DAC Meeting January 6, 2011 4‐6pm Presenters: Bill Horwath, Dina Hasiotis, Rafael Reyes Attendees: Ursula Bostic, Jose Contreras, Nimfa Gallardo, Mary Halcopian, Sonya Hamilton, Ruth Henderson, Andrea Holberg, Christine Johnson, Rhonda Jones, Danette Maldonado, Laurie Parkin, Ron Parnell, Sharron, Breedlove, Mary Nesbitt, Eric Schmidt, Reba Goodman, Nubia Parsons, Meeting notes: I.
Welcome – Bill Horwath and Dina Hasiotis a. Meeting objectives i. Receive an update from the Measures of Student Learning Working Group ii. Confirm recommendations for Instructional Practice and Professional Expectations Criteria iii. Confirm recommendations for the appraisal process II.
Measures of Student Learning Working Group – Rafael Reyes a. Charge of MSL b. MSL WG composition: 3 teachers and 1 principal on the team now, looking to expand. Carla Stevens leading group day to day, 2 PDS staff and SIO. c. Meeting schedule i.
1st 6 meetings – taking feedback and developing guidance ii.
2nd 6meetings – taking feedback from DAC on 20th and public comment and improving what they have d. Overview of first meeting with WG i.
Discussing complexity of decisions to make, unlikely to find one measure that covers all teachers. Tried to get a sense of what other districts are doing ii.
Very detailed information (75‐100 pages) on above given to WG; DAC got condensed version e. Confirm Guiding Principles from the DAC i.
Extenuating circumstances ƒ Historically great performance, but a family issue or personal issue diverts their attention from what they need to do. ƒ A teacher leaving midyear, will 2nd semester is teacher accountable for full year or only half? ƒ Comments: • Regarding students – If a student is performing great, but has something happen (death in family), and performance goes down. • When kids who make the transition from ESL to English. • Not confident with EVAAS taking that into account. If compare to children across district, are circumstances same or different? ƒ Response: I’m hearing concern about fairness ƒ
Response: Survey that was done last Feb about value‐added. A lot of teachers’ comments echo comments above. Working to systematically analyze these things. It’s helpful for the WG to here this as well. i.
ii.
Criteria must be observable ƒ Question: does this refer to student observations? ƒ Comment: I think we want it to be behaviors by the teacher – take as much as you can – like students are thinking critically? If were to use classroom observation to inform SL, use behaviors not perceptions. ƒ Comment: Move toward the more observable behaviors. ƒ Response: To confirm, if we are to use classroom observation to assess student learning, move away from objective observations and assess observable behaviors. Use growth based benchmarks ƒ Two measures of student learning o Look at where start, where end and what is diff ƒ Attainment – look only at where the end, not where they start o Question: How is attainment growth based? o Comment: It’s not. In some schools, AP courses require prereqs. WG saying we get growth‐based part, but what if you’re in situation where students have to demonstrate prereqs, and beginning is less variable, are we OK with just attainment instead of growth. o Response: What I’m hearing is we really need to minimize the attainment measures, make sure it included but a small measure. o Question: Did wg that worked on MSL determine to minimize growth and attainment measures? AP scores are a wonderful measure of attainment, but we need to go back to the percentage of kids that are actually testing. o Response: Yes, that makes sense. We need to look at the test rate as well as the number of students taking the test as well. Announcement: ETI is extending an invitation to have a conference call before the 20th so we can discuss any questions you may have. On January 20th, the MSL working group will come back and provide you with potential measures to consider based upon SDMC recommendations and DAC guidance. III.
Confirm Cycle 3 Recommendationson Instructional Practice Criteria DAC members reviewed as a group summary of discussions and changes to criteria identified at December 16th meeting : a. Sets student learning goals ƒ
Question: It’s my understanding that there’s a belief that principals collaborate with teachers to set goals – they don’t just lay out goals. It’s through collaboration and ownership that teachers become committed – so when I read “Sets student learning goals,” it sounds like teacher sets goal for learner – certainly for K not realistic but I wonder if that sends message that that tells students what they can learn rather than collaborative. Is it to set it for student? Philosophically I think that’s important because I want my students to have ownership. ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Question: Would something like that be in rubric too? Suggestion: What about “develops”? So can do it with student. Comment: That feels a lot better Comment: Also ties in with growth Consensus: Change “Sets” to “Develops” „ Meeting was interrupted re: update on DAC election Process—Chip Zullinger: Speaking to DAC election process? Memo sent out – person handling this has been out on family leave. Just talked to Mark Smith and memo was sent on Oct 25 to describe nominations and timeframe elections would take place. End of December memo went out to principal. Another memo that says now is the time to go to the web site – generate memo tomorrow and open up for next 2 weeks. 3 year history – not been involved enough teachers. ƒ
Overall consensus: The list of instructional practice criteria, inclusive of changes reflects expectations HISD should set for teachers and is ready to be shared with working group to build rubrics. IV.
