1

Teacher Evaluation: Where Policy and Practice Meet

Facilitated by Mary Jane Morris, Instructional Professional

Development Director, IEA/CEI and

Jim Tammen, UniServ Director, IEA/NEA

2

SB0315 and RTTT MOU Evaluation

CHANGES TO EVALUATION SB0315 (Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010) and RTTT MOU Highlights

Phased-in timeline for implementation of student growth in teacher evaluation o Accelerated timeline for RTTT districts (2012-2013) o Accelerated timeline for low performing schools in RTTT districts (2011-2012) o Lowest performing 20% of non-RTTT districts (2015-2016) o Remaining non-RTTT districts (2016-2017)

In RTTT districts, at least 50% of the teacher evaluation based on student growth; in non-RTTT districts, up to 50%, unless no agreement reached, then 50%

Use of “Danielson” or comparable framework

In RTTT districts, ISAT/PSAE can’t be only growth measurement; in non-RTTT districts, ISAT/PSAE not used, but new state assessments to be developed may be 1 of several measures

4 rating categories (includes Excellent, Proficient, new “Needs Improvement” and Unsatisfactory) by no later than 9/1/12

1-year formative evaluation for tenured teacher receiving “needs improvement” rating by no later than 9/1/12

In RTTT districts, use student growth evaluations to inform tenure and dismissal decisions

Evaluator pre-qualification and training program

School climate surveys -- provide feedback to principals on instructional environment

Implemented only if State systems and adequate and sustainable funding in place.

Section 5 Findings

Effective teachers and school leaders are critical factor to student achievement.

Recent study of evaluation systems is evidence of existing district performance evaluations fail to meet

adequately distinguish between effective and ineffective teachers and principals.

o Widget Effect – New Teacher Project

Performance evaluation must assess professional competencies as well as student growth.

School district and the State must ensure evaluation systems are valid and reliable and contribute to staff

development and student achievement.

105 ILCS 5/24A- 2.5 (New) Definitions

“Evaluator” = An administrator or other individuals qualified to evaluate section 24A.

Peer evaluation, but only with local agreement.

May use bargaining unit department chairs, but only if local agrees.

105 ILCS 5/24A- 2.5 (New) Implementation Date of Student Growth Evaluation

300 Chicago Public Schools by September 1, 2012; the rest by September 1, 2013.

Districts outside of Chicago Public Schools

o Those receiving a RTTT grant or SIP Grant will be the date specified in the grant;

April 2010 SB315 Teacher Evaluation Overview

3

SB0315 and RTTT MOU Evaluation

o Those in the lowest performing 20% of remaining districts by September 1, 2015; and

o For all other school districts by September 1, 2016.

105 ILCS 5/24A-3 Evaluator Training and Pre-qualification

Prior to September 1, 2012, a requirement of all evaluators to attend at least one in-service training on “the

evaluations of certified personnel” by an ISBE approved provider in each certificate cycle.

On/after September 1, 2012 each evaluator must first successfully complete a pre-qualification program

provided or approved by ISBE and retraining during every certificate renewal cycle.

105 ILCS 5/24A-4 Plan Development

The substance (criteria) of teacher evaluations under IELRA is not a mandatory subject of bargaining but is

permissive; however, evaluation procedures are mandatory subjects.

Each school district shall develop, in cooperation with its teachers or, where applicable, the exclusive

bargaining representatives of its teachers, an evaluation plan for all teachers. Must incorporate the use of

data and indicators of student growth as a significant factor in rating teacher performance for all tenured and

non-tenured teachers.

Must address such components as: what and how many measures of student growth will be used; what their

weight will be; what mitigating factors will be taken in consideration; what criteria other than student growth

will be included; and weighted value.

Must include a description of each teacher’s duties and responsibilities and the expected standards to

conform.

Meet standards for teacher growth, e.g., Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching.

Use of a joint committee composed of equal representation selected by the district and its teachers or,

where applicable, the exclusive bargaining representative of its teachers.

Within 180 calendar days of the committee’s first meeting, if an agreement is not reached on the plan, then

the district shall implement the “model” student growth evaluation plan established by the State with

respect to those components on which agreement not reached.

