Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
-
Upload
jordan-fenster -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
0
Transcript of Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
1/26
Educator EvaluationPilot Program Study
Round 2 Findings
Center for Education Policy AnalysisNeag School of Education
Morgaen Donaldson, Casey Cobb, Rachael Gabriel,Richard Gonzales, Kimberly LeChasseur and Sarah Woulfin
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
2/26
Data Collection January - mid-April, 2013
Data collected on second phase of SEEDimplementationo Mid-year check-ins
o Observations
o Feedback and conferences
Interviews with same sample of educatorsinterviewed in fall, 2012
Surveys of teachers in most schools in interviewsample
2
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
3/26
Interviews Solicited interviews from all individuals interviewed in
fall, 2012
209 interview respondents
3
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
4/26
Table 1. Interview and Focus Group Sample
District/ConsortiumSchools District
Leaders Principals Teachers Specialists Total
Bethany 1 0 2 6 0 8
Branford 3 0 0 10 2 12
Bridgeport 3 2 1 25 8 36
CEFS 4 2 3 34 0 39
CREC 5 1 4 29 2 36
Litchfield/Region 6 5 0 3 19 2 24
Norwalk 1 2 0 1 0 3Waterford 0 2 0 0 0 2
Windham 4 2 4 31 11 48
Windsor 1 0 1 0 0 1Total 27 11 18 155 25 209
4
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
5/26
Surveys Invited all districts and schools in interview sample to
participate
684 teachers from eight pilot districts/consortiaresponded to survey (25 schools)
Overall response rate = 45%
Response rate ranged from 24% to 79% acrosssample sites
5
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
6/26
Table 2. Survey Sample (n=684, response rate=45%)
Note: 25 of 36 schools in the overall sample participated
District/Consortium
Schools Sample
n n %
Bethany 1 16 2%
CEFS 3 69 10%
CREC 6 142 21%
Litchfield/Region 6 5 80 12%
Norwalk 3 58 9%
Waterford 3 84 12%Windham 3 138 20%
Windsor 1 97 14%
Total 25 684 100%
6
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
7/26
Findings1. Most teachers understand SEED
2. Most districts/schools are making strides towardsimplementing SEED teacher evaluation with fidelityo An increase in classroom observations compared to previous years
o Completion of SEED procedures
3. When implemented well, SEED yields positive outcomeso Teachers report talking with evaluator about their practice is valuable
o Evidence of changed and improved practices in some settings
4. Most districts/schools focused on compliance ratherthan leveraging SEED model to improve practiceo Lack of in-depth feedback opportunities or professional development tied to
observation data
5. Most districts/states delayed enactment of SEED schoolleader evaluation
7
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
8/26
1. Most teachers understand SEED
56% of teachers surveyed agreed/strongly agreedthat they understood and were comfortable withSEED procedures
Tenured teachers reported significantly less
understanding/comfort than non-tenured teacherso 66% non-tenured vs. 55% tenured agreed/strongly agreed
Secondary teachers reported significantly lessunderstanding/comfort than elementary teacherso 72% elementary vs. 54% middle school, 53% high school agreed/strongly
agreed
Much greater clarity on SEED than in fall, 2012
8
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
9/26
2. Fidelity of Implementation
Most districts/schools are making strides towardsimplementing SEED with fidelity
Observations: All administrators report struggling tocomplete mandated number of observations, yet
among teachers surveyed by April:o 42% reported they had been formally observed at least twice
o 55% reported they had been informally observed at least twice
9
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
10/26
10
10
48
31
10
1
17
27 28
17
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1 2 3 More than 3
Percent
age
Number of Observations
Figure 1. Number of Observations(nI=609; nF=613)
Formal
Informal
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
11/26
Figure 2. Time Spent Being Observed Compared to Pre-SEED
3%5%
38%
32%
22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
PercentageofTeachers
A lot less time A bit less time About the same A bit more time A lot more time
11
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
12/26
Discussions:Figure 3. Time spent in discussion with evaluator under SEED
compared to pre-SEED
1% 1%
26% 28%
44%
6%8%
47%
27%
13%
6% 7%
45%
28%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
A lot less time A bit less time About the Same A bit more time A lot more time
Goal-setting
Talking about your practice with your principal/evaluator before observations
Talking about your practice with your principal/evaluator after observations
12
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
13/26
Feedback
43% of teachers surveyed agreed or stronglyagreed that they were receiving and usingfeedback under SEED
Significantly fewer tenured teachers reportedreceiving and using feedback than non-tenuredteacherso 35% of tenured teachers agreed or strongly agreed vs. 60% of non-
tenured teachers.
