Kettle Run Faculty Meeting

1. Developing a New Teacher
Evaluation System:
Faculty Meetings 2011

2. Developing a New Teacher*
Evaluation System:
AGENDA GOALS:
1. To introduce the new state standards for
teaching performance: why? what?
2. To review Fauquier County’s response to the
state requirements and its implementation
process.
*Counselor, Librarian, Specialists, &
Administrators will follow this process.

3. Why New Standards Now?
• STATE: State’s response to legislative mandate
and state revision of 2000 standards:
The new guidelines and standards will become effective on July 1, 2012…
The Code of Virginia requires (1) that teacher evaluations be consistent
with the performance objectives (standards) included in the Board of
Education’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation
Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents and (2) that
school boards shall develop procedures in evaluating instructional
personnel that address student academic progress….
• FAUQUIER COUNTY: It’s time. Current FCPS
evaluation program was developed in 1999 and
passed by the school board in 2001.

4. WHY TEACHERS?
Teachers matter most.
• “Teacher effectiveness is THE most significant
school-related variable impacting student learning
outcomes” (Hattie, 2009).
• Studies have found that as much as a 30 percentile
point difference in student achievement in math
and English can be attributed to the quality of
teaching over an academic year.

5. The Studies
Student Achievement Accounted for by Teacher Effects
Approximate Variability in Student
Study Achievement Explained by Teacher
Effectiveness
Goldhaber (2002) 8.5 percent
Heistad (1999) 9.2 percent
Nye, Konstantopoulos, &
7-21 percent
Hedges (2004)
Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain
15 percent
(2005)
Munoz & Chang (2007) 14 percent

6. Teachers Make A Difference
Catherine Snow (1991). Unfulfilled Expectations. Harvard University Press
PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHO ACHIEVE SUCCESS
WITH VARYING LEVELS OF
HOME AND CLASSROOM SUPPORT
HIGH HOME LOW HOME SUPPORT
SUPPORT
HIGH CLASSROOM 100% 100%
SUPPORT
MIXED CLASSROOM 100% 25%
SUPPORT
LOW CLASSROOM 60% 0%
SUPPORT

7. Comparative Impact of Effective Versus
Ineffective Primary Grade Teachers
Comparative Impact of Effective Versus Ineffective
Primary Grade Teachers
Comparative Impact on Student
Teacher Effectiveness Level
Achievement
Reading: 25th vs. 75th percentile teacher +0.35 Standard Deviation
Math: 25th vs. 75th percentile teacher +0.48 Standard Deviation
Reading: 50th vs. 90th percentile teacher +0.33 Standard Deviation
Math: 50th vs. 90th percentile teacher +0.46 Standard Deviation
Note: To illustrate the conversion of a standard deviation into percentiles, if a student started at the 50th
percentile on a pre-test and her performance increased by 0.50 standard deviation on the post-test, the
student would have a score at approximately the 67th percentile -- a gain of 17 percentile points.
Stronge, J. H. (2010a), p. 19.

8. What will change?
BOTTOM LINE.
CURRENT STANDARDS – FIVE (5)
(1) classroom environment; (2) planning & assessing instruction; (3)
implementing instruction; (4) communication; (5) professionalism
NEW STANDARDS – SEVEN (7)
(1) professional knowledge (2) instructional planning (3)
instructional delivery (4) assessment of and for student learning (5)
learning environment (6) professionalism (7) student academic
progress

9. Another Change: Rating Scale
• CURRENT “SCALE” FOR FINAL EVALUATION
– Meets Expectations
– Needs Improvement
• NEW SCALE FOR FINAL EVALUATION
– Rating scale of four (4) levels (state guidelines)
– Example in guidelines:
• (4) Exemplary (3) Proficient
• (2) Needs Improvement (1) Unacceptable

10. A CLOSER LOOK AT
THE 7 STANDARDS
(1) professional knowledge
(2) instructional planning
(3) instructional delivery
(4) assessment of and for student learning
(5) learning environment
(6) professionalism
(7) student academic progress

11. BIG QUESTIONS
Questions that have emerged in the research and in
discussions with teachers and administrators
• Even with these bottom line changes, will (should) the
evaluation process be “business-as-usual”?
• If not, how might we improve our process?
• Is it possible to make the evaluation process more
meaningful for teachers? Will the teacher be able to
contribute to the development of his/her own
evaluation? (TEACHER VOICE)
ability to make choices about focus for
evaluation; ability to provide evidence; ability to
provide “context” about classes.