105 ILCS 5/24A-5 Content of Evaluation Plan By no later than September 1, 2012

Each non-contractual continued service (non-tenured) teacher is evaluated at least once every year.

Each teacher in a contractual continued service (tenured) is evaluated at least once every 2 school years.

o If a teacher is rated as “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” must be evaluated at least once in

the school year following the receipt of such a rating.

Principal new to a building can evaluate any teachers within a school during their 1st year as principal.

Within 30 school days after the completion of a tenured teacher evaluation with a rating of “needs

improvement,” a professional development plan will be developed directed by the areas indicated for

improvement.

April 2010 SB315 Teacher Evaluation Overview

4

SB0315 and RTTT MOU Evaluation

90-day remediation period for tenured teacher who receives “unsatisfactory evaluation can be shortened in

the CBA.

Evaluations during remediation period will occur at mid-point and end of the period, with written copy with

deficiencies and recommendations for correction provided within 10 days.

105 ILCS 5/24A-7 (New) Rules Measuring student growth

ISBE authorized to adopt such rules which, among other things:

o relate to the methods for measuring student growth (including but not limited to, limitations on the

age of useable data; the amount of data needed to reliably and validly measure growth for

evaluation purposes and what and when State assessments may be used as one of multiple measures

of student growth (current ISAT/PSAE not to be used)),

o permit CPS to use State assessments, including current ISAT/PSAE, as the sole measure of student

growth,

o define the term “significant factor” for purposes of including consideration of student growth in

performance ratings,

o control for such factors as student characteristics (including, but not limited to, students receiving

special education and English Language Learner services), student attendance, and student mobility

so as to best measure impact that a teacher, principal, school and school district has on students’

academic achievement,

o establish minimum requirements for district teacher and principal evaluation instruments and

procedures,

o establish a model evaluation plan for use by school districts in which student growth comprises 50%

of the performance rating.

Rules shall be developed through a process involving collaboration with the Performance Evaluation Advisory

Council (PEAC), whose members shall include, without limitation, representatives of IEA and IFT, school

district management, persons with expertise in performance evaluation processes and systems, as well as

other stakeholders.

105 ILCS 5/24A-7.1 (New) Teacher, Principal and Superintendent Performance Evaluations

Disclosure of public school teacher, principal and superintendent performance evaluations is prohibited,

except as otherwise permitted by the new evaluation law.

105 ILCS 5/24A-15 Principal Evaluation Plan

Development of a written principal evaluation plan to be effective no later than September 1, 2012.

A single year contract, the evaluation take place by March 1 of each year.

Multi-year contact by March 1 of the final year of the contract.

On and after September 1, 2012 the plan must use the same rating as the teacher scale.

Ensure each principal is evaluated at least once every school year.

Include a description of the principal’s duties and responsibilities and the expected standards to which the

principal is to conform.

April 2010 SB315 Teacher Evaluation Overview

5

SB0315 and RTTT MOU Evaluation

Performed by the district superintendent or designee or an individual appointed by the school board who

holds a type 75 certificate.

Must provide for the use of data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating

performance.

Use of one or more instrument to provide feedback to principals on the instructional environment within a

school by the use of school climate surveys.

Specify the principal’s strengths and weaknesses with supporting reasons.

Align with research-based standards established by administrative rule.

105 ILCS 5/24A-20 (New) State Board of Education data collection and evaluation assessment and support systems

ISBE in collaboration with PEAC shall develop or contract for the development of and implement all of the

following data development collection and evaluation assessment and support systems:

o A system to annually collect and publish data by district and school on teacher and administrator

performance evaluation outcomes. The system must ensure that no teacher or administrator can be

personally identified by publicly reported data.

o Both a teacher and principal model evaluation template. The model templates must incorporate the

requirements of this Article but allow for districts to customize in a manner that does not conflict with

the requirements.

o An evaluator pre-qualification program based on the model teacher evaluation template.

o An evaluator training program based on the model teacher evaluation template.

o A superintendent training program based on the model teacher evaluation template.

o One or more instruments to provide feedback to principals on the instructional environment within a

school.

o A State Board provided or approved technical assistance system that supports districts with the

development and implementation of teacher and principal evaluation systems.

o Web-based systems and tools supporting implementation of the model templates and evaluator pre-

qualification and training programs.

o A process for measuring and reporting correlations between local principal and teacher evaluations and

(A) student growth in tested grades and subjects and (B) retention rates of teachers.

o A process, including a researched-based study due no later than September 1, 2014, for assessing

whether school district evaluation systems developed pursuant to this Act and that consider student

growth as a significant factor in the rating of a teacher’s and principal’s performance are valid and

reliable, contribute to the development of staff and improve student achievement outcomes.

