Implementing The Art and Science of Teaching

The Webster Groves School District’s Journey to a More Effective Evaluation Process

September, 2014

Was Evaluation Effective?

Starting in 2009, discussions started with the Teacher Evaluation Committee on the effectiveness of the current evaluation model

One-sided

Sit and get

Seen as a “gotcha”

Not looked upon as a growth model

Long, Thoughtful Process

• District committee with representatives from each school, Central Office, building administrators, BOE members, and curriculum coordinators worked for three years on process.

• Researched current best practice and guiding state legislation in order to finalize evaluation process.

Several Years of Struggle

• Dedicated teacher / administrator PBTE committee looked at how to revise current system

• Looked at a variety of evaluation models

• Worked extensively on Charlotte Danielson’s rubric/model

• Still stuck – word-smithing Every. Single. Word.

• Attended the Evaluation of the Art and Science of Teaching national conference in October, 2011

• What was holding us back and what we lacked as a district was a common language around teaching and learning

• Different people and schools could not fully collaborate – speaking different languages

Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model

• PBTE committee made the recommendation to adopt the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model prior to the 2012-2013 school year.

• The Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model is fully aligned to the Missouri Educator Evaluation System, Standards, and Quality Indicators.

• District-wide Professional Development focused on Marzano’s The Art and Science of Teaching and the Marzano Evaluation Model during the school years of 2012-2014, with plans to extend and deepen the professional development for all teachers in subsequent years.

A COUPLE NOTES . . .

The Art and Science of Teaching Everything presented in The Art and Science of Teaching has a firm

foundation in 40+ years of research on effective teaching Each chapter begins with a summary of research relevant to the

chapter

Art and Science? The science of teaching relies on research that tells us which

strategies have a high probability of working well with students. The art of teaching relies on the classroom teacher to determine

which strategies to employ with the right students at the right time.

Key Components of Marzano Model

Four key points a district must do to utilize the Marzano model of supervision, which focuses on teacher expertise:• Develop a common language of

teaching (do we understand what it means and do we understand what it looks like?)

• Provide opportunities for focused feedback and practice

• Provide opportunities for observing and discussing effective teaching

• Require individual teacher growth and development plans on a yearly basis

Marzano’s Domains and Elements

• Domain 1-Classroom strategies and behaviors – 41 Elements broken into 9 Design Questions

• Domain 2-Planning and preparing• Domain 3-Reflecting on teaching• Domain 4-Collegiality and professionalism

   

Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism 

ACHIEVEMENT  

Domain 1: Classroom strategies and behaviors  

Domain 2: Planning and preparing  

Domain 3: Reflecting on teaching 

FOUR DOMAINS FOR A COMMON LANGUAGE OF TEACHING

Domain 1

9 Design Questions

• Routine Segments– Learning Goals and Feedback (DQ 1)– Rules and Procedures (DQ 6)

• Content Specific Segments– Interacting with New Knowledge (DQ 2)– Practicing and Deepening (DQ 3)– Generating/Testing Hypothesis (DQ 4)

• Segments Enacted on the Spot– Student Engagement (DQ 5)– Adherence to Rules and Procedures (DQ 7)– Teacher-Student Relationships (DQ 8)– High Expectations (DQ 9)

To what degree, low, moderate, or high, do these lesson segments and design questions work interdependently?

Compelling WhysHelps us move from good to greatSupported by 40+ years of researchHelps every teacher, administrator, and studentLends more credibility to the evaluation processAllows for growth Improves teacher and student learningSupports a common language to promote collaborationSupports interdependent work as a school and districtSupports a better understanding of effective practiceMost importantly, the focus is on student achievement.

All Means All

• All classroom teachers• All specialty teachers• All special education teachers• Tutors• All administrators• All Board members• All Curriculum Coordinators

Goal – Common Language means all are trained

Board Involvement Board Rep on PBTE and PDC/iDEA Committees Board read Art and Science of Teaching Board dialogue of A & S with admins. Board read Effective Supervision of Art and

Science of Teaching (ESAST) Board dialogue of ESAST with admins. Board approval of PBTE process Board celebrates great teachers and supportive of

ongoing learning for all in the organization

Timeline

• 2009-2011 PBTE works to refine eval. tool• 2011-2012 PBTE selects A & S Process• 2012-13 Focused study of A & S• 2013-14 Continue study of A & S

• Implement iObservation and new evaluation tool

• 2014-15 Continue study of A & S and iObservation

Design student growth component

Professional Learning 2012-13

PBTE, PDC, coordinators, admins., and building teacher leaders participated in 3 days of introduction of A & S – Summer 2012

All staff read Art and Science of Teaching for the 2012-13 school year.

