Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2
Our teachers and principals have made it clear that PDAS does not
meet their needs.
Results: 2010 Survey of 6,279 HISD Teachers and 144 HISD Principals
*The response rate for teachers surveyed was 55%, and the response rate for principals surveyed was 56%.
Board of Education
Goals for HISD from the
Declaration of Beliefs and Visions
1 2 3 4 5
4
Effective Teachers Initiative Vision: An effective teacher in every
classroom, delivering high-quality instruction to all students.
5
Agenda
6
Texas State Education Code gives specific guidance for local school
districts developing their own appraisal systems.
DNA (LOCAL) is the district’s policy on its teacher appraisal and development
system. It requires the adoption of a revised policy on the appraisal process and
criteria. Texas State Education Code requires that:
If a district does not utilize the state’s recommended system, it must use an
appraisal process and performance criteria that:
1. Is “developed by the district- and campus-level committees”
established under state code;
2. Contains teachers’ implementation of discipline management
procedures and the performance of teachers’ students; and
3. Is adopted by the board of trustees.
Working Groups
Built rubrics and other tools needed to
(Teachers, Principals,
implement the new system
Parents, HISD Staff)
8
Collaboration and transparency were top priorities in the design
process. HISD actively sought feedback from the entire community.
HISD posted all materials from the HISD held three public meetings
design process on a dedicated to gather feedback on the draft
website that has logged more than proposal.
14,000 visits.
HISD sent biweekly email updates 2,655 teachers and 282 appraisers
on the process to all teachers and completed an online survey on the
draft proposal.
principals.
HISD read, logged, and responded 40 teachers and 18 principals
to 1,100 questions and comments
received by email and via the
participated in focus groups to
help shape specific aspects of the
website. draft proposal.
9
Timeline of the Design Process
SDMCs submit Working groups Public comment Proposal for the new
recommendations begin developing period on the draft system presented to
on the appraisal tools/instruments proposal the
criteria and process Board of Education
SDMCs submit SDMCs and DAC for approval
DAC begins additional revise
building the draft recommendations recommendations Tools/instruments
proposal based on based on feedback continually refined
the SDMCs’ DAC completes the based on
recommendations draft proposal Working groups stakeholder input
continue developing
tools/instruments
11
The proposed system will paint a complete picture of each teacher’s
performance based on multiple measures in three performance criteria.
Student
Three Major Performance Criteria
Performance
Student Performance: Teacher’s
impact on student learning
12
The proposed system is designed to give all teachers the regular
feedback and individualized support they deserve as professionals.
• Three teacher/appraiser
conferences each year will provide Conferences Individualized
teachers with comprehensive Formal meetings with Development
feedback on their performance. appraiser to discuss Learning activities
performance, set goals, informed by
• Appraisers will conduct at least 2
create and update development plan
classroom observations and at least
development plan
2 walkthroughs throughout the
year, each followed by in-
person/written feedback.
Appraisal and Development Cycle
• Teachers will work with appraisers
to create an individualized
development plan that identifies
specific areas for professional
Self-Reflection Ongoing Feedback
growth and targeted learning
Reflect on performance, Observations and
activities to address them.
student progress, and walkthroughs followed by
• Appraisers will be held professional goals formal and informal
accountable for helping teachers feedback on teaching
meet their professional goals.
13
Proposed Appraisal and Development Timeline
Appraisals don’t include evidence of individual Appraisals include multiple measures of student
teacher’s contribution to student learning learning, along with ratings in two other major
categories
Requires at least one observation, but a waiver Teachers receive at least two observations and at
under MPDAS allows teachers to go several years least two shorter walkthroughs each year—all
without a formal observation; Feedback not followed by feedback
required after all observations
One conference between teachers and appraisers Three conferences between teachers and
each year (to discuss summative rating) appraisers each year to discuss teacher
performance and plan for development
Professional development is not directly aligned All teachers receive an individualized professional
with the outcomes of a teacher’s appraisal development plan based on specific needs
identified by the appraisal process
Limited accountability and support for appraisers Appraisers held accountable for accuracy of
for conducting accurate evaluations or helping evaluations and success in helping teachers grow
teachers improve professionally; Intensive training and additional
support for principals throughout the year
15
Criteria in Focus: Instructional Practice
Types of Criteria
• Instruction (such as, checks for student understanding and responds to
student misunderstanding, maximizes instructional time)
• Planning (such as, develops student learning goals, designs effective lesson
plans, units, and assessments)
Sources of Evidence
Such as classroom observations, planning documents, daily interactions with the
teacher, and reviews of certain documents and artifacts (such as, lesson plans,
classroom management plans, grade books, portfolio of student work, etc.).
Appraisers will have the flexibility to use any sources of evidence collected
throughout the course of the year that reflect the criteria. Teachers can also
provide additional sources of evidence that they want to inform their appraisal.
16
Criteria in Focus: Professional Expectations
Sources of Evidence
Such as classroom observations, planning documents, daily interactions with the
teacher, and reviews of certain documents and artifacts (such as parent
communication logs, sign-in sheets for PLCs, agendas and minutes from team
meetings, teacher attendance records).
17
Criteria in Focus: Student Performance
18
Criteria in Focus: Student Performance (continued)
19
Appraisers will use a simple lookup table to combine scores in the
three categories into a single overall rating.
Professional Expectations
1 I I NI NI
Instructional Practice X
table instead of a one-size-fits-all
formula to determine summative 2 I NI E E
ratings.
3 NI NI E HE
• The lookup table makes the system
more transparent and accessible
4 NI E E HE
than using percentage weights, since
teachers can easily see what their
rating would be based on a particular
combination of scores in the three
criteria categories.
20
Under the proposed system, each teacher will have one individual
responsible for his/her appraisal and development.
21
The collaborative design process has resulted in a proposed new
system that is good for students, teachers, and taxpayers.
22
Agenda
23
HISD has laid the groundwork in planning for successful, district-wide
implementation of the new system.
25