Confirm Cycle 3 recommendations for Professional Expectations Criteria DAC members reviewed as a group summary of discussions and changes to criteria identified at December 16th meeting : a. Implements school rules with fidelity ƒ Comment: “Fidelity” is too subjective – “consistent” is measureable ƒ Comment: Philosophically, this may be a different discussion – notion that anything that isn’t consistent isn’t good – and I think we see that in a host of areas across district. I think it’s up to teachers and principals to decide how to implement. As a parent I get concerned because it feels like police force is going to hit school halls. ƒ Comment: As a principal or as a teacher – certain teachers have high standards – others don’t – it’s kind of an SDMC decision – is this what we want? ƒ Comment: Hopefully people are professional and If there’s certain student – you don’t dock the teacher. There’s discretion around the rubric too, it’s a professional setting. ƒ Suggestion: Does removing “fidelity” work?” ƒ Comment: Maybe it should go under professionalism instead of commitment. ƒ Comment: What if we took out fidelity, let PE group try to come up with rubric, and that goes out to teachers for comment. We can get broader perspectives about what to do here. ƒ Consensus: Remove with “With fidelity” b. Words “regularly” and “responsive” related to “Communicates with Parents” a. Comment: Seems like those would be things that would be in a rubric. b. Response: One thing to think about it – “communicates with student” piece or communicates content – what expectations are we setting for teachers if it’s just “communicates with parents” c. Comment: No, it would just be one‐way. Rubric could capture that. d. Consensus: Remove “regularly” and “responsive” ƒ
Overall consensus: The list of professional expectations, inclusive of changes reflects expectations HISD should set for teachers and is ready to be shared with working group to build rubrics. V.
Appraisal process Recommendations a. Presentation of Appraisal Processes from across various districts i. Explanation of comparison of key process features in some urban districts ii. Question: I’m wondering how well these districts are performing? 1. Response: Tough to answer b/c DC is year 2 of implementation, New Haven is in year 1, Hills is just getting started. How well students are doing, we don’t know yet. DC saw pretty significant gains for 4th grade students least year, not even DC will say now that we are confident this is the right way. I think best we can do right now is to really listen to what teachers are telling us with what they need to be better. iii. Question: Is that something that an administrator declares at the beginning of the year, that they’ll have 6 snapshot? 1. Response: My understanding is that it’s not written down, but that’s probably good practice and principals should be trained. Dina Hasiotis presented the major areas related to the appraisal process for the DAC to consider and DAC members if they had any questions on the SDMCs’ Cycle 3 recommendations on the process. No questions. The DAC decided to build preliminary process recommendations this evening and then ask the Process and Synthesis Working Group to offer suggestions in detail, based upon preliminary recommendations to be considered by the DAC on March 20th. Group activity initiated to discuss what recommendations should be made on appraisal process. Topic 1: Types and frequency of opportunities to discuss performance throughout the school year for all teachers Specific Comments from DAC members: ƒ Comment: I think if we’re going to look at student growth, we need to look at teacher growth as well. Start off year with them – set goals set expectations with them and – what is their plan to meet their students’ needs? And also, an opportunity to discuss are your needs set to professionally grow to help meet the needs of your students? ƒ Comment: Also the appraiser could share their expectations ƒ Comment: It kind of scares me that there’s a tremendous amount of data mining to be done at the beginning of the school year to have a conference with every teacher and to have all that data ready to set those goals right away. I understand there has to be some of that already – but I have 180 teachers, we’re not going to make an individual goal for 3000 kids ƒ Comment: But it says reflect on student performance. So maybe it’s looking at last year. ƒ Question: If we have a beginning we should have an end – how did you do? ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Comment: I’m a teacher and I believe you have to have beginning, a middle to assess if you made any progress, and you have to have an end. Comment: So you’re saying 3 meetings? But how about only if you want to. I don’t want to be forced to meet with a teacher who knows more about his subject and his kids? Comment: There’s also meetings and conversations around IPDP Response: This would become part of the same conversation. Comment: As a teacher I’m thinking when I meet with curriculum department – I’m thinking this is a convo I should be having with my department chair – as a teacher I think I would like someone to ask me once every 6 weeks – how are your kids doing? I was observed once and had 0 conversations – I want to be held accountable. Overall consensus: Teachers should meet with their appraisers at the beginning of the year, middle of the year, and end of the year to discuss and gain feedback on his/her performance, develop goals for and reflect on student performance and data, and plan for professional development. Topic 2: Roles and qualifications of appraisers DAC Member Comments: ƒ Comment: We should use current rules for who can appraise. ƒ Comment: Yes, they should be trained and certified! ƒ Comment: Money is an issue but if it wasn’t, I would love an expert in EC and pre‐K or reading stations or workstations or flexible grouping : Someone with specific content expertise. ƒ Question: As district we are moving away from instructional supervisors? ƒ Comment: Piggybacking on what was previously said – what about department chair? Couldn’t it be part of the peer appraisal so‐to‐speak – they can have administrator review and a few peer reviews. ƒ Question to the group: Should there be a second appraiser, if resources allowed, from outside your campus? o Comment: Maybe if that was more a coaching role rather than official appraisal. o Comment: But these content specific people you’re saying – definitely should be utilized in feedback part. o Comment: Observation and feedback – I personally would prefer it not be from my campus. o Comment: I want them to come from – if I’m using assessments from district that performance is judged on – I want someone who developed those assessments to come in and say how I’m using them. If that’s what my performance is based on I want the people who developed those to come in and asses. ƒ Question to the group: Do you feel comfortable for someone from the district, outside your school, to come in and observe? o Comment: If they’re the ones who developed those assessments. o Group: * No objection to people coming from outside school o Comment: If people have been trained, then why can’t they be utilized – I’m an assessor but I’m not being used at all. Why can’t I be used? Overall Consensus: Appraisers should be trained and gain certification on how to implement the new appraisal system. Teachers should have a primary appraiser who is one of the individuals currently permitted to appraise in HISD1, and should also have second appraiser who has specific content‐knowledge in the area being taught and conducts at least one observation that contributes to a teacher’s performance rating. Topic 3: Methods for collecting evidence on teacher performance Student Performance Criteria‐ When should student performance be reviewed and discussed, and goals set?(different than collecting evidence) DAC Member Comments: ƒ Comment: At end of first reporting period and perhaps at the end of the semester, if you’re talking about monitoring student progress. ƒ Comment: The cost in terms of time, and, again, to mine data for 200 kids… this could be difficult ƒ Comment: Our IT person does this now. It’s a long process, and this is – school specific so it’s not something – we’re stuck right now in a issue where all our grades did not export – we can’t even mine our data for the first semester to review – we can, but it’s inaccurate. A technical glitch could come up at any time. ƒ Comment: What if it was online – right now PLCs do it and I sit in on that meeting. ƒ Comment: Student performance needs to be part of every conversation – the extent to which data could be used is situational based on availability and quality. How and when student performance should be included as part of the discussions. It could be observational data. ƒ Comment: For me, once every six weeks if I was having someone observe me and going through my data with me and saying these are your weaknesses how are we going to tackle that next six weeks I’m getting observed again. I would love to get observed every 6 weeks. ƒ Question: I’ve talked to people on different campuses and part of a student performing well or not scares teachers to death. Now you’re getting into integrity and fairness – I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him drink because of environment and other circumstances. So, the whole idea of weighing so much on student growth on the teacher – I don’t know of any campus in HISD where they’re saying, that’s’ not right – needs to be some kind of percentage. ƒ Comment: I know we’re trying to build a system for all teachers – but not all teachers want or need that much feedback. They don’t need or want that, or want all those meetings – so I think all of that plays into it too. Maybe you could meet with the people you feel like you really need to meet with Potential solution: Insert “based on campus and teacher need”? ƒ Comment: So maybe you open your doors to anyone who wants to have that discussion. ƒ Response: Does group feel really strongly about whether this system needs to require a certain level of meetings or conversations, i.e ‐ what’s the bare minimum etc? In an evaluation process where you say teachers and principals should sit down regularly – is it enough to say, in this system, student performance should be part of this conversation OR is there something else you want to say – we really want to mandate that there are 2 specific conferences that are only about student performance so the working group can work out details. 1