Supt. shares rationale for study of A & S at opening day with all staff.

5 half day in-depth learning modules for staff focused on specific design questions from the A & S.

Admin. PD aligned to teacher PD throughout the year. Admin. read Effective Supervision of the A & S.

Professional Learning 2013-14 Summer 2013 three days of admin. training on inter rater

reliability training on iObservation. Sessions ended with an assessment of proficiency.

Supt. shares rationale for new eval. Tool at opening day with all staff.

Teachers continue in-depth study of A & S design questions 2, 3, 4, 5.

Admin. have a year long focus on inter rater reliability (IRR). PD on the use of iObservation for teachers and administrators. Walk throughs with peers practicing IRR

Professional Learning 2014-15

Continued PD on domains 2, 3, 4. Continuing IRR.

Teacher Responsibilities• Review Teacher Scales for Reflective Practice-

Domains 1, 2, 3, and 4• Complete self-assessment of all 60 elements• Complete Goals and Growth plan for the 2014-

2015 school year• Meet with administrator either face to face or

electronically to discuss and finalize Growth plan• Respond to all observations, questions, etc. sent

to you on iObservation

Teacher Responsibilities• Complete student surveys using guidelines provided

in the WG PBTE Process, and use information for possible revision of Goals and Growth Plan

• Meet with administrator for Mid-Year Formative Evaluation

• At the end of the school year, update self-assessment and complete Goal Summary of the Growth Plan

• Update / rewrite Goals and Growth Plan for 2015-2016 school year

• Meet with administrator for end of the year Summative Evaluation

Administrator/Evaluator Responsibilities

• Review and approve Goals and Growth Plan for each teacher

• Observe teacher at least 5 times a year – 2 walk-throughs, 2 informal, 1 formal observation in Domain 1

• Provide feedback for all observations, as well as for other school events as warranted, using iObservation

• Meet at mid-year to review survey results, Goals and Growth Plan, and Mid-year Formative Evaluation

Administrator/Evaluator Responsibilities

• Meet with teacher to discuss end of the year Goal Summary

• Provide end of the year Summative Evaluation for teachers

• Work with teacher to develop Goals and Growth Plan for the upcoming school year.

DifferencesOld PBTE Process• Tenured teachers evaluated every three

years• Three evaluation standards-Meets

expectation, Approaching expectation, Does not meet expectation

• Growth plans developed ineffectively at times

• Student surveys not utilized by all teachers

• Teachers on “observation cycle” observed a minimum of 2-3 times during their evaluation year

• No Student Growth component to evaluation

• No final evaluation score• Process paper based

Marzano PBTE Process• All teachers evaluated every year• Four evaluation standards – Highly

effective, Proficient, Developing, Unsatisfactory

• Growth plans tied to evaluation process• Student surveys utilized to review/revise

Growth Plans• Teachers observed a minimum of 5 times

a year, every year in Domain 1• Student Growth data part of evaluation

process starting in the 2014-2015 school year

• A final evaluation score• Process electronically based using

iObservation with an additional professional development component provided

Summative Evaluation• The Summative Evaluation is based on the results of the teacher’s

performance on the elements of Marzano’s Instructional Practice (the 60 elements presented in Domain 1-Classroom Strategies and Behaviors, Domain 2-Planning and Preparation, Domain 3-Reflecting on Teaching, and Domain 4-Collegiality and Professionalism) and growth of student achievement. The growth of student achievement component will be designed by the PBTE Committee for initial implementation.

iObservation

The Goal of Teacher EvaluationAn expectation that all teachers can

increase their expertise from year to year, which produces gains in student

achievement from year to year with a powerful cumulative effect.

Reflections

The Goal of Evaluation

Continue to grow as professionals and to be better at our craft today than we were in

the past.

Next Steps• Continue learning

together.• Continue observing as

groups throughout the district.

• Continue offering opportunities for teachers observe each other.

• Finalizing work on student growth component of evaluation tool.

Questions?

In Good to Great Collins writes:

“Make everything you touch the best it can possibly be – not just because of what you can get, but because you simply

cannot imagine doing it any other way.”

THIS IS OUR VISION!

As a learning community, the Webster Groves School District will lead in purposeful innovation that challenges each of

us to discover and pursue our passions and make a positive impact on the world.

Tweet Up!

• Think about the difference between learning activities and learning goals.

• Using 140 characters or less (spaces count!), explain the difference between the two.

• When time is called, find a close partner and share your tweet.

• We’ll debrief as a whole group and we’re looking for “just right” tweets!