Indiana Teacher Appraisal and Support System
Ensuringthatteacherevaluationisequitable,effective&efficient
ANANALYSISOFINDIANADISTRICTEVALUATIONPLANS
Submittedby:
Dr.SandiCole,Ed.D.
Dr.HardyMurphy,Ph.D.
INTASS
CenteronEducationandLifelongLearning
IndianaUniversity
July6,2016
ThisresearchwassupportedbygrantsfromtheIndianaStateBoardofEducationandtheJoyceFoundation.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
1
INTRODUCTION
In2012,IndianaimplementedchangesinteacherevaluationrequiredbyIndianaSenate
EnrolledAct001(PublicLaw90).Alitanyofquestionsconcerningbestpracticesinthe
evaluationofteachershasemergedasdistrictshaverespondedtothislawwithnewly
developedteacherevaluationplans.Amongthesearequestionsrelatedtoplan
developmentandimplementationqualityandprocess.Whatarethecharacteristicsofhigh
qualityevaluationplandevelopmentandimplementationandwhatobjectivemeasuresare
districtsusingtoassessstudentlearning,arebuttwoofmanyquestionsbeingdiscussedin
theprofessionalliteratureconcerningteacherevaluation.Adequatelyansweringthese
questionsandothersisessentialtotransformingteacherevaluationintoaprofessional
growthexperiencethatdevelopsteachersandensuresstudentlearning.
In2015,theStateBoardofEducationcontractedwithINTASStocontinuetheworkofthe
prioritiesintheSBOE’sStrategicPlanningCommitteethatdirectlyrelatetoGoal2
indicatorsintheSBOE’sStrategicPlan.Thisauditrepresentsoneofseveraldeliverables
includedinthatcontract.
ThepurposeoftheINTASSanalysisprovidedinthisreportisto1)determinetheobjective
measuresidentifiedinIndianaschooldistrictteacherevaluationplanstoassessstudent
learning,2)identifyandreviewcharacteristics,componentsandfeaturesoftheseplans,
and3)informtheongoingpolicydiscussionofhowtoensurethedevelopmentand
implementationofevaluationplansinIndianaeffectivelysupportteacherdevelopmentand
studentlearningneeds.
Thefindingspresentedinthisreportwereobtainedfromareviewofteacherevaluation
plansinIndianaforthe2014-15and2015-16schoolyears,usingtheprinciplesand
practicesoftheIndianaTeacherAppraisalSystemofSupports(INTASS)andincorporates
thebestpracticesidentifiedintheliteraturereview.Additionally,thisauditbuildsuponthe
workoftheStateBoardofEducationDesignCommittee,convenedafteraTNTPreviewof
Indiana’steacherevaluationmodelandthatmadespecificrecommendationsonreviewing
andrevisingtheteacherevaluationprocessinthestate(TNTP,2015,SBOE-SPC,2015).
LITERATUREREVIEW
PlanDevelopment
Developingandimplementinghighqualityteacherevaluationplanswithfidelityismore
likelytohappenifallinvolvedhaveaclearunderstandingthatthepurposeand
expectationsoftheevaluationprocessaretosupportteachersindeliveringhighlyeffective
instruction.Coburn(2005)notedseveralfactorsthatinfluenceteachers’responsetonew
policy.Clarityaboutpolicygoalsandmeansareimportant,asunclearexpectationscan
causeanxietyandfrustration.Anotherfactorishowpracticalthepolicychangeisto
implement.Finally,animportantfactorinhowteachersrespondtonewpolicycenters
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
2
aroundtheextentthepolicychangeprovidesteacherswithrecognizablemeansand
processestoputthechangeintopractice(instrumentality).
Teacherevaluationpolicyshouldreflectthepurposeofhelpingallteachersimprove
(NationalCouncilonTeacherQuality,2011).TheCenterforPublicEducation(2013)
reportedontheelementsofgoodteacherevaluationsystems.Theynotedthataninclusive
designandimplementationprocesswasacriticalelement.Ensuringthiscollaborative
approachrequiresdistrictstomakeculturalaswellasstructuralchangestoteacher
evaluationsystems(Cole,Robinson,Ansaldo,Whiteman,&Spradlin,2012).Engagingkey
stakeholdersincriticalreflectionandinquiryensuresthatthosewhomustimplementa
newappraisalsystemhaveownershipinthedevelopmentofadistrictevaluationplan.
Teachersandadministratorsalikemustbelievethattheirdistrictevaluationplanisbeing
createdinacollaborativeculture.Simplyadoptingamodelwithoutengagingina
collaborativeprocesswillmakeimplementationproblematic.Inadditiontoaninclusive
designandimplementationprocess,theCenterforPublicEducation(2013)alsonotedfour
otherelementsofeffectiveteacherevaluationsystems:multiplemeasures,adequate
resourcesandsupport,datalinkingteacherstostudentperformance,andclassroom
observations.
TheCouncilofChiefStateOfficers(2016)inarecentreportontheprinciplesforteacher
supportandevaluationsystemsprovidestenrecommendationsforstatesanddistricts:
• Regularlycommunicatethepurposeofteachersupportandevaluation.
• Buildteachersupportandevaluationssystemsonclearlyarticulatedstandardsand
effectiveteachingpractices.
• Clarifytherolesandresponsibilitiesofstates,districtsandschoolswithregardto
teachersupportandevaluationsystems.
• Ensuresupportandevaluationisanongoingprocessofprovidingteacherswith
frequent,action-orientedfeedbackconnectedtoprofessionallearning.
• Createstructuresforteacherstoworkcollaborativelytosetgoals,createandor
selectmeasures,andreflectonprogress.
• Buildtheskillsofleaderstoeffectivelyimplementteachersupportandevaluation.
• Engageeducatorsinthedevelopmentofthesupportandevaluationsystemsandin
itscontinuousimprovement.
• Usemultiple,highqualitymeasurestocreateacomprehensiveviewofteaching
practice.
• Ensureconsistencyandaccuracyofevaluationdata.
• Ensurethesystemisfair,credibleandtransparent.
PolicyandGovernance:
FederalpolicysuchasRacetoTheTop,withitsrequirementsforgrantawardsand
implementationwaivers,hasplayedasignificantroleinthetransformationofeducator
evaluation.InIndiana,legislationfollowedbystaterulemaking,policyandguidancehave
usedthepracticeoflocalcontrolattheschoolcorporationlevelasthecornerstoneinthe
developmentandimplementationofteacherevaluationsystems.Thispracticecreatesa
questionconcerningthestate’sroleinthedevelopmentandimplementationofhighquality
teacherevaluationplans.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
3
Inguidancetostates,Goe,HoldheideandMiller(2014)recommendthatStatesidentify
measuresandconductresearchduringandafterimplementationofteacherevaluationand
playanactiveroleinconductingresearchtoensurethattheevaluationmodel(s)is
technicallysoundandthereforedefensible,especiallyinsituationsinwhichteacher
evaluationresultswillbeusedtomakepersonnelandcompensationdecisions.TheCenter
forPublicEducation(2013)suggestlocalschooldistrictsneedflexibilityindesigningand
implementingevaluationsystemstoalignwithdistrictneeds,buttheyalsoneedstrong
supportandguidancefromtheirstate.Whendiscussingthebalancebetweenlocaland
statecontrol,theystatethatamediumapproachappearsbest;oneinwhichthestate
providesaframeworkinwhichcertainaspectsmaybemandatedbythestatebutallow
otherfeaturestobedeterminedlocally.TheNationalCouncilonTeacherQuality(2011)
alsoidentifiesaproblemwithalackofstandardizationinplandevelopmentand
implementationandstatethatitcanbedifficulttocompareteacherqualityacrossdistricts.