In HISD the following individuals are permitted to conduct appraisals: Principal, Assistant Principal, Dean, School Improvement Officer, Department Director (Special Education), Department Manager (Special Education), Instructional Specialist with no classroom duties at the same campus, Instructional/Title I Coordinator with no classroom duties at the same campus, and a Magnet Coordinator with no classroom duties at the same campus. Consensus: Discuss student performance at the 3 conferences, as indicated earlier. Instructional Practice and Professional Expectations: Sources of Evidence? ƒ Comment: Multiple sources of feedback ƒ Comment: Good for principals to have multiple sources. ƒ Comment: Sources of evidence – I think it’s important that it’s not limited and that it’s up to discretion and judgment of teacher and appraiser. ƒ Comment: All possible sources of evidence could be considered rather than limiting it. I.e. ‐ hearing from parents is highly relevant in some instances and not in others. ƒ Comment: We’ve used documents to do walkthroughs that are not part of the appraisal instrument. I always explain that to a teacher when I came and I left them a copy of it for them to save it and keep as evidence of what I saw that particular day. I’m still keeping as evidence of positive things I observed. Requirements for pre‐Conferences? ƒ Comment: Pre‐conferences not necessary. ƒ Comment: You have meeting at beginning of the year, anyway. Types and frequency of Observations? Comment: I don’t think observations need to be announced Comment: Worry about – if only had come yesterday – if are announced, you could show them more strategies. Comment: If it is announced it will be a dog and pony show Comment: Multiple walkthroughs Comment: Mandate at least once or twice a year, longer? Comment: At least twice a year, SDMCs said monthly feedback Lengths of observations/walkthroughs? ƒ Comment: Give teacher option. We have block schedules. Stick around – so don’t miss good part. Give teacher option of asking for longer observation, under circumstances. ƒ Comment: Longer observations you can observe other things – such as stamina, transitions. Longer observation looks different – as a parent my hope is that whoever is appraising – 1x or 2x a year spends significant amount of time. ƒ Comment: But walkthroughs are not just 5 minutes, they come in, sit down, and actually look. ƒ Comment: Regarding administrators – if I have a teacher on my campus that is top‐notch and I let them believe that they are untouchable, that’s an administrative issue. Yes, they need to be tweaked. You don’t need to spend an hour in the room to realize that. ƒ Comment: I personally like 45 minutes, but you have 180 teachers. ƒ Comment: Combination of walkthroughs, unannounced, 45‐minutes, 2 times a year. Response: It sounds like as far as guidelines, no one has really strong aversion to walkthroughs and also fuller‐length observations. It seems like some sort of balance that would be a good fit. I wasn’t hearing super‐strong opinions. ƒ Comment: I do have strong opinion about there needs to be at least some sort of observation that is not a walkthrough Overall Consensus: For Instructional Practice, multiple sources of evidence should be included that relate to the criteria being rated, such as classroom observation, planning documents, and other valid sources. Teachers should receive at least 2 observations, of at least 30 minutes, throughout the year and multiple walkthroughs, followed by feedback. All observations will be unannounced. For Professional Expectations, multiple sources of evidence should be considered that relate to the criteria being rated. Topic 4: Appeals process DAC Comments: ƒ Question: What part can you appeal? Is it rating, is it observation, etc.? ƒ Response: You can appeal both under PDAS ƒ Comment: If new expectation is anywhere from 2 to 5 observations, that’s many more instances of rebuttal. You’re now going to have all teachers who are subject to observation, times 5. ƒ Comment: That is an issue. ƒ Comment: Can you say that the appeals process is – you can only appeal a rating, not an actual observation, you can appeal the score at the end of the year? ƒ Comment: Do you want to say there’s a limit to number? ƒ Comment: If decision of group is that there are 2 different appraisers – does that eliminate the need for another appraisal? You could still write a rebuttal. Overall Consensus: Additional questions on the current law exist and advice was requested from HISD legal department. VI. Conclusion Next meeting will be held on January 20th to review the proposal from the Measures of Student Learning Committee and to review additional process details from the Process and Synthesis working group.