If ISBE receives a RTTT Grant, the data collection and support systems described must be developed on or

before September 30, 2011. If the RTTT Grant is not received, the development date is September 30, 2012.

If ISBE does not fulfill the requirements above and if there is not adequate and sustainable funding provided

to the districts, the school district implementation date for its student growth evaluation system shall be

postponed by the number of calendar days equal to those needed by ISBE to fulfill all requirements.

April 2010 SB315 Teacher Evaluation Overview

6

2

Teacher Evaluation Model

Evidence of student growth

(Formative assessments, grade level and

course assessments, and other

evidence of student progress)

>50% weight

Rating on 4-level scale

Evidence of professional practice

(Danielson framework or comparable

state-approved framework)

<50% weight

Rating on 4-level scale

State audit, reporting and tracking function to ensure that evaluations are taking place

consistent with state rules.

Summative rating on 4-level scale

Mandatory state-supported training and pre-qualification for evaluators; training for teachers

7

A Framework for Teaching

Domain One Planning and Preparation

Instructional planning includes a deep understanding of

content and pedagogy and an understanding and appreciation of the students and what they bring to the educational encounter. But understanding the content is not sufficient; the content must be transformed through instructional design into sequences of activities and exercises that make it accessible to students. All elements of the instructional design – learning activities, materials, and strategies –must be appropriate to both the content and the students, and aligned with larger instructional goals. In their content and process, assessment techniques must also reflect the instructional outcomes and should serve to document student progress during and at the end of a teaching episode. Furthermore, in designing assessment strategies, teachers must consider their use for formative purposes, and how assessments can provide diagnostic opportunities for students to demonstrate their level of understanding during the instructional sequence, while there is still time to make adjustments.

Domain Two Classroom Environment

Teachers create a learning environment through

positive interpersonal interactions, efficient routines and procedures, clear and consistent standards of conduct, and a safe physical environment that supports the learning purposes. In addition, the environment encourages students to take pride in their work and to assume responsibility for their learning. Students respond to the warmth and caring of teachers, their high expectations for achievement, and their commitment to students. Students feel safe with these teachers and know that they can count on the teachers to be fair and, when necessary, compassionate. Students are also sensitive to the subtle messages they receive from teachers as to their capabilities.

The components of Domain 2 are not associated with the learning of any particular content; instead, they set the stage for all learning. The teacher establishes a comfortable and respectful classroom environment, which cultivates a culture for learning and creates a safe place for risk-taking. The atmosphere is businesslike, with non-instructional routines and procedures handled efficiently; student behavior is cooperative and non-disruptive; and the physical environment conducive to learning

Domain Four Professional Responsibilities

The components in Domain 4 are associated with being a true professional educator: they encompass the roles assumed outside of and in addition to those in the classroom with students. Students rarely observe these activities; parents and the larger community observe them only intermittently. But the activities are critical to preserving and enhancing the profession. Educators exercise some of them (for example, maintaining records and communicating with families) immediately upon entering the profession, since they are integral to their work with students. Domain 4 consists of a wide range of professional responsibilities, from self-reflection and professional growth, to participation in a professional community, to contributions made to the profession as a whole. The components also include interactions with the families of students, contacts with the larger community and advocacy for students. Domain 4 captures the essence of professionalism by teachers; teachers are, as a result of their skills in this domain, full members of the teaching profession, and committed to its enhancement.

Domain Three Instruction

Domain 3 contains the components that are at the essential heart of teaching – the actual engagement of students in learning, through the vision of students developing complex understanding and participating in a community of learners. Students are engaged in meaningful work, which carries significance beyond the next test and is relevant to students’ lives.