13
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
14/26
Other SEED Processes
Figure 4. Time Spent on Improvement-Related Tasks under SEEDCompared to Pre-SEED
5%7%
54%
24%
11%
1% 2%
37%
30% 30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
A lot less time A bit less time About the Same A bit more time A lot more time
Talking about practice with other teachers Analysis of data about your students
14
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
15/26
3. Positive Outcomes of SEED
Figure 5. Value of Time Spent Being Observed Under SEED
3%
12%
22%
44%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
PercentageofTeacher
s
Not at all valuable Not very valuable Neutral Somewhat valuable Very valuable
15
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
16/26
Figure 6: Value of Discussion With Evaluator Under SEED
6%
16%
18%
43%
18%
3%
12%
27%
39%
19%
2%
8%
19%
43%
27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Not at all valuable Not very valuable Neutral Somewhat valuable Very valuable
Goal-setting
Talking about your practice with your principal/evaluator before observations
Talking about your practice with your principal/evaluator after observations
16
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
17/26
Figure 7. Value of Time Spent on Improvement-Related Tasks
3% 1%
10%
3%
11%
11%
41%
32%
34%
53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Spent more time analyzing student data Spent more time talking about practice
with other teachers
Very valuable
Somewhat valuable
Neutral
Not very valuable
Not at all valuable
17
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
18/26
Promising Practices
Observations of videosLeaders rate teachersvideo-recorded instruction using the rubric. Theleader and teacher use the rubric and video todiscuss how the teachers instruction could be
improved. Teachers report that this reduced theiranxiety to perform in front a live observer andhelped them understand leaders feedback.
Complementary observersSchools have used
complementary observers (teachers or centraloffice administrators).
18
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
19/26
4. Most districts/schools focused on compliance ratherthan leveraging SEED model to improve practice
In interviews, school leaders and teachers reportedthat leaders generally emphasized paperwork andreporting rather than implementing SEED to develophuman capital
19
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
20/26
Midyear check-ins
Characterized by a technical, procedural focusrather than an emphasis on improving instruction,assessment, and student performance
Most mid-year check-ins lasted 15-20 minutes anddid not result in revised SLOs
Some teachers were not aware that they couldchange their SLOs if justified
20
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
21/26
Debriefs/conversations
Only 30% of teachers surveyed reported that they spent
more time talking with their evaluator about their
practice after being observed under SEED than they did
last year and that the experience was very valuable
Most debrief conversations were late and relativelyperfunctory (about 15-20 minutes long)
Some debrief conversations were conducted through
My Learning Plan or via email
Almost no teachers reported that they had receivedspecific recommendations of professional growth
opportunities during debriefs
In one school, no debrief conversations were reported
21
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
22/26
Teacher Perceptions at Mid-Year
Teachers WhoStrongly Agreed or Agreed Their Evaluatorhas Knowledge to Evaluate Them Accurately ranged
from 18% to 62% across eight districts (overall 51%, n=601)
Teachers WhoStrongly Agreed or Agreed TheirEvaluator has Sufficient Time & Resources to EvaluateThem Accurately ranged from 7% to 24% across eight
districts (overall 17%, n=599)
Teachers WhoStrongly Agreed or Agreed
SEED Could Improve Instructional Practice ranged from
11% to 32% across eight districts (overall=22%; n=603)
22
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
23/26
Administrator Perceptions at Mid-Year
According to interviews of school leaders:o SEED has potential but:
o Scheduling and completing required number of observations is
challenging
o Reporting requirements (i.e. My Learning Plan) are cumbersome
23
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
24/26
SLOs/IAGDs
59% of teachers report that their SLOs are bothrigorous and attainable
48% of teachers in our sample said that their SLOswere only somewhat rigorous
36% said that their SLO is less than likely to beattained
24
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
25/26
Administrator evaluation
All district leaders and principals report that theadministrator portion of SEED is being implemented
All districts began to implement the SEEDadministrator evaluation quite late (i.e. December-
January)
Districts are implementing the minimum of theadministrator evaluation
In the view of principals, SEED does not differ muchfrom their prior evaluation systems
25
-
7/27/2019 Uconn Neag Peac 7-10-13
26/26
Recommendations
Offer professional development to administrators and
teachers specific to each phase of implementation
Bolster professional development focused on coaching
aspects of seed (i.e. Mid-years; debriefs; feedback)
Publicize and promote the complementary observer role
Streamline paperwork/reporting requirements
Better align administrator and teacher evaluation
26