Thereisgoodreasonforstatestosupportdistrictstoimplementstrongevaluation
systems,andlittleoversightorguidancecanbeworrisome.
CriticalPlanCharacteristics,Features,andProcesses
Goeetal(2014)publishedapracticalguideforstatesincreatingeffectiveevaluation
systems.Theyidentifiedthefollowingcriticalcomponentsofevaluationplans:
• Ensurethatthepurposeistoimproveteachingandlearning.
• Cultivatingastrategiccommunicationplanthatsecuresstakeholderinvestment,
andincludesgatheringfeedbackontheevaluationplan.
• Usemultiplemeasurestoallowforamorecomprehensiveviewofteachers
effectivenessbasedonavarietyofevidence.
• Selectmeasuresthatarevalidandreliablefortheirintendedpurpose.Measures
thathaveahighervaliditymaybeusedwithmoreconfidence.
• Ensurefactorsrelatedtoimplementationfidelity(suchasnumberofobservations,
artifactsetc.)areclearlyarticulated.
• Investintrainingofevaluators.
• Ensuredataintegrity—(Cleandata,verifyingdata,systemtocollectdata,
transparencyofdata).
• Useteacherevaluationdataforprofessionaldevelopmentattheindividual,school
anddistrictlevels.
• Developfactorstodetermineifthesystemiseffectiveandimplementedwith
fidelity.
Althoughevaluationsystemshavemanydifferentcomponentsandfeatures,implicitinthe
listaboveareseveralimportantcharacteristicsthatarecriticaltothesuccessful
developmentandimplementationofteacherevaluationplans.Fundamentaltothe
effectivenessofplandevelopmentandimplementationisthequalityoftheprofessional
dialoguethatistheheartoftheevaluationexperience.Inplandevelopment,thisdialogue
maybethoughtofascollaboration.Toensurethattheevaluationexperienceismeaningful
andworthwhileevaluatorsshouldreceiveongoingtraining(Goeetal,2014).Inthe
evaluationexperienceitistheprovisionofhighqualityfeedbackfromevaluatorsthatis
necessaryforteacherstobenefitfromtheevaluationexperience.Providingactionable
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
4
feedbacktoteachers,creatingprofessionallearningcommunitieswhereteachersshare
goalsandshareresponsibilityforstudentoutcomes,andforgingasystemwhereteachers
haveopportunityforongoingprofessionaldevelopmentcanenhanceinstructionalquality.
Thishighqualityprofessionaldiscoursecreatesintheevaluationprocessanatmosphereof
collegialityinaninstructionalpartnershipforteacherandstudentsuccess.(Hallinger,
Heck,Murphy,2014).
ResearchBasedTeacherEvaluationRubrics
Anumberofhighlyrespectedteacherevaluationrubricshaveemergedoverthepast
severalyearsandarebeingusedbydistrictsintheevaluationprocess,e.g.,Danielson,
Marzano,etc.Ingeneraltheserubricsfocusonthreeorfourcomponentsoftheteaching
andlearningprocess(planning,instructionaldelivery,classroommanagementand
learningenvironment,andprofessionaldevelopmentandcollegiality).Inoneformor
anothermanyoftheserubricshavebeenapartoftheeducationalenvironmentfora
numberofyears.However,althoughtheserubricsreceivewidespreadacceptance,they
cannotovercomethelimitationsoflimitedobservationtimeinmakingajudgementof
teachingquality.Unannouncedclassroomvisits(10-15minutes)bythesameevaluator,
samplingmultipleaspectsoftheteachersworkfollowedbyaface-to-facefeedbacksession
isarecommendedpractice(Marshall,K.,2012).Inthiswaytheratingsofteachingquality
aresupportedbymultipleinstancesofobservingandnotingtheinstructionalpractices
evidencedthroughtheteacherevaluationrubric.
ObjectiveMeasuresofStudentLearning
Theinclusionofstudentlearningintheteacherevaluationexperienceinaquantifiable
mannertoinformteacherevaluationratingsisarelativelynewdevelopment.In2015,43
statesrequiredobjectivemeasuresofstudentachievementbeincludedinteacher
evaluationsand17statesrequiredthatstudentgrowthbepreponderantcriterionin
teacherevaluation(NationalCouncilonTeacherQuality,2015).
Theterm“objectivemeasure”isusedinavarietyofsituationsthatrangefromthetechnical
tothecomplexandforavarietyofresearchandprofessionalpurposes.Objective
measurementoperateswithintheresearchtraditionsoffundamentalmeasurementtheory,
itemresponsetheory,andlatenttraittheory.Objectivemeasurementcanbeachievedand
maintainedemployingawidevarietyofapproachesandmethods.(TheProgram
CommitteeoftheInstituteforObjectiveMeasurement,December2000).
IndianaCode20-28-11.5-4requiresschoolcorporationstoincludeobjectivemeasuresof
studentachievementandgrowthtosignificantlyinformthefinalevaluationrating.State
Boardrule(2012)statestheuseandweightingofobjectivemeasuresofstudent
achievementandgrowthmeasuresshalldirectlyrelatetotheassessmentsthatmost
accuratelymeasurestudentlearningaccordingtothefollowingpriority:
(1)Whereamandatorystateassessmentexists,aschoolcorporationmustuseitas
ameasureofstudentlearning.Ifthatstateassessmentprovidesindividualgrowth
modeldata(IGM),thedistrictmustuseitasthatteacher’sprimarymeasureof
studentlearning.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
5
(2)Whereastateassessmentdoesnotexist,anassessmentdevelopedorprocured
bythedistrictthatisusedforcommongradesorsubjectsshallbeusedasameasure
ofstudentlearning.
(3)Onlywhenthereisnostate,districtorschoolassessmentshalladistrictutilize
class-specific,teacher-createdassessmentsasameasureofstudentlearningfor
evaluationpurposes.
(4)Districtsmayusemultiplestudentlearningmeasures.Ifdistrictschoosetouse
multiplesourcesofdata,theprimarymeasurewillcarrythemostweightinrelation
totheotherstudentlearningmeasures.
TheIndianaStateBoardofEducationStrategicDesignCommittee(2015),inareviewof
currentexperiencesinthedevelopmentandimplementationofIndianateacherevaluation
plansalsodefinedobjectivemeasuresofstudentachievementandgrowth.TheCommittee
defineditinthefollowingtwostatements.
•
Objectivemeasuresofstudentlearningisanoutcomestatementofstudent
performancerequiringmeasureabledatatosupportinstructionalgoals.
•
Objectivemeasuresofstudentlearningallowavalidandreliableassessment
ofskillandknowledge,attitudes,andopinionwithanagreeduponstandard
orcriteriarecognizedbyaproperlyqualifiedand/ortrainedindividualorby
anindividualwhoisinformedinitsadministration,scoringand
interpretation.