Teachers who excel in Domain 3 have finely honed instructional skills. Their work in the classroom is fluid and flexible; they can shift easily from on approach to another when the situation demands it. They seamlessly incorporate ideas and concepts from other parts of the curriculum into their explanations and activities. Their questions probe student thinking, and serve to extend understanding. They are attentive to different students in the class, and the degree to which they are thoughtfully engaged; they carefully monitor student understanding as they go (through well-designed questions or activities) and make minor mid-course corrections as needed. And above all, they promote the emergence of self-directed learners fully engaged in the work at hand.

Charlotte Danielson 2006

8

A Framework for Teaching

Charlotte Danielson

Domain 1 Planning and Preparation

a. Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy Knowledge of Content and the Structure of the Discipline Knowledge of Prerequisite Relationships

Knowledge of Content-Related Pedagogy b. Demonstrating Knowledge of Students

Knowledge of Child and Adolescent Development Knowledge of the Learning Process Knowledge of Students’ Skills, Knowledge, and Language Proficiency Knowledge of Students’ Interests and Cultural Heritage Knowledge of Students’ Special Needs

c. Selecting Instructional Outcomes Value, Sequence, and Alignment Clarity Balance Suitability for Diverse Learners

d. Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources Resources for Classroom Use Resources to Extend Content Knowledge and Pedagogy

Resources for Students e. Designing Coherent Instruction

Learning Activities Instructional Materials and Resources Instructional Groups Lesson and Unit Structure

f. Designing Student Assessment Congruence with Instructional Outcomes Criteria and Standards Design of Formative Assessments

Domain 4

Professional Responsibilities a. Reflecting on Teaching

Accuracy Use in Future Teaching

b. Maintaining Accurate Records Student Completion of Assignments Student Progress in Learning Non-instructional Records

c. Communicating with Families Information About the Instructional Program Information About Individual Students Engagement of Families in the Instructional Program

d. Participating in a Professional Community

Relationships with Colleagues Involvement in a Culture of Professional Inquiry Service to the School Participation in School and District Projects

e. Growing and Developing Professionally Enhancement of Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Skill Receptivity to Feedback from Colleagues Service to the Profession

f. Demonstrating Professionalism Integrity And Ethical Conduct Service To Students Advocacy Decision Making

Domain 2 The Classroom Environment

a. Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport Teacher Interaction with Students Student Interactions with One Another

b. Establishing a Culture for Learning Importance of the Content Expectations for Learning and Achievement Student Pride in Work

c. Managing Classroom Procedures Management of Instructional Groups Management of Transitions Management of Materials And Supplies Performance of Non-Instructional Duties Supervision of Volunteers And Paraprofessionals

d. Managing Student Behavior Expectations Monitoring of Student Behavior Response to Student Misbehavior

e. Organizing Physical Space Safety and Accessibility Arrangement of Furniture and Use of Physical Resources.

Domain 3 Instruction

a. Communicating with Students Expectations for Learning Directions and Procedures Explanations of Content Use of Oral and Written Language

b. Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques Quality of Questions Discussion Techniques Student Participation

c. Engaging Students in Learning Activities and Assignments Grouping of Students Instructional Materials and Resources Structure and Pacing

d. Using Assessment in Instruction Assessment Criteria Monitoring of Student Learning Feedback to Students Student Self-Assessment and Monitoring of Progress

e. Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Lesson Adjustment Response to Students Persistence

9

DOMAIN 2: THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

Component 2b: Establishing a Culture of Learning

Elements: Importance of the content ● Expectations for learning and achievement ● Student pride in work

L E V E L OF P E R F O R M A N C E

ELEMENT

UNSATISFACTORY

BASIC

PROFICIENT

DISTINGUISHED

Importance of the content

Teacher or students convey a negative attitude toward the content, suggesting that it is not important or has been mandated by others.

Teacher communicates importance of the work but with little conviction and only minimal apparent buy-in by the students.

Teacher conveys genuine enthusiasm for the content, and students demonstrate consistent commitment to its value.

Students demonstrate through their active participation, curiosity, and taking initiative that they value the importance of the content.

Expectations for learning and achievement

Instructional outcomes, activities and assignments, and classroom interactions convey low expectations for at lest some students.

Instructional outcomes, activities and assignments, and classroom interactions convey only modest expectations for student learning and achievement.

