TEAM Evaluation Model Overview
Zachary Rossley, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Data and
Research Division, Tennessee Department of Education
Evaluation closely links with Common Core
Student Readiness for
Postsecondary Education
and the Workforce
WHY we teach
Common Core State
Standards provide a
vision of excellence
for WHAT we teach
TEAM provides a
vision of excellence
for HOW we teach
2
We will measure our success
by our progress on NAEP,
ACT, and PARCC
Tennessee
We aim to be the fastest improving state in the
country by 2015
3
And we will continue to close achievement gaps as
we grow overall achievement
Growth for all students, every year
and
Faster growth for those students who are
furthest behind
4
Tennessee’s students are struggling to compete
with their peers in other states
Subject/ Grade
Level
Tennessee’s %
Proficient/Advanced
National
Rank
Southeast
Rank
4th Grade
Reading
26%
41st
8th of 10
4th Grade
Math
30%
46th
8th of 10
8th Grade
Reading
27%
41st
7th of 10
8th Grade
Math
24%
45th
7th of 10
2011 NAEP data
5
However, we have seen continued growth on TCAP
3-8 Achievement results over the past two years
Percent of students proficient and advanced
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
2009-10
40%
2010-11
2011-12
30%
20%
10%
0%
Math
Reading
Science
3-8 Results by Subject
6
Origin of the TEAM rubric
TDOE partnered with NIET to adapt their rubric for use in
Tennessee.
The NIET rubric is based on research and best practices from multiple sources. In
addition to the research from Charlotte Danielson and other prominent researchers,
NIET reviewed instructional guidelines and standards developed by numerous national
and state teacher standards organizations. From this information they developed a
comprehensive set of standards for teacher evaluation and development.
The work reviewed included guidelines and standards developed by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)
The National Board for Professional Teacher Standards
Massachusetts' Principles for Effective Teaching
California's Standards for the Teaching Profession
Connecticut's Beginning Educator Support Program, and
The New Teacher Center's Developmental Continuum of Teacher Abilities.
7
Components of Evaluation:
Tested Grades and Subjects
 Qualitative includes:
 Observations in planning,
environment, and
instruction
 Professionalism rubric
 Quantitative includes:
 Growth measure
 TVAAS or comparable
measure
 Achievement measure
 Goal set by teacher and
evaluator
8
Components of Evaluation:
Non-tested Grades and Subjects
 Qualitative includes:
 Observations in planning,
environment, and
instruction
 Professionalism rubric
 Quantitative includes:
 Growth measure
 TVAAS or comparable
measure
 Achievement measure
 Goal set by teacher and
evaluator
9
Rubrics
 General Educator
 Library Media Specialist
 School Services Personnel
 School Audiologist PreK-12
 School Counselor PreK-12
 School Social Worker PreK-12
 School Psychologist PreK-12
 Speech/Language Therapist
 May be used at the discretion of LEA for other educators who do not have direct
instructional contact with students, such as instructional coaches who work with
teachers.
10
Domains
Environment
Instruction
Planning
Professionalism
11
Planning Domain
Instructional Plans
Student Work
Assessment
12
Environment Domain
Managing Student Behavior
Expectations
Environment
Respectful Culture
13
Instruction Domain
Standards & Objectives
Academic Feedback
Motivating Students
Grouping Students
Presenting Instructional Content
Teacher Content Knowledge
Lesson Structure & Pacing
Teacher Knowledge of Students
Activities & Materials
Thinking
Questioning
Problem-Solving
14
Professionalism Domain
Professional Growth and Learning
Use of Data
School and Community Involvement
Leadership
15
Evaluation Process
 Initial Coaching Conversation
• Required for teachers who received an overall effectiveness rating or
individual growth score of 1 in the previous year
 Pre-Conference
 Classroom Visit
Repeat as needed depending
on number of required
observations
 Post-Conference
 Professionalism Scoring
 Summative Conference
16
Suggested Pacing
17
Observation Guidance Documents
 Educator groups convened by TDOE to provide additional
information for evaluators to inform evaluation using SSP rubric
 Observation guidance documents were created for the following
educator groups:
GENERAL EDUCATOR RUBRIC
SCHOOL SERVICES PERSONNEL RUBRIC
Early Childhood
School Counselors
Special Education
School Audiologists
Career and Technical Education (CTE)
Speech/Language Pathologists (SLP)
Online Teaching
School Social Workers (SSW)
Alternative Educators
Vision Specialists
School Psychologists
18
Growth Measure Overview
 State law currently requires value-added (or a comparable growth
measure) to count as 35% of the total evaluation score.
 For teachers in state tested grades/subjects, the 35% growth
component is their individual TVAAS score.
 For fine arts teachers in districts that have opted-in to this model,
this will be their portfolio score.
 For teachers without an individual growth measure, this will be a
school-, district-, or state-wide TVAAS score that comprises 25%.
 Additional measures for non-tested grades/subjects are in
development.
19
15% Achievement Measure
 The 15% measure based on a yearly goal set by the educator and
his/her evaluator that is measured by current year data.
 To make the 15% meaningful, the evaluator and educator work
together to identify a measure.
 Evaluator’s decision takes precedent over the educator’s if there is a
disagreement.
 The selection and goal-setting process involves determining which
measure most closely aligns to the educator’s job responsibilities
and the school’s goals.
20
Key Changes From Year 1
 Targeted support for schools
 Differentiated observations based on performance
 Including special education students in individual growth scores
 Reducing the weight of growth for non-tested teachers
 More choices for individual growth scores
21
Key Changes Upcoming
 More rigorous evaluator training and certification process
 Mild revisions to teacher evaluation rubric
 Administrator evaluation process fixes
 Administrator evaluation rubric revision underway
22
Top Five Lessons Learned
1. Principal time demands are real
2. High-quality evaluation demands highly skilled observers
3. Balance pressure points with strong supports
4. Data is KING
5. Best practice is best practice at every level: implement, get
feedback, study and improve
23
Resources
E-mail:
 Questions: Team.Questions@tn.gov
 Feedback: Luke.kohlmoos@tn.gov
Websites:
 CODE Data System: https://code-education.com/tennesseebpc/
 NIET Best Practices Portal: Portal with hours of video and
professional development resources. www.nietbestpractices.org
 TEAM website: www.team-tn.org
 Weekly TEAM Updates
24