Teacher Evaluation and Development in the Common Core Era ASCD Annual Conference March 16, 2014 Los Angeles, California Charlotte Danielson The Danielson Group

Where It All Began -- Summer 2009

A Question of Fairness

Teacher Hiring, Transfer and Evaluation in Los Angeles Unified School District, The New Teacher Project, November 2009

Why Assess Teacher Effectiveness?

•  Ensure teacher quality •  Promote professional learning

Teacher Evaluation System Design High Rigor

Low ←---------------------------------------

Low Rigor

Level of Stakes -------------------→High

Teacher Evaluation System Design High Rigor Structured Mentoring Programs, e.g. New Teacher Center

Low ←---------------------------------------

Informal Mentoring Programs Traditional Evaluation Systems Low Rigor

National Board Certification Praxis III

Level of Stakes -------------------→High

DANGER!!

Getting it “Right” …What Does This Mean?

•  Technically defensible

- clear definition of practice - validated instrument - trained and certified evaluators - psychometrically valid

•  Professionally

defensible - “We’re not going to fire our way to Finland” - systems that promote learning

Establishing Validity of the Framework for Teaching Three Important studies:

•  Chicago pilot evaluation study, conducted by CCSR •  The MET study, funded by the Gates Foundation •  The Cincinnati study, conducted by Eric Taylor and John Tyler

Correlation Between Observation Ratings and VAM (CCSR)

Results: •  Ratings explained a significant portion of variation in VAM in reading and math •  Relationship stronger in reading than in math •  Teachers with high observation ratings had high VAMs (and viceversa)

Key Findings From the CCSR Study on Professional Conversation Principals and teachers thought the conferences they had about instruction were: •  More reflective than those they had using the CPS checklist •  Based on a shared language about instructional practice and improvement •  Evidence-based, which reduced subjectivity . However, the quality of the conversations could be improved because they were: •  Dominated by principal talk •  Driven by low-level questions

•  Principals identified the need for additional training in this area

MET Results Underscore Accuracy For Feedback On a 4 point scale 88.3% of teachers were a 2 or a 3! Correlations with alternate assessments for FfT much higher than for state assessments 15-minute observations as reliable as 45-minute observations Student perceptions highly correlated with VAM

MET Results

MET: Numbers of Observations & Accuracy

A Third Important Study: Eric Taylor and John Tyler, Cincinnati

•  Studied mid-career teachers, evaluated by classroom observation

•  Evaluators were principals and teacher evaluators; they were trained and required to demonstrate accuracy in observation

•  Compared the achievement of teachers’ students before, during, and after the year of evaluation

•  Evaluation instrument based on the Danielson Framework for Teaching

Student Growth Relative to Year of Teacher’s Evaluation

Number of Teachers

Accountability is Not Enough

Teacher Effectiveness

Defining Effective Teaching Two basic approaches:

•  Teacher practices, that is, what teachers do, how well they do the work of teaching

•  Results, that is, what teachers accomplish, typically how well their students learn

The Complexity of Teaching

“After 30 years of doing such work, I have concluded that classroom teaching … is perhaps the most complex, most challenging, and most demanding, subtle, nuanced, and frightening activity that our species has ever invented. ..The only time a physician could possibly encounter a situation of comparable complexity would be in the emergency room of a hospital during or after a natural disaster” Lee Shulman, The Wisdom of Practice

Defining What Teachers Do: The Four Domains

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Domain 3: Instruction Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

The Framework for Teaching Domain 1: Planning and Preparation • Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy • Demonstrating Knowledge of Students • Setting Instructional Outcomes • Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources • Designing Coherent Instruction • Designing Student Assessments

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment • Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport • Establishing a Culture for Learning • Managing Classroom Procedures • Managing Student Behavior • Organizing Physical Space

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities • Reflecting on Teaching • Maintaining Accurate Records • Communicating with Families • Participating in a Professional Community • Growing and Developing Professionally • Showing Professionalism

Domain 3: Instruction • Communicating With Students • Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques • Engaging Students in Learning • Using Assessment in Instruction • Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

Evolution of the Framework for Teaching

Teacher Evaluation Meets the Common Core: One View

Teacher Evaluation Meets the Common Core: Another View

•  Two parallel initiatives, both enormous

•  Independent demands, timelines, pressures

•  Educators forced to make a

decision as to which initiative to focus on

Teacher Evaluation Meets the Common Core: A Third View: Merging The Two Important Initiatives This involves:

•  Understanding the content challenges of the CCSS

•  Considering the instructional implications of the CCSS

•  Creating a version of the FfT that reflects teaching to the CCSS

Teaching the Core: Supported by a Grant from The Helmsley Charitable Trust The project has involved training observers on both the FfT and the Instructional Practice Guides, created by Student Achievement Partners Questions we’re trying to answer: 1.  When

observers watch lessons using either/both the FfT (2013) and the IP Guides, do they detect relevant information with the IP Guides that is not discernible with the FfT?

2.  How

can (should?) the FfT be modified so it captures important evidence found when observers use the IP Guides?

Those Questions Are Not Sufficient

•  Initially, we thought the project was answering questions about the instrument (fft 2013)

•  It’s not just about the instrument. That is, we can’t answer

that question without answering some others: - used by whom (generalist principal, specialist)? - used for what purpose (evaluation, coaching on CCSS)? - what is the level of content and pedagogical content knowledge of the user?

•  Is one instrument sufficient, or is there a need for multiple, discipline-specific tools? If so, how many of them are needed?

The “Big Ideas” of the CCSS (in all disciplines) These concepts have always been part of the Framework for Teaching:

•  Intellectual rigor and reasoning •  Precision in thought and language •  Analysis and development of logical arguments based on evidence

•  Conceptual understanding and application •  Strategic thinking •  Hard work and resilience •  Student independence and responsibility for learning

The Integration of the CCSS into The Framework for Teaching Domain 1: Planning and Preparation •  Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy •  Demonstrating Knowledge of Students •  Setting Instructional Outcomes •  Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources •  Designing Coherent Instruction •  Designing Student Assessments

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment •  Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport •  Establishing a Culture for Learning •  Managing Classroom Procedures •  Managing Student Behavior •  Organizing Physical Space

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities •  Reflecting on Teaching •  Maintaining Accurate Records •  Communicating with Families •  Participating in a Professional Community •  Growing and Developing Professionally •  Showing Professionalism

Domain 3: Instruction •  Communicating With Students •  Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques •  Engaging Students in Learning •  Using Assessment in Instruction •  Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

Challenges in Integrating the CCSS and the FfT

•  Curriculum work:

- ensuring that the year’s units and lessons accommodate all the learning outcomes of that year - recommending texts that lend themselves to the analysis called for in the ELA/literacy standards - incorporating high-quality informational text into science and social studies lessons

•  Depth of teacher subject knowledge •  Students’ possession of essential knowledge/skills/cognitive structures for grade-level work

•  Teacher skill in teaching for conceptual understanding, argumentation

•  Capacity of supervisors to recognize/promote rigorous learning across disciplines

Our Current Thinking

•  Make (slight) revisions as needed to the 2013 fft for use by principals/evaluators in a comprehensive evaluation of practice

•  Recommend that this instrument be used for discharging the HR requirements of evaluation

•  Produce smaller, discipline- and level-specific tools for use by teachers, mentors, and coaches for use to promote professional learning in Common Core teaching.

A System for Teacher Evaluation and Professional Growth