Instructional outcomes, activities and assignments, and classroom interactions convey high expectations for most students.

Instructional outcomes, activities and assignments, and classroom interactions convey high expectations for all students. Students appear to have internalized these expectations.

Student pride in work Students demonstrate little or no pride in their work. They seem to be motivated by the desire to complete a task rather than to do high-quality work.

Students minimally accept the responsibility to do good work but invest little of their energy into its quality.

Students accept the teacher’s insistence on work of high quality and demonstrate pride in that work.

Students demonstrate attention to detail and take obvious pride in their work, initiating improvements in it by, for example, revising drafts on their own or helping peers.

10

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment

Component

Unsatisfactory

Basic

Proficient

Distinguished

2a

Creating an

Environment of

Respect and Rapport

Classroom interactions, both between

the teacher and students and among

students, are negative, inappropriate, or

insensitive to students’ cultural

backgrounds, and characterized by

sarcasm, put-downs, or conflict.

Classroom interactions, both between

the teacher and students and among

students, are generally appropriate and

free from conflict, but may be

characterized by occasional displays of

insensitivity or lack of responsiveness

to cultural or developmental differences

among students.

Classroom interactions, both between

teacher and students and among

students, are polite and respectful,

reflecting general warmth and caring,

and are appropriate to the cultural and

developmental differences among

groups of students.

Classroom interactions among the

teacher and individual students are

highly respectful, reflecting genuine

warmth and caring and sensitivity to

students’ cultures and levels of

development. Students themselves

ensure high levels of civility among

members of the class.

2b

Establishing a

Culture for Learning

The classroom environment conveys a

negative culture for learning,

characterized by low teacher

commitment to the subject, low

expectations for student achievement,

and little or no student pride in work.

The teacher’s attempts to create a

culture for learning are partially

successful, with little teacher

commitment to the subject, modest

expectations for student achievement,

and little student pride in work. Both

teacher and students appear to be only

“going through the motions.”

The classroom culture is characterized

by high expectations for most students

and genuine commitment to the subject

by both teacher and students, with

students demonstrating pride in their

work.

High levels of student energy and

teacher passion for the subject create a

culture for learning in which everyone

shares a belief in the importance of the

subject and all students hold

themselves to high standards of

performance—for example, by initiating

improvements to their work.

2c

Managing

Classroom

Procedures

Much instructional time is lost because

of inefficient classroom routines and

procedures for transitions, handling of

supplies, and performance of

noninstructional duties.

Some instructional time is lost because

classroom routines and procedures for

transitions, handling of supplies, and

performance of noninstructional duties

are only partially effective.

Little instructional time is lost because

of classroom routines and procedures

for transitions, handling of supplies, and

performance of noninstructional duties,

which occur smoothly.

Students contribute to the seamless

operation of classroom routines and

procedures for transitions, handling of

supplies, and performance of

noninstructional duties.

2d

Managing Student

Behavior

There is no evidence that standards of

conduct have been established, and

little or no teacher monitoring of student

behavior. Response to student

misbehavior is repressive or

disrespectful of student dignity.

It appears that the teacher has made

an effort to establish standards of

conduct for students. The teacher tries,

with uneven results, to monitor student

behavior and respond to student

misbehavior.

Standards of conduct appear to be

clear to students, and the teacher

monitors student behavior against

those standards. The teacher response

to student misbehavior is appropriate

and respects the students’ dignity.

Standards of conduct are clear, with

evidence of student participation in

setting them. The teacher’s monitoring

of student behavior is subtle and

preventive, and the teacher’s response

to student misbehavior is sensitive to

individual student needs. Students take

an active role in monitoring the

standards of behavior.

11

12

Evaluation Who Envisions A Bigger Prize?

In meeting the requirements of the Illinois School Code with regard to evaluation there will be school districts that take very different approaches to implementation. As districts plan it will be interesting to see their vision. Will most envision simply meeting the new evaluation mandate by State of Illinois, or will most envision attaining a bigger prize?