Thechallengeanddebatehavebeenfocusedonwhetherassessmentscan,withvalidityand
reliability,measuretheimpactateacherhasonstudentlearning.Validityisthe
overarchingconceptthatdefinesqualityineducationalmeasurement.Itistheextentto
whichanassessmentmeasureswhatitisintendedtomeasureandprovidesoundevidence
(Herman,Heritage,&Goldschmidt,2011).However,theuseofeventhemostreliableand
validmeasuresisreceivedwithsomeresistancesimplybecausenomeasureisperfectly
reliableorvalid.Thereisalwaysthechancethatperformanceonatestmaynotrepresent
withcertaintythelearningthathasoccurredduringtheteachingprocess.Theuseof
multiplemeasuresisimportantandismeanttocompensatefortheimperfectionsofeach
individualmeasureandproducemoreaccurateandhelpfulevaluations(Goe,L.,Holdheide,
L,&Miller,T.2014).
Herman,Heritage,&Goldschmidt(2011)establishthebasicargumentthatassessments
shouldbeusedtomeasurestudentgrowthasapartofteacherevaluation.However,they
arguethatlittleattentionhasbeendevotedtothequalityofthestudentassessments,which
isfundamentaltothetrustworthinessofanyteachervalueaddedmeasure,andstatethat
carefullydesignedandvalidatedassessmentsareneededinordertoprovidetrustworthy
evidenceofteacherquality.Theyfurthernotethatwhenstatesunderstandthe
requirementsthatassessmentsneedtosatisfyandtheessentialdesignfeatures,theycan
provideneededguidancetodistrictsonqualityassessmentsthatshouldbeusedinteacher
evaluation.
Becausethemajorityofteachersteachingradesandsubjectareasnotcoveredbytypical
statewideassessments,districtshaveoftenbeenlefttocomeupwithdifferingwaysto
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
6
measurestudentgrowthfortheseteachers,eventhoughthestatisticalpropertiesofthese
alternativesremainunknown(Coburn2005).Designingmeasuresofstudentgrowthfor
non-testedareasisanimportantchallengeforstates(NationalCouncilonTeacherQuality,
2011).
Assessmentiscriticalforallteachersofallsubjectsandallgrades.Non-testedgradesand
subjects,thosenotpartofastate’saccountabilitysystem,shouldnotbeanafterthought.It
isimportanttodeterminestudentlearningacrossallgradesandcontentareasinorderfor
districtsandschoolsensureasuccessfuleducationalexperienceforstudentsandto
providesupportforallteachers.Goodassessmentmeasuresregardlessofwhethertheyare
standardized,“offtheshelf”,normreferenced,criterionreferenced,locallydeveloped,or
teacherdevelopedcaninformstudentprogressandteacherperformance(NationalCouncil
onTeacherQuality,2011).
Thisdifferencebetweentheavailabilityofstandardizedmeasuresacrosscontentareasis
oftenthesourceofdiscontentintheuseofstudentgrowthintheevaluationprocess.Itisa
dilemmathatimpactsweightschosenforstudentgrowthinteacherevaluationsacross
contentareas,roles,andassignments.Whileitisnotatallunreasonablethatstatesmay
makeadjustmentstocomponentweightsassystemsmature,treatingteachersdifferently
doesnotseemtobearecipeforteachersatisfactionandtrustintheresults.Explicit
policiesshouldexistfornon-testedareastoensurethattherearenotlowerstandardsfor
thisgroupofteachers.Statesmustusecautionwhenusingschool-widemeasuresofgrowth
inindividualteacherevaluations,asthesecannotbeasubstituteforindividualmeasures
(NationalCouncilonTeacherQuality,2013).
TheIndianateacherevaluationmodel,RISE2.0,recommendedthatteachersdevelop
StudentLearningObjectives(SLO)todeterminestudentlearning.TheSLOprocessisa
methodofsettingmeasurablegoals,orobjectivesbasedonthestudentstaught,thesubject
mattertaught,thebaselineperformanceofthestudents,andthemeasurablegainin
studentperformanceduringthecourseofinstruction.Stateguidanceonchoosingan
appropriateassessmentshouldensurethattheassessmentberigorous,bealignedwith
statestandards,allowcomparabilityacrossclassrooms,andbevalidandreliable
(Lacireno-Paquet,Morgan,&Mello,(2014).Amongdistrictsthatusestudent-learning
objectives,themostfrequentlyreportedbenefitwasincreasedcollaboration,whereas
value-addedmodelsofstudentgrowthwereperceivedasfairerthanstudentlearning
objectives.Evidenceislimitedonthereliabilityandvalidityofstudentlearningobjectives
usedinearly-adoptingdistricts(MuCullough,English,Angus,&Gill.2015).
InasurveyconductedbyMurphy,Cole,Pike,Ansaldo,&Robinson,(2014)teachers,
principalsandsuperintendentsinIndianabelievethatteachereffectivenessaffectsstudent
achievementandthatstudentachievementandgrowthcanbevalidlymeasured.However,
teachersinthisstudydidnotbelievethattheirlocalplanseffectivelycapturethe
relationshipbetweeneffectiveteachingandstudentlearning.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
7
OBJECTIVEMEASURESOFSTUDENTACHIEVEMENTANDGROWTH
USEDININDIANATEACHEREVALUATIONPLANS
METHODS
ThedistrictevaluationplansthatwerereviewedweresubmittedtotheIDOEinSeptember
of2014.The2014planswereselectedbecauseitwasfeltthataftertwoyearsof
implementationthenumberofdistrictssubmittingplanswouldgivearepresentative
responseforreview.Additionally,atthetimeofthecontractawardandinitiationof
implementation,the2015planshadnotbeensubmitted.
TheINTASSteamreviewed283plansthatweresubmittedtotheIDOEthroughLegal
Standard12.Tendistrictswerestillunderanunexpiredcontractandtherefore,not
obligatedtoimplementtherequirementsofIC20-28-11.5anddidnotsubmitplandata.
Twenty-eightdistrictssubmittedplansbuthadmissingstudentlearningandteacher
evaluationrubricweightdataorthedatawasunclear.Forreportingpurposesweareusing
thenumber245torepresentthenumberofsubmittedplansforwithwhichallapplicable
datawereclearlypresentintheplanincludingspecificpercentagesforthestudent
learning,i.e.,achievementandgrowth,andteacherevaluationrubricandweights.
Belowistheprocessandtimelinesusedfortheplanreview:
•
•
•
•
November2015:Spreadsheetdevelopedfordataentryofobjectivemeasures,
including:
o Weights(for1-4classesofteachers,dependingondistrict)
§ Observation(TER)rubric
§ IGMdata
§ SLOorotherstandardgrowthfactor
§ School-widelearning(i.e.A-Fgrade)
o Indicationofname/typeofobjectivemeasuresasspecifiedinplans
November-December2015
o 4INTASSstaffersreviewedaportionofdistrictplans
o Spreadsheetwaspopulatedforweightsandobjectivemeasures
o Datamergedintosinglesheet
December2015
o INTASSstafferreviewsallplansforname/typeofobjectivemeasures
March-April2016
o 3INTASSstaffersreviewweightsofallplans
o Finalformulasappliedandreviewcompleted.
Itshouldbenotedherethatinadditiontoanauditofobjectivemeasuresandtheirusein
theweightingofstudentlearningforratingteachersintheevaluationprocess,(i.e.,growth
andachievement),thedocumentationoftheteacherevaluationrubricusedandthe
assignedweightintheratingprocessofferusefuldatafordocumentingplan
characteristics.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
8
RESULTS
ObjectiveMeasuresofStudentAchievementandGrowthUsedinIndianaTeacher
EvaluationPlans
Therewerethreedistincttypesofobjectivemeasuresinstudentgrowthandachievement
intheevaluationplansreviewed;IGM,A-FschoolwidelettergradeandSLOs.Inthereview
ofthe245evaluationplans,allplans(100percent)includedateachereffectivenessrubric.