12. BIG QUESTIONS (CONT’D)
• Will a new process address some of the standard
problems with teacher evaluation (e.g., THE “ONE
SNAPSHOT” PHENOMENON)?
• What does the standard “student academic progress”
mean to the teacher and daily practice?
• Is it possible to make the evaluation process more
meaningful and less cumbersome (for principals)?
• How do we give this opportunity our best shot?
– Why not “try-on” the new standards before they are
required?
– Why not try-out several implementation approaches in a
real-time context?

13. “Trying-On and Trying-Out “
TEACHER EVALUATION
FIELD TEST PROCESS
September 2011 – May 2012

14. Our Field Test Guiding Principles
• Participatory
– Include teachers in the process; provide opportunities
for many voices
• Purposeful
– Look at evaluation approaches that have meaning for
real classroom experiences…that acknowledge value
of assessment but go beyond one-time test
scores…that keep student learning in focus
• Patient
– Make this a true search; ask questions; take risks,
make corrections; allow for errors and revisions

15. Field Test Participants
• Six Schools: Smith, Mary Walter,
Coleman, Auburn, Cedar Lee, and
Kettle Run
• 3-5 teachers from each of these
schools

16. Field Test Participants:
Excellent Teachers and Cross-Section of FCPS Teaching Staff
• Kindergarten • English
• 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th • Mathematics
• Special Education • Advanced Placement
• 6th, 7th, 8th • Fine Arts
• Science • Physical Education
• CTE (Tech. Education) • Reading
• History and Social
Science

17. The teachers….
• Meet to set/clarify goals based on 7 standards.
• Teach as always.
• Collect evidence to support each standard (some
standards may have more emphasis than others)
• Receive new summative evaluation based on 7
standards.
• Share experiences; suggest changes and additions
to the process (ease of use? practicality? vocabulary?
respectful?)

18. How do teachers “collect evidence”?
• The Evidence Log
• Teachers will include lists of activities,
artifacts, charts, admin. feedback, tests that
demonstrate meeting the standard
Instructional Planning a unit plan
Instructional Delivery student survey(s)
Student Academic Progress pre & post test of a unit

19. The principals….
• Meet to set/clarify goals based on 7 standards.
• Supervise instruction as always.
• Provide teacher observation feedback to support
one or more standard
• Conduct summative evaluation based on 7
standards.
• Share experiences; suggest changes and additions
to the process (ease of use? practicality? vocabulary?
respectful?)

20. What we want to accomplish
through the field-testing
• To make our evaluation process better
• To see if we can find a feasible way to give teachers
more voice in their own evaluation
• To see if we can reduce the “one snapshot” effect
• To see if we can create a process that will favorably
impact student learning
• To see if we can create a process that encourages
teacher & administrative reflection
• To “try-on” the standards with practicing teachers &
administrators –in a real context
• To “try-out” a process – in a real context

21. How Can You Participate?
• Review standards and definitions with your
colleagues
• Ask how might you demonstrate the meeting
of the standards ---- your choice.
• Share your ideas or questions through
survey. (Sent to you next week.)

22. QUESTIONS?
“Teachers matter most. The quality of an education
system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.”
(Barber and Mourshed, 2007, p. iii in Stronge (2011), Why Teachers
Matter Most.)

23. “Trying-On and Trying-Out “
TEACHER EVALUATION
September 2011 – May 2012