The “Minimalist Approach” will begin by assembling a committee comprised possibly of administration and board and their counterparts selected by the exclusive bargaining representatives, securing a few copies of plans used in other districts and setting to work to adopt a new evaluation plan. The finished product will be an instrument compiled from one or more plans from other school districts with modifications to personalize the evaluation plan. The plan will be taken from the shelf at least every other year to evaluate each teacher. They will have met the requirement in law without an understanding or appreciation for the methodology involved in the required process and the students of the district will not benefit from the process.

A step up from that approach will be the district that forms a joint committee and takes the Danielson Frameworks, adapts the concept to an instrument suited their district and further jointly develops an instrument tailored to each of the specialty positions in the district as well as an instrument for non-tenured as well as tenured teachers. This model incorporates training for the committee and may go a step farther also incorporating a facilitator for the process. There is a better result. There is a far deeper understanding of the theory and methodology used in this evaluation process and those within the circle of district employees involved in the training and creation of the evaluation instruments will benefit from knowledge of the Frameworks, but what about the employees outside the circle? It is still a “Minimalist Approach.”

The end result with a “Minimalist Approach” is a better instrument utilized in much the same way as the evaluation plan it replaces. The theory behind the instrument will be sound but the overall the understanding will be lost on all but the few of the staff who have studied Danielson’s work for all others there will be little understanding, little or no marked improvement in teaching and no improvement in student achievement derived from the new evaluation instrument. The goal with this approach is limited to meeting the new mandate.

The “Informed Approach” will be taken by a majority of the districts in meeting the new standard for evaluation. It will begin with staff professional development for the purpose of achieving first a broader understanding of the theory behind Danielson’s, Framework for Teaching followed by the development and use of the evaluation instrument itself. Exposure of the certified employees to the Framework theory will result in some level of experimentation within the staff. Some will attempt to place themselves on a continuum within various Elements of the Domains and limited numbers of the staff will begin to envision what they must do to move to a higher level on the continuum. Those certified employees that begin this type of visioning and experimentation will undoubtedly benefit from their efforts to use the Framework for personal improvement. Some will continue with the experimentation without support. Now, under this scenario students begin to benefit. Experimentation with improved planning (Domain 1), classroom environment (Domain 2), instruction (Domain 3) and different approaches to undertaking professional responsibilities (Domain 4) benefits students. The resulting evaluation instrument may spur teachers to strive for improvement, possibly driven by the evaluation cycle. Teachers motivated by a desire to do well in evaluations with training can pick up the instrument before, during and after evaluation time and make improvement. After evaluation is complete the cycle may continue for most with a period of relaxation until evaluation nears again.

Providing information in the form of professional development is not enough. If the District’s plan ends here and no vision of continued support is present, a majority of teachers will not avail themselves to the use of the Frameworks. For those that have the desire to make use of the Frameworks and start experimentation will wane over time as their focus changes to other initiatives. That leaves only the benefit for some from the use of the Frameworks in conjunction with evaluation. The goals possible with this approach are limited to widespread knowledge of the Frameworks and evaluation instrument and adoption of evaluation tools that meet the state mandate.

13

While an “Informed Approach” approach is superior to a “Minimalist Approach”, overall the potential benefit of an integrating the Danielson Framework and related evaluation plan into a school improvement scheme is lost. The end result will once again be a better instrument utilized in much the same way as the evaluation plan it replaces. While understanding is at a higher level, benefits beyond simple and improved evaluation do not occur on a wide scale unless teachers utilize the continuum systematically to guide and inform their professional practice.

An “Integrated Approach” maximizes the potential benefits that can be derived from utilizing The Framework for Teaching as a part of a school improvement plan. It begins with the premise that individual teachers can improve their craft through the study and use of the Frameworks. The emphasis is not on evaluation except as an assessment tool for the building the district and the individual teacher. The key is focus. The focus must be on the use of the Frameworks to drive improved student achievement.

The model begins with the same fashion as the “Informed Approach,” training and professional development for the faculty. The importance of a thorough grounding in the Frameworks cannot be overstated. Evaluation tools meeting the State standards must be created under this model as well, but potential use of this tool may extend beyond the individual certified employees as a measurement tool. Data from the collective growth of the individual certified employees in buildings and the district may be valuable as well. But it is what happens at the next level that separates this model from other approaches.