Ofthe245plansreviewed,212(87percent)includedtheA-Flettergradeasanobjective
measureofstudentachievementandgrowthintheevaluationplanand199districts(81
percent)includedIGMasanobjectivemeasureofstudentachievementandgrowthinthe
evaluationplan.Ofthe245plansreviewed,175(71percent)includedSLOsasanobjective
measureofstudentachievementandgrowthintheevaluationplan.
Thefollowingtablesrepresentanalyticalfindingsofthe245districtevaluationplans
submittedandreviewed.
Table1:Representsthenumberofevaluationsreviewedandthenumberofdistrictsthat
includedtheuseofateacherevaluationrubric,IGMandA-Flettergrade.
N=
%(N/245)
NumberofDistrictsIndicatingUseofTeacher
245
100%
EffectivenessRubric(TER)
NumberofDistrictsIndicatingUseofIGM
199
81%
NumberofDistrictsIndicatingUseofA-FletterGrade
212
87%
NumberofDistrictsindicatingUseofSLO’s
175
71%
Table2:Representsthehighestandlowestweightsusedfortheteachereffectiveness
rubric,IGM,A-FlettergradeandSLOincalculatingsummativeratings.Theweighted
percentagefortheuseoftheTeacherEffectivenessRubric(notstudentachievementand
growthmeasures)variesgreatlyamongthedistrictplans.Theweightedpercentagesused
fortheTeacherEffectivenessRubricforthe2014-15schoolyearrangefromaslowas40
percenttoashighas100percent.TheweightedpercentageusedforIGMvariesgreatly
amongthedistrictplansfromahighof50percenttoalowof2percent.Thehighest
percentageusedamongthedistrictsforA-Fwas50percentandthelowestwas2percent.
ForSLO’sthehighestpercentageusedamongthedistrictswas60percenttoalowof2
percent.
Measure
TeacherEffectivenessRubric
IGM
A-FSchoolLetterGrade
StudentLearningObjectives
(SLO)
HighestWeightsUsed
100%
50%
50%
60%
LowestWeightsUsed
40%
2%
2%
2%
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
9
MostCommonlyUsedAssessmentsCitedinDistrictEvaluationPlans:
(NameandNumberofDistricts)
ECA(116)
LocallyDeveloped
Assessments/FinalExam
(96)
ISTAR(58Districts)
DIBELS/mCLASS(57)
NWEA(54)
iMAST(44)
IRead(42)
Acuity(37)
WIDA/LASLinks(32)
AdvancedPlacementTest
Results(24)
Star(26)
StudentPortfolio(15)
IEP’s/504Plans(9)
AIMSweb(8)
RIT(7)
WIDA(7)
PSAT/SAT(6)
STI(6)
Lexile(4)
ACT(3)
GradRate(2)
IndustryCertification
Assessments(2)
TerraNova(2)
StudentStakeholder
Feedback(2)
ProjectLeadtheWay(2)
INCAtest(2)
Aleks(2)
Achieve3000(2)
ScholasticReadingCounts
(2)
TRC(2)
CoreProfessionalism(2)
Readistep(1)
ShortCycleAssessments
(1)
HarcourtEndofYear
ReadingAssessment(1)
CTE(1)
IKAT(1)
Benchmark
Assessments/Running
Records(1)
Accu-sess(1)
EasyCBM(1)
Next(1)
CRT(1)
MYPCriterion(1)
ULSBenchmarks(1)
PresidentChallengeFitness
(1)
DualCreditPercentage(1)
FitnessforLife(1)
SchoolBullyingAssessment
(1)
ParentalInvolvementData
(1)
Accuplacer(1)
Ofthe245plansreviewed,33districtsareonlyusingonemeasureofstudent
achievementandgrowth.IDOEguidanceandstatelawrequiresmultiplemeasures
ofstudentachievementandgrowth.Nearlyoneinfive(18.7percent)districtsare
notusingIGMasameasureofstudentachievementandgrowth.Ofthe33districts
onlyusingonemeasureofstudentachievementandgrowth,21areusingtheschool
A-Flettergradeastheonlymeasureofstudentachievementandgrowth.State
BoardRulestatesthatdistrictsmustuseIGMastheprimarymeasureofstudent
learningforallteachersthatprovideinstructioningrades4-8English/languagearts
and/ormath.Alsoofnote,only58districtsindicatedthattheywereusingISTAR,
thestatealternateassessmentforteacherswhoteachstudentsonalternate
assessment.IDOEGuidancestatesteachersshouldusetheassessmentwiththemost
confidenceintermsofvalidityandreliability,whichwouldbeISTARasitisastate
assessment
Duringthe2014-15schoolyear,theIDOEconductedonsitemonitoringvisitsof
district’simplementationofevaluationplansperIndiana’sESEAFlexibilityWaiver.
Duringthevisits,theIDOEdidfinddistrictsthatwerenotincludingIGMasthe
primarymeasureofstudentachievementandgrowthandissuedanindividual
reporttothedistrict.Thedistrictswereresponsibletoprovidenextstepstothe
IDOEtoensureIGMwouldbeincludedinthefuture.Duetothenewfederallaw,
EveryStudentSucceedsAct(ESSA),themonitoringofdistrictteacherevaluation
plansarenolongerrequired.
SLO’swerementionedaspartofthestudentlearningweightforallthreegroupsof
teachers;however,districtsoftendidnotreportordescribethemeasurebeingused
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
10
asapartoftheSLO.ThiswasparticularlytrueforthosedistrictsusingRISE2.0or
ModifiedRISE2.0.
INDIANASCHOOLDISTRICTASSESSMENTOFTEACHER
EVALUATIONPLANCHARACTERISTICS
METHODS
InMarch2016,theIndianaUniversityCenteronEducationandLifelongLeaning(IU
CELL)contractedwithHaleyConsultingServices,LLC(HCS),aresearchand
evaluationfirmspecializinginthereviewandanalysisofprogramsandservices,to
assistINTASSincompletinganassessmentofIndianaschooldistrictTeacher
EvaluationPlancharacteristics.Asdescribedinthefollowingnarrative,working
togetherwithHCSthroughthefallandspringofthe2015-16schoolyear,a
comprehensivereviewandassessmentofIndianateacherevaluationplanswas
accomplished.
Inordertoaddressreliabilityandvalidityinthereviewprocess,projectparticipants
developedanassessmenttoolderivedfromTheINTASSEducatorEvaluationPlan
Rubric(2013).TheINTASSrubricwasdeveloped“toassistschooldistrictsin
developingandimplementinghighqualityeducatorevaluationsystems”(Murphy&
Cole2013).Becausetherubricisessentiallyatoolforplanning,itwasadaptedto
enableareliabledocumentreviewforthedetermination/assessmentofplan
characteristics.Theresultingtooldistillstheresearchondevelopingeffective
teacherevaluationplansdownto36keycomponentsthattheidealplanshould
contain.Thesecomponentsallfallunderthefollowingcategories:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IntentandPhilosophy/BeliefStatements(1component)
StrategicCommunications(2components)
ProcessforClassroomObservations(17components)
Weightsofmeasures(2components)
Cleartimelines/Protocols(1component)
SystemforMeasuringStudentLearning(4components)
SystemforCollecting,ReportingandStoringData(3components)
ConvertingMeasuresScorestoSummativeTeacherRatings(1component)
OversightProcess(2components)
ProfessionalDevelopment(2components)
Forms(1component)
IUCELLpersonneldownloaded2015-16evaluationplansfromtheIndiana
DepartmentofEducation’swebsite
(http://www.doe.in.gov/evaluations/evaluation-plans)andconvertedtheminto
readablefilesusingAdobeAcrobat.Atotalof275districtplansweredownloaded,of
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
11
which271wereassessed.Oneplancontainedonlythecoversheetandnoattached
plan,oneplanwascorruptedandunabletoopen,oneplanpertainedtoonlyasingle
schoolwithinadistrict(whichisotherwiseincludedintheassessment),andone
districtsubmittedtheirSchoolImprovementPlan,whichdidnotcontainthe
requiredevaluationplan.
