DAC Meeting‐ Meeting Minutes 11.18.10 Opening Mark Smith Mark Smith welcomed members Mark reviewed the proposed academic calendar for the following school year Members commented on the calendar changes Ann Best‐ Teacher Appraisal System Ann reviewed the objective for this segment of the meeting: • Discuss rating scale options • Review Cycle 2 recommendations from the SDMCs • Reflect on and discuss the proposed criteria, based upon SDMC recommendations • Come to an agreement on next steps related to developing the criteria • Review options for process recommendations Rating scale Discussion‐ Ann best presented the current option for the rating scale. Comment‐ Concern regarding definition of second rating (needs improvement/developing). There are areas where even a rock star teacher can develop, so does this mean that if you’re rated “highly effective”, maybe you won’t focus on developing? Answer‐ The assumption is that everyone will have areas of growth. Very valid comment, which the Cabinet has wrestled with. Comment‐ Problem with “needs improvement” – what is the difference between rating 1 and rating 2? Answer—maybe NI means they’re still making progress, but you’re saying we should call a spade a spade and just put them where they should go. AB‐ need to think about the application of ratings; that’s for working groups to work on. Review of Cycle 2 Recommendations Dina Hasiotis walked the DAC members through the process for reviewing the Cycle 2 Recommendations and the summary of those recommendations ƒ Comment‐ In response to SDMC Cycle 2 recommendations, and focus on growth on standardized testsThis is coming from teachers and SDMCs – the concern is whether or not teachers are actually aware of what they are saying regarding value‐added. To have so few mention this, to not have more bring it up, are they aware of what they are saying? ƒ Answer‐ The way the question was phrased, it asked for specific feedback. This won’t synch between ASPIRE and the new appraisal system. ƒ
ƒ
Question – who is on the working groups? Answer‐ teachers, principals, SIOs and HISD staff. The HFT has appointed members for each working group. Next Steps for Developing the DAC’s Cycle 2 Recommendations were proposed. Group Activity: DAC members were then split into three groups to discuss the Cycle 2 Recommendations .Student Performance – Key Questions for Group Discussion 1. Does the current summary of SDMC recommendations for Student Performance reflect the recommendations of SDMCs? ƒ If not, what changes should be made? 2. Do you agree with the proposed approach to have the Measures of Student Learning working group develop a menu of options for Student Performance criteria? ƒ If not, what changes should be made? ƒ If so, based upon review of the data, create a set of guiding principles for the Measures of Student Learning working group to use in developing a menu of options for the Student Performance criteria. B. Instructional Practice– Key Questions for Group Discussion 1. Do you think the groupings reflect the recommendations of SDMCs? ƒ If not, what changes should be made? ƒ Do you think the criteria are the right measures to use when judging teacher performance? 3. Do you think they are organized correctly? 4. Are there opportunities to streamline any criteria? Do you see any overlap within or across criteria types (i.e. planning, engagement, etc.)? 5. Which do you think are the most important? B. Professional Expectations– Key Questions for Group Discussion 2. Do you think the groupings reflect the recommendations of SDMCs? ƒ If not, what changes should be made? ƒ Do you think the criteria are the right measures to use when judging teacher performance? 4. Do you think they are organized correctly? 5. Are there opportunities to streamline any criteria? Do you see any overlap within or across criteria types (i.e. planning, engagement, etc.)? 6. Which do you think are the most important? Feedback from small groups Group 1 – Student Performance On whether or not this is reflective of SDMCs‐ we couldn’t recognize anything submitted. Do we agree with the proposed approach for utilizing the MSL group to prepare options in more detail for the DAC’s consideration? Yes, as long as it includes teachers and union people. Guiding Principals for the MSL working group from the DAC‐ 1. Standard data should be used, and the appraiser must take into account extenuating circumstances. 2. Observation should be included in this. 3. Student work products should be included. 4. Multiple measures should be included. Group 2 – instructional practice Comments‐ We didn’t know if this is reflective of SDMCs, as we haven’t reviewed the data in detail yet Comments‐ We do think it’s laid out OK, the organization is OK for he most part. We did see a few recommendations for changing the language to make it aspirational. We think it should say “checks for student understanding” not misunderstanding. We think you should remove “technology used for planning” because you can create a good plan with pencil and paper and using technology isn’t necessary for a good plan. Change student feeling to “students feel engaged”. Refine this to be objective – the measures should be objective. Group 3 – professional responsibilities Are these the right measures? We have a lot of questions about verbage. There’s so much subjectivity – some of these are impossible to measure. We’re concerned that some of these should be streamlined – for example, “complying with deadlines” and “collaborates with school community members” should fit in together. There was lots of discussion regarding teacher attendance. Are we talking about teacher attendance, or are we talking about making sure appropriate instructional practice continues? Maybe we word it so that teachers aren’t penalized for being absent, but that they plan for emergencies, that they leave appropriate materials. The big thing is language like “eagerness” and “relentlessly” – we should move away from subjectiveness. Conclusion ETI will take the feedback from tonight and include in the Cycle 3 Recommendations gathered from SDMCS, who will be asked to further rank order, in terms of importance the Instructional Practice and Professional Expectation criteria to further refine the list of criteria. DAC members are invited to attend offices hours to provide more detailed feedback on the Cycle 2 recommendations. We will email out this information to you. DAC members were asked to review the detailed SDMC Cycle 2 data summaries in detail prior to the next meeting. Concern‐ the SDMC came back from Cycle 2 meetings and didn’t know what to turn in or to do next. Answer‐ We will make sure to provide clear directions on next steps at the next SDM meeting