As previously stated, “… individual teachers can improve their craft through the study and use of the Frameworks.” The question becomes, how can a district create a focus on the study and use of the Frameworks? There are several possibilities here, but that is a question that each school district must consider with its teacher leaders and Association.

The use of Professional Learning Communities might provide the focus desired. The approach would couple the benefits of teachers working in teams with the Framework as the cornerstone of their work to improve professional practice. Picture one team within the learning community focusing for a while on different elements of the continuum in the Second Domain, Classroom Environment, while another team focuses on Domain 1, Planning and Preparation, and yet another is working in Domain 3, Instruction. Teams of teachers would be able to work together assisting each other as they discuss the elements of their craft in relation to the continuum as well as implement and evaluate the conclusions reached by the team. The advantages that might be achieved by the use of learning communities would include a widespread focus on the Frameworks, actual use of the Frameworks by the certified employees and implementation of new techniques and strategies at the classroom level. Allocation of the time required by learning communities would underscore the district’s commitment to this approach to improving student achievement. The collective results of the evaluation data over time would provide a reliable assessment of the learning community strategy and be useful in assessing the teams.

The use of incentives is a second possibility. Financially incenting certified employees to study and utilize the Frameworks would require collective bargaining to finalize a design and levels of compensation. Teachers could, in theory, work in teams, pairs or as individuals in this approach. In teams or pairs the advantages of dialogue and collective knowledge would prove advantageous as under the Learning Communities approach. The difference is that the district would be buying the time of the participants outside of the regular school day instead of providing sanctioned time within the school day periodically to do the work. The increase in student achievement would still be derived from the application of the leanings in the professional practice of the individual involved. Lost is the uniform approach in that an incentive program would be voluntary and presumably compensation would be granted based upon the amount of time worked.

Yet another possibility might include a merit pay scheme. Once again this approach would be one that would have to be collectively bargained to determine the program design, compensation levels and what must be achieved in order to receive compensation. The difference here is that the practitioner is compensated based upon achievement. Achievement might be measured upon improvement in one or more Domains or given numbers elements utilizing the continuum or the evaluation instrument. The important factor is that the growth is realized and assessed in practice. Required levels of achievement, how the assessment is made and by whom must also be negotiated. Teachers could, in theory, work in teams, pairs or as individuals in this approach as well.

14

The actual model may vary. Whether the plan design utilizes grade level teams, random triads or pairs of certified employees paired in formal or a less formal approach, the district must provide the motivation and support necessary for sustainability to best assure that the Framework for Teaching will be revisited often and used to guide teacher growth driving student achievement. In the “Integrated Approach” the Frameworks becomes a part of the knowledge base of the employees; it is present in the evaluation tool, and is tool that certified employees are motivated to use in a meaningful way. The process takes a commitment on the part of the district to maintain a sustained focus and provide the time to make a difference. The “Integrated Approach” starts with belief that the value of the Frameworks is not in its use as an evaluation tool but rather in its use as a tool promoting growth in teachers and a belief that school wide improvement in teaching will translate into increased student performance and higher test scores.

15

AAAVVVAAAIIILLLAAABBBLLLEEE SSSUUUPPPPPPOOORRRTTT fffrrrooommm

CCCooonnnsssooorrrtttiiiuuummm fffooorrr EEEddduuucccaaatttiiiooonnn CCChhhaaannngggeee///IIIlllllliiinnnoooiiisss EEEddduuucccaaatttiiiooonnn AAAssssssoooccciiiaaatttiiiooonnn

Interactive Training Topic Audience Suggested Formats

OVERVIEW OF A FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING Faculty 3 HOUR SESSIONS

1 DAY

UNDERSTANDING THE FRAMEWORKS FOR TEACHING Faculty 2 DAYS

3 HOUR SESSIONS

DESIGNED AS NEEDED

IN DEPTH IN A DESIGNATED DOMAIN Faculty 3 HOUR SESSIONS PERSONALIZED AS NEEDED

FACILITATED EVALUATION INSTRUMENT CREATION Committee 4 SESSIONS or MORE

(Committee Designated by the Board and Association) DESIGNED AS NEEDED

USING THE FRAMEWORKS AS A BASIS FOR PLC’S Faculty/PLC 1 DAY