Assessingtheplans
UsinganExcelspreadsheettotrackdistrictscores,thepresenceorabsenceofeach
componentineverydistrictplanwasrecordedusingstandarddichotomous
notationofonesandzeros.Notationswererecordedinthespreadsheettonote
whereintheplansonecanfindevidenceinsupportofthegivenscore.Finally,key
passageswerehighlightedintheplanstofurthersupporttheassignedscores.
AppendixAcontainsacopyofthecodebookusedtoassesstheplans.
Inter-raterreliability
Afterthefirst30planswereassessed,INTASSpersonnelconductedaninter-rater
reliabilitytestonfiverandomlyselectedplans.Theresultofthistestidentified
areasofinconsistencyintheassessmentprocess,whichledtoa
strengthening/clarificationsofdefinitionsforseveralkeycomponents.Afteran
additionalfiftyplanswereassessed,anothercheckwasconductedonfiverandomly
selectedplans.Thischeckrevealedthattheclarificationsincreasedthereliabilityof
thetool.Afinalcheckon10randomlyselectedplanswasconductedinorderto
confirmtheinter-raterreliabilityoftheprocess.
RESULTS
Distributionofscores
Outofatotalpossible36points,scoresrangedfromtwoto32.Nodistrictscoreda
perfect36points.Theaveragescorewas19,aswasthemedianscore.Themost
commonscore(themode)was18.Usingastandarddeviationof5,thedistribution
ofscoreswasdividedintothreecategoriesofhigh,mediumandlow.Mediumscores
includethosewithinonestandarddeviationineitherdirectionfromthemean(14to
24points);lowscoresincludeallthosebelowonestandarddeviationfromthe
mean,andhighscoresincludeallscoresaboveonestandarddeviationfromthe
mean.Thoughveryslightlyskewedtotheleft,Figure1showsarelativelynormal
distributionofscoresforthe271assesseddistrictplans.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
12
Figure1.Distributionofscoresfordistrictplans.Thirty-onedistrictsscoredin
thehighrange,207inthemediumrange,and33inthelowrange.
FiveofthesixdistrictsthatreceivedSBOErecognition(fourofwhichwereINTASS
districts)scoredinthehighrange,andonescoredjustbelow.Fiveofthesixdistricts
thatINTASSworkedwith,independentoftheSBOErecognitionprocess,scoredin
thehighrange,withonescoringinthemediumrange(Figure2).
Figure2.AllSBOErecognizeddistrictsandINTASSdistrictsscoredabove
average.PinkdenotesthescoreofoneSBOEdistrict,crimsondenotesone
INTASSdistrict,andbluedenotesscoresthatcontainbothSBOEandINTASS
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
districts.
13
ComparingHigh,Medium,andLowScoringDistricts
Onewaytounderstandthedifferencesbetweenhigh,mediumandlowscoring
Districtsistolookatthepercentageofdistrictswithinthosecategoriesthat
includedeachcomponentintheirplans.Thefollowingchartsgroupsimilar
componentsandshowthepercentageofdistrictsthatincludedthecorresponding
componentintheirevaluationplans(blackbars).Totherightoftheaggregateblack
bars,eachevaluationplancomponentisbrokendownintoscoresforeachofthe
scoringcategories—high,mediumorlow.Tocreatethebreakoutbars,eachdistrict
wasassignedtoacategorybasedonthetotalnumberofpointstheyaccumulated
throughtheassessment.Fromthere,totalswerecalculatedforeachcategoryand
thenpresentedasapercentageoftheirrespectivegroup.Forexample,inthefirst
chartbelow,71percentofall271districtsincludedapurposeandbeliefstatements
intheirplans,while97percentofthe31highscoringdistrictsincludedthis
component,and77%ofthe207mediumscoringdistrictsdidthesame.Withineach
grouping,componentsaresortedfromhightolowbasedontheaggregate
percentages.Thissometimeschangesthenumberedorderedofthecomponents.
Thecomponentnumbersherecorrespondtothecomponentnumbersintheoriginal
INTASSrubricfordevelopinganeffectiveteacherevaluationplanandholdno
significanceotherthantoidentifythem.
Intent/Philosophy/BeliefStatements,andStrategicCommunicationsPlan(Figure3)
Intheaggregate,allthreeofthesecomponentscouldbeimproved,butitisthe
gatheringofstakeholderfeedbackonevaluationplans(component2.2,bottom
bars)thatstandsoutthemostwith32percentofalldistrictsincludingitintheir
plans.Amongthedisaggregatedscoresweseeanimmediateandstrongdifference
betweenhighscoringdistrictsandlowscoringdistricts.Veryfewlowscoring
districtsincludepurposeandbeliefstatements(12%)intheirplans,nordothey
includeinformationonhowtheywillgatherfeedbackfromtheirstakeholderson
theevaluationplan(15%),andnearlyhalfasmanylowscoringdistrictsspecifyany
strategiesforcommunicatingtheirevaluationplansasdohighscoringdistricts
(42%versus90%).
Component
Percentage of
All Districts
High Districts
(N=31)
Medium Districts
(N=207)
1.0 Purpose and belief statements
are in the plan.
71%
97%
77%
2.1 Strategies for communicating
the district’s teacher evaluation
plan are specified.
70%
90%
71%
2.2 Specifics are provided for
gathering stakeholder feedback
on the evaluation plan.
32%
77%
29%
Low Districts
(N=33)
12%
42%
15%
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
14
Figure3.Componentsrelatedtophilosophy/beliefstatementsandcommunications
plans.
HighQualityTeacherEvaluationRubric(Figure4)
Theteacherevaluationrubriccomponentsprovidedthehighestoverallaveragesfor
alldistrictscombined,aswellasforeachcategory—high,mediumandlow.The
lowestoverallcomponentforthisgroupwas4.1b.Rubricisapplicableformultiple
rolesandteachingassignmentswithadaptations.However,eventhatcomponent
wasincludedinthemajorityoflowscoringdistricts’plans(76%).
Component
4.1a Rubric differentiates
teaching levels (e.g., highly
effective to not effective).
4.1c Rubric defines different
domains.
4.1d Rubric Includes explicit
practices as different elements
within domains.
4.1b Rubric is applicable for
multiple roles and teaching
assignments with adaptations.
Percentage of
All Districts
High Districts
(N=31)
Medium Districts
(N=207)
Low Distrcits
(N=33)
100%
100%
100%
97%
99%
100%
100%
91%
98%
100%
99%
91%
95%
100%
97%
76%
Figure4.Componentsrelatedtoahighqualityteacherevaluationrubric.
EvaluatorsandEvaluatorTraining(Figure5)
Again,thereisagreatdifferencebetweenhighscoringandlowscoringdistricts,
especiallyasitrelatestoclearlydefiningevaluatorrolesandresponsibilities
(component4.2b,secondrow).Whileallofthehighscoringdistrictsandnearlythe
entiremediumscoringdistricts(95%)includethiscomponentintheirplans,less
thanone-fifthofthelowscoringdistrictsdoso(15%).Whenitcomestotraining
evaluators(4.6aand4.6b,thirdandfourthrows),highscoringdistrictsoutscore
boththemediumandlowscoringdistricts,thoughthereisstillgreatroomfor
improvementforthemall.Districtswereawardedapointfor4.6aiftheindicated
thirdpartytrainingfortheirevaluatorsintheirplan.Thiswasdonetoaccountfor
inconsistenciesinthelanguageusedamongdistricts.Itisinterestingtonotethat
morelowscoringdistrictsincludethirdpartytrainingfortheirevaluatorsthan
providingthemwithaclearunderstandingoftheirrolesandresponsibilities(27%
versus15%respectively).Onepossibilityfortheverylowscoresfor4.6b—yearly
renewaltrainingforevaluators—isthatmanyplansusedgenericlanguagestating
that“trainingwasongoing,”whichwedidnotacceptasannualrenewal.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
15
Component
Percentage of
All Districts
High Districts
(N=31)
Medium Districts
(N=207)
Low Distrcits
(N=33)
4.2a Plan clearly describe who
will evaluate teachers.
89%
100%
90%
70%
86%
100%
95%
15%
47%
77%
46%
27%
4.2b Evaluator roles and
responsibilities are clearly
defined.
4.6a The district requires evaluator
training with certification for all
evaluators
4.6b The district requires evaluator
training with yearly renewal
training.
16%
35%
15%
6%
Figure5.Componentsrelatedtoevaluatorsandevaluatortraining.
ObservationTimelineandProcedures(Figure6)
Lookingstrictlyattheaggregatenumbers,beyondprovidingteacherswiththe
numberofannualobservationsthatarerequired(91%ofalldistricts),
improvementisneededintermsofclarifyingtheoverallobservationprocess.The
descriptionoftheprocessisanareawherethehighscoringdistrictsexcelinall
exceptdescribinghowobservationsandconferenceswillbescheduled.Most
districtssimplystatedthatthesethingswouldhappen.Whilemostschoolsdid
providetimeparametersforprovidingobservationfeedback(4.3d,fourthrow),the
majoritydidnotdescribethepurposeofthefeedback,justthatitwouldbe
provided.Again,thereisastarkdifferencebetweenhighandlowscoringdistricts
onthiscomponent.Exceptfordescribinghowconferenceswillbescheduled,the
overalldescriptionoftheobservationprocessisstrengthforhighscoringdistricts
andaweaknessforlowscoringones.
Reportcontinuesonnextpage.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
16
Percentage of
All Districts
High Districts
(N=31)
Medium Districts
(N=207)
Low Distrcits
(N=33)
91%
100%
95%
61%
4.3c The plan describes an
observation process that includes
the length of observations,
79%
97%
85%
27%
4.3e The plan describes an
observation process that includes
how the observation data will be
recorded.
78%
100%
80%
42%
4.3d The plan describes an
observation process that includes
the purpose and delivery of
observation feedback including
time parameters for providing it.
31%
84%
29%
0%
Component
4.3a The plan describes an
observation process that includes
the number of annual
observations required
4.3b The plan describes an
observation process that includes
how observations will be
scheduled including preconference planning and postconference review,
13%
32%
12%
0%
Figure6.Componentsrelatedtoobservationtimelinesandprocedures.
Evidence/Artifacts(Figure7)
Thecollectionofevidencebeyondobservationsisacomponentthatsetshigh
scoringdistrictsapartfromallothers.Whiletheaggregatescoresinthissectionare
relativelylow,allbutthree(90%)highscoringdistrictsincludedthecollectionof
artifactsintheirplans,andonlyonelowscoringdistrict(3%)did.Mediumscoring
districtsweresplitdownthemiddle,with51percentreferencingthepractice.
Beyondthementionofcollectingartifacts,alldistrictscouldimprovetheirplansby
includinghowtheartifactswillbeused(forexample,insupportofaspecificdomain
orpracticeintheirrubric),andevenmoresobyclearlydefiningthecriteriafor
collectingtheartifacts.Definingcriteriawouldhelpavoidtherandomcollectionof
anyandallartifactsthatateachermightproducethroughouttheyear.
Reportcontinuesonnextpage.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
17
Component
4.4a The teacher evaluation
process includes the collection
and submission of evidence/
artifacts.
4.4c How evidence and artifacts
will be used is described
4.4b The teacher evaluation
process includes clearly defined
criteria for evidence/artifacts.
Percentage of
All Districts
High Districts
(N=31)
Medium Districts
(N=207)
Low Distrcits
(N=33)
50%
90%
51%
31%
68%
30%
0%
9%
32%
7%
0%
3%
Figure7.Componentsrelatedtoevidence/artifacts.
ConferencesandMeaningfuldialogue/feedback(Figure8)
Includinglanguageinplansrelatedtoconferencesandmeaningfulfeedbackwasa
stumblingblockforthevastmajorityofIndianaschooldistricts.Lessthanaquarter
ofalldistrictsrequirebothpre-andpost-observationconferences,andlessthana
fifthnoteself-reflectionasapartoftheprocess.Whilewedoseebigdifferences
betweenhighandlowscoringdistricts,thesescoresareonthelowsideforthe
otherwisehighscoringdistricts.
Component
04.5 Both pre and post
conferences are required (goalsetting)
04.8 Teachers using the
evaluation tool for selfevaluation/reflection is required
Percentage of
All Districts
23%
19%
High Districts
(N=31)
71%
52%
Medium Districts
(N=207)
18%
16%
Low Distrcits
(N=33)
9%
6%
Figure8.Componentsrelatedtoconferencesandmeaningfulfeedback.
WeightsofMeasuresandSummativeScores(Figure9)
Thisisastronggroupofcomponentsfortheaggregateofalldistricts,andissecond
onlytothecomponentsconcerninganeffectiveobservationrubricseenabove.Ten
districtsneglectedtoincludestudentlearningdataaspartoftheirsummative
scores(5.0binthefirstrow),someofwhichsubmittedincompleteevaluationplans
thatincludedonlytheobservationrubric.Whilethereisnotmuchdifference
betweenhighandmediumscoringdistricts,thelowdistrictslagrelativelyfar
behindinallbutcomponent5.0b,includingstudentlearningdataintheir
summativeratings(whichisstill20percentagepointsbelowmediumscoring
districts).Thebiggestdifferenceisseeninthethirdrowofdata,wherethevast
majorityofhighscoringdistricts(90%)indicateintheirplanthattheyweightall
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
18
teachersthesamewhenitcomestostudentlearningdatawhilejustoverathirdof
thelowscoringdistricts(36%)notethispractice.Manyofthedistricts,fromall
threecategories,thatdidnotreceivecreditforthisusedtheRISE2.0Handbook,ora
modifiedversionofit,whichdifferentiatedbetweendifferenttypesofteachers.
Component
Percentage of
All Districts
High Districts
(N=31)
Medium Districts
(N=207)
Low Distrcits
(N=33)
5.0b Student learning data is
included in the summative rating.
96%
100%
99%
79%
9.0 Clear directions exist for
making the calculations
necessary to convert the scores of
all measures to the teacher
summative ratings.
92%
94%
97%
58%
5.0a All individuals evaluated
have the same weight assigned
to student learning component
(within the student learning
component, weights may vary).
69%
90%
71%
36%
Figure9.Componentsrelatedtoweightsofmeasuresandsummativescores.
MeasuringStudentLearning(Figure10)
InFigure10,onepercent(equivalenttothreedistricts),statethattheyinclude
studentfeedbackaspartoftheirstudentlearningscores.Districtsareeither
unawareofthispracticealtogether,donotagreewithincludingstudentfeedback,or
theydonotunderstandthebenefitsofincludingitintheirprocess.Eitherway,itis
clearthatsomeeffortdirectlyrelatedtoimplementingthispracticeisneededif
thesescoresaretoincreaseinthefuture.Therestofthedatainthissectionisalso
underwhelming,thoughquiteasdrastic.Nearlyathirdofalldistrictsindicatethat
theyuseeitherpublisheddata(usuallyfromthestate)orlocallyproduceddatato
measurestudentlearning,buttheydonotuseacombinationofboth.Asseenin
Figure9above,therewereafewdistrictsthatdonotindicatethattheyusestudent
learningdataatall;thosedistrictsnecessarilyscoredzerosforallFigure10
components.Selectioncriteria(7.2and7.3,rowstwoandthree)areingreatneedof
clarificationbymorethanthreequartersofalldistricts.Whilethedifference
betweenhighscoringandlowscoringdistrictsisgreat,highscoringdistrictscould
stilluseagreatdealofimprovementintheseareas.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
19
Component
7.1a Multiple measures that
include a combination of
published and locally developed
assessments are used in the
evaluation process.
Percentage of
All Districts
High Districts
(N=31)
Medium Districts
(N=207)
Low Distrcits
(N=33)
68%
87%
69%
39%
7.2 The criteria for
development/selection,
administration, interpretation,
and use of assessment results in
the evaluation process is
described in the plan
24%
52%
7.3 Clearly articulated standards
for stakeholder use in selecting
and/or developing measures are
aligned within and across grade
levels and content areas, tested
and non-tested areas and unique
personnel .
21%
48%
7.1b One of the measures
includes student feedback.
1%
0%
22%
19%
1%
6%
6%
0%
Figure10.Componentsrelatedtomeasuringstudentlearning.
SystemforCollecting,ReportingandStoringData(Figure11)
Practicesarounddataarealsoaweaknessofmostdistricts.Whilethemajorityof
highscoringdistricts(77%)identifyadatamanagementinfrastructure,suchas
PivotofStandardforSuccess,themajorityofalldistrictsdonot(53%).Veryfew
districtsacrosstheboarddescribeguidelinesformaintainingthesecurityoftesting
data(8.4aand8.4b,bottomtworows).
Reportcontinuesonnextpage.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
20
Percentage of
All Districts
High Districts
(N=31)
Medium Districts
(N=207)
08.1 There is a data
management infrastructure
specified–( pivot, 5 star, SFS etc)
47%
77%
47%
08.4a The district has clear
guidelines that address
assessment security and testing
procedures.
3%
08.4b These guidelines outline the
standards and procedures for
securing student test data,
including a process for
investigating any complaints of
inappropriate testing practices or
testing irregularities, and stipulate
the consequences of a violation.
2%
Component
16%
13%
Low Districts
(N=33)
21%
1%
0%
1%
0%
Figure11.Componentsrelatedtocollecting,reportingandstoringdata.
OversightProcess(Figure12)
Evaluationplanoversightisyetanotherweaknessofmostdistrictplans.Justovera
quarterofthedistrictsindicatethattheyhaveaprocesstomonitorandoversee
theirevaluationplan(28%),andlessthanaquarterofthem(22%)indicatethat
theyincludeateamthatmeetsregularlytodiscussongoingimplementation.
Reportcontinuesonnextpage.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
21
Component
Percentage of
All Districts
10.0a An oversight process is in
place.
10.0b The team meets regularly to
review and resolve ongoing
implementation concerns,
identify anomalies and
inconsistencies at the individual
and system level, plan for
improvements in the evaluation
system, and review all evaluation
materials.
28%
22%
High Districts
(N=31)
77%
68%
Medium Districts
(N=207)
24%
18%
Low Distrcits
(N=33)
3%
0%
Figure12.Componentsrelatedtooversight.
ProfessionalDevelopment(Figure13)
Thedifferencebetweentheprofessionaldevelopment(PD)componentsbelowis
thedifferencebetweenPDforanindividualteacher(component11.0a,toprow)and
PDforgroupsofteachers—gradelevel,schoollevel,districtlevel(component11.0b,
bottomrow).Onthewhole,districtsdidabetterjobdescribingclearandspecific
plansforindividualteachers(plansofassistance)thantheydiddescribingthe
relationshipbetweentheirevaluationsandgroup-levelPD.Butinbothcases,there
isgreatneedofimprovement.Itshouldbenotedthatinordertoscoreapointfor
11.0a,theplanneededtogobeyondstatecode,whichdoesprovidesomedetails
(forexample,thedurationoftheplans),butwhichleavesmostofthespecificsupto
individualdistrictstodefine.So,whileadistrictmayhaveincludedthelanguage
fromthestatuteintheirplan,theydidnothingmoretoclarifywhattheydo
specificallytoimplementthestatute.
Component
Percentage of
All Districts
High Districts
(N=31)
Medium Districts
(N=207)
11.0a Plans of assistance are
clear and specific
42%
87%
41%
11.0b How evaluation process is
used for district professional
development is described in the
plan
15%
52%
12%
Low Distrcits
(N=33)
3%
3%
Figure13.Componentsrelatedtoprofessionaldevelopment.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
22
Timelines,ProtocolsandForms(Figure14)
Whileappearingsomewhatunrelated,thesetwocomponentssupportthestructure
ofaneffectiveevaluationplanbyprovidingspecifictimelinesthatgobeyondsimply
statingthatthingswillhappen,andbyprovidingformsthataidindocumentingthe
process.Allhighscoringdistrictsincludedorreferredtoformsintheirevaluation
plans,whilejustundertwo-thirdsofthelowdistrictsdid.Morestriking,allbuttwo
highscoringdistricts(94%)providedspecifictimelines,includingthemonthsthat
particulareventswouldtakeplace,inadditiontodescribingclearprocedures,while
noneofthelowdistrictsdidso.
Component
Percentage of
All Districts
High Districts
(N=31)
Medium Districts
(N=207)
Low Distrcits
(N=33)
12.0 Forms have been developed
and are referenced in the plan.
91%
100%
95%
61%
6.0 Timelines and protocols for all
aspects of the teacher
evaluation plan are clearly
delineated
63%
94%
69%
0%
Figure14.Componentsrelatedtotimelines,protocolsandforms.
Intheaggregate,districtevaluationplansexhibitedgreatstrengthinfivekeyareas,
meaningthatmorethan90percentofalldistrictsincludedthecomponentsintheir
plans:
•
•
•
•
•
Componentsrelatedtohighqualityrubrics,
Describingthenumberofrequiredobservations,
Includingstudentdataintheirratings,
Clearlydescribingcalculationsforsummativeratings,and
Providingformsfordocumentingevaluations.
Inallotherareas,districtplansshowbigweaknesses,using70percentasthecutoff.
Thismayappearsevere,buttheliteraturesupportshavingallofthesecomponents
aspartofanidealeffectiveevaluationplan(NationalCouncilonTeacherQuality,
2013;Goe,L.,Holdheide,L,&Miller,T.,2014;CouncilofChiefStateOfficers,2016).
Therefore,rigorousstandardsarecalledfor.
Tryingtodiscoverwhatsetshighscoringdistrictsapartfromlowscoringdistrictsis
difficultbecausewefoundadifferencegreaterthan30percentagepointinallareas
butone(highqualityrubrics).Table1belowprovidesasummaryofstrengths,
weaknessesanddifferencesthatwefoundinfiguresabove.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
23
Table1. Aggregatedistrictplanstrengthsandweaknesses;andbigdifferencesfound
betweenhighandlowscoringdistricts.
Figure
Number
3
Aggregate:
Strengths(>90%)
Aggregate:
Weaknesses(<70%)
High&lowdistricts:
Differences(>30%)
Component2.2,
gatheringfeedbackon
theplanfrom
stakeholders
Allcomponents–
purpose/belief
statements&
communications
Allcomponents
relatedtohighquality
rubrics
Components4.6a&
4.6b,certified/thirdpartytrainedevaluators
andannualevaluation
renewal
Components4.2b&
4.6a,definedevaluator
roles/responsibilities
andcertified/third-party
evaluationtraining
Component4.3a,plan
includesnumberof
observations
Components4.3dand
4.3b,howobservations
&conferenceswillbe
scheduledandthe
purposeofthem.
Allcomponentsrelated
toobservationtimelines
andprocedures
Allcomponentsrelated
toevidence/artifacts
Allcomponentsrelated
toevidence/artifacts
Allcomponentsrelated
toconferencesand
meaningfulfeedback
Allcomponentsrelated
toconferencesand
meaningfulfeedback
Components5.0band
9.0,studentlearning
dataincludedandclear
directionsfor
calculatingsummative
rating
Component5.0a,
everyonehasthesame
weightingassigned
Components9.0and
5.0a,cleardirectionsfor
calculatingsummative
scoresandeveryonehas
thesameweighting
assigned
Allcomponentsrelated
tomeasuringstudent
learning
Allcomponentsexcept
includingstudent
feedback
Allcomponentsrelated
tocollecting,reporting
andstoringdata
Component8.1,
specifieddata
management
infrastructure
Allcomponentsrelated
tooversight
Allcomponentsrelated
tooversight
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
24
Figure
Number
13
Aggregate:
Strengths(>90%)
Aggregate:
Weaknesses(<70%)
High&lowdistricts:
Differences(>30%)
Allcomponentsrelated
toprofessional
development
Allcomponentsrelated
toprofessional
development
Component12.0,
developedforms
Component6.0,clear
timelinesandprotocols
Allcomponentsrelated
totimelines,protocols
andforms
14
AnAnalysisofPlanstoStateCode/StateBoardRuleandIDOEMonitoring
Document
AnadditionalanalysiswasconductedtocomparetheINTASSassessmenttoolto
StateCode/StateBoardRuleandtotheIDOEonsite-monitoringdocumentin
relationtothedistrict’sevaluationplans.InadditiontoComponent3.0ofthe
originalINTASSEducatorEvaluationPlanRubric,whichstatesthat,“Alllegislative
requirementsareapartoftheevaluationsystem”(p.5),eight(8)componentsofthe
INTASSassessmenttoolwereidentifiedthatcorrelatedirectlywithState
Code/StateBoardRuleand11componentsthatcorrelatewiththeIDOEonsite
monitoringdocument.OftheeightcomponentsthatcorrelatetoStateCode/State
BoardRule,districtplansaveragedan80percentcompliancerate(6.4outof8).
Forty-three(43)districtplans—16percent—compliedfullywithalleight
componentsofStateCode/StateBoardRule.Ofthe11componentsthatcorrelateto
theIDOEonsitemonitoringtool,districtplansaveraged63%compliance.
Overall,theINTASSRubricisthemostrigorousmeasureofhighqualityevaluation
plans.InadditiontothecomponentsincludedintheStateCode/StateBoardRule
andtheIDOEmonitoringdocument,theINTASSRubrichasadditionalcomponents
thataddressthefollowingareas:1)thepurposeofteacherevaluation;2)howthe
planwillbecommunicatedandhowthedistrictwillgatherfeedbackontheplan;3)
thefidelityofimplementation;and4)datainfrastructure,dataintegrityanddata
security.TheINTASSrubricprovidesmorecomprehensive,detailedlanguage
relatedtotheexpectationsforhighqualityplans.
CONCLUSIONS
FouryearsafterthepassageofSenateBill1,teacherevaluationsinthestateof
Indianahavechangedsignificantly.Researchbasedteachereffectivenessrubricsare
usedconsistentlyforteacherevaluationinschoolsacrossthestate.Additionally,the
useofstudentlearningoutcomesintheevaluationprocessishappeninginnearlyall
oftheschoolcorporationsinthestate.However,thequalityofteacherevaluation
experiencesdiffersthroughoutthestatebecauseofinconsistentplandevelopment
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
25
andimplementationprocesses.Differentinterpretationsofeducatorevaluation
requirementsexpressedinambiguouslanguageinlegislationandcodeexplains
someofthisinconsistency.Monitoringandoversightwithneitherincentivenor
consequenceisalsoacontributingfactor.Plandevelopmentandimplementationin
thestateexhibitsanerraticprofileacrossacontinuumofresearchbasedbest
practices.WiththeexpirationofIndiana’sESEAFlexibilityWaiver,theIDOEwillno
longertakeanactiveroleinmonitoringteacherevaluationplanimplementation
acrossthestate,whichcouldresultinanevengreaterinconsistencyandnoncomplianceacrossthestate.
AsIndianamovesforwardintotheeraoftheEveryChildSucceedsAct(ESSA),the
findingsofthisreportonlyheightenthesenseofurgencyforprovidingsupportive
andmeaningfulevaluationexperiencesforteachers,theeducationalprofessionals
havingthemostimpactuponstudentlearning.Ensuringthedevelopmentand
implementationofeffectiveteacherevaluationcanbeabuildingblockforeffective
schoolingthroughoutthestateofIndiana.Supportiveandmeaningfulmonitoringof
plandevelopmentiscriticaltothisprocess.
Adistrict’steacherevaluationplandoesnotguaranteeimplementationwithfidelity.
However,unclearexpectationsandexperiencesnotconsistentwithwhatis
expectedcancauseanxietyandfrustration(Coburn2005).Teachershavearightto
havecertaintyaroundthedetailsoftheirdistrict’sevaluationplan,confidencethat
whatisstatedisimplementedwithfidelity,andtheexpectationthattheirevaluation
experiencewillsupporttheirgrowthforthebenefitofstudentlearning.
Atthepolicylevel,statesmustbeconfidentthateducatorevaluationsare
technicallysoundandthereforedefensible,especiallyinsituationsinwhichteacher
evaluationresultswillbeusedtomakepersonnelandcompensationdecisions.The
balancebetweenlocalandstatecontrol,wherethestateprovidesaframeworkin
whichcertainaspectsaremandatedbythestatewhileotherfeaturescouldbe
determinedlocally,maybearouttotheownershipofplanrequirementsatthelocal
level(TheCenterforPublicEducation,2013).However,clearstandardsand
guidelinescaninformplandevelopmentandimplementationandinsurethat
consistencyisnotsacrificedwithallowingthislatitudeforlocalresponsibility.
Oneproblemwithalackofstandardizationinplandevelopmentand
implementationisthatitcanbedifficulttocompareteacherqualityacrossdistricts.
Inordertoensurethatteacherevaluationcomplimentstheaccountabilityand
effectiveteachