the
performance level that best matches the
evidence of practice within the artifact that has
been uploaded
16
A Few Considerations…
• Is there value in aligning some of your artifacts?
(PD you led or organized related to an element of
the School Improvement Plan and schedule of
walk-throughs used to monitor implementation).
• When does an artifact become evidence? If I
upload a certificate from a conference…what
does it prove? Consider the value of a short
reflection to give meaning to an artifact.
17
.
Outcomes
School Learning Objectives (SLOs)
• 1 SLO
• Educator self-approves and scores in all
years.
• SLO is part of the EEP
Creating the SLO Score
Educators self-scores his/her SLO annually
using the Revised SLO Scoring Rubric.
The rubric contains 2 criteria: one related to
results (Did students meet the goals you set?)
and one related to process (Did you engage fully
in the SLO process?).
SLO Quality Indicators
Baseline Data and Rationale
The educator used multiple data sources to complete a thorough review of student
achievement data, including subgroup analysis.
The data analysis supports the rationale for the SLO goal.
The baseline data indicates the individual starting point for each student included in the
target population.
Alignment
The SLO is aligned to specific content standards representing the critical content for
learning within a grade-level and subject area.
The standards identified are appropriate and aligned to support the area(s) of need and
the student population identified in baseline data.
The SLO is stated as a SMART goal.
Student Population
The student population identified in the goal(s) reflects the results of the data analysis.
Targeted Growth
Growth trajectories reflect appropriate gains for students, based on identified starting
points or benchmark levels.
Growth goals are rigorous, yet attainable.
Targeted growth is revisited based on progress monitoring data and adjusted if needed.
Interval
The interval is appropriate given the SLO goal.
The interval reflects the duration of time the target student population is with the
educator.
Mid-point checks are planned, data is reviewed, and revisions to the goal are made if
necessary.
Mid-point revisions are based on strong rationale and evidence supporting the
Reflections/Feedback/ Notes for
Improvement
SLO SCORING RUBRIC
Score Criteria
4
Student growth for SLO(s) has
exceeded the goal(s).
Educator engaged in a comprehensive,
data-driven SLO process that resulted
in exceptional student growth.
3
2
1
Description (not exhaustive)
Evidence indicates the targeted population’s growth
exceeded the expectations described in the goal.
Student growth for SLO(s) has met
goal(s).
Educator set rigorous superior goal(s); skillfully used
appropriate assessments; continuously monitored progress;
strategically revised instruction based on progress
monitoring data.
Evidence indicates the targeted population met the
expectations described in the goal.
Educator engaged in a data-driven SLO
process that resulted in student
growth.
Student growth for SLO(s) has partially
met the goal(s).
Educator set attainable goal(s); used appropriate
assessments; monitored progress; adjusted instruction
based on progress monitoring data.
Evidence indicates the targeted population partially met
expectations described in the goal.
Educator engaged in a SLO process that
resulted in inconsistent student
growth.
Student growth for SLO(s) has not met
the goal(s).
Educator set a goal; used assessments; inconsistently
monitored progress; inconsistently or inappropriately
adjusted instruction.
Evidence indicates the targeted population has not met the
expectations described in the goal.
• Using the Revised SLO Scoring Rubric, the
evaluator will assign a holistic score
(based on a 1-4 scale) after considering
all SLOs.
• Score is based on the preponderance of
evidence from documentation.
In the typical, 3 year Effectiveness Cycle, the educator will have
three SLO processes that inform the final holistic score:
Educators in the Summary Year this year (our first official year of
implementation) will only have one SLO process that informs
your final holistic score at the end of the 14-15 year:
Turn and Talk
• What have you heard that’s new?
• What questions do you still have?
26
SUMMARIZING THE
EFFECTIVENESS
CYCLE
27
Final Effectiveness Summary
At the conclusion of the Summary Year, the
evaluator determines a score for each Principal
Framework component and also determines one
holistic SLO score.
Reporting Scores
The component scores (practice) and the holistic
SLO score (outcome) are uploaded by
Teachscape to DPI’s WISEdash secure, where
only the educator and his or her administrators
will be able to view the results.
Final Effectiveness Summary
Within WISEdash, the scores for the
components are combined to result in a final
Educator Practices Summary.
The holistic SLO score, the Reading/Graduation
Rate score, and Principal Value-Added score
(when available) are combined to result in a
final Student Outcomes Summary.
Practice Summary
Principals:
• Component scores averaged = Practice Summary
Outcomes Summary
•
•
•
•
Individual measure scores weighted proportionally
Weighted scores added together
Summary rounded to nearest decimal on scale of 1-4
Example:
Principal
SLO = 3.0 x .5 = 1.5
Value-Added = 3.0 x .475 = 1.425
School-wide Reading = 3.0 x .05 = .15
OUTCOME SUMMARY = 1.5 + 1.425 + .15 = 3.075
Effectiveness Summary Graph
Summary Year Overview and Timeline
34
Turn and Talk
• What are the similarities and differences
between the Supporting Years and the Summary
Year?
35
Our Effectiveness Coaches
• Who they are
• How they can help
36
Local Talking Points: Has your district
discussed…
• setting parameters for the number of artifacts an
educator may upload?
• the number of Sampling School Visits (mandated range is
2-3) and whether or not one or more will happen in the
Supporting Years?
• whether principals will be directed to write School
Learning Objectives that align to district goals?
• whether teachers will be directed to write Student
Learning Objectives that align to school or district goals?
• what is an artifact?
• Whether you will ask for any aligned artifacts?
• The structure, process, documentation of peer review
37
What is Next?
• View the first Module for Step 4
• Attend additional Teachscape training
opportunities
• Complete “Beginning of the Year” activities
38
CESA #4
Educator Effectiveness Support
Billie Finco
Sherri Torkelson
608-786-4830
bfinco@cesa4.k12.wi.us
608-786-4855
storkelson@cesa4.k12.wi.us
Want to get all the latest information and updates or just
ask a question? Join the CESA #4 Educator Effectiveness
Google+ Community:
http://bit.ly/CESA4EE
39
For more information and resources related to
the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System,
please visit the WIEE website at:
ee.dpi.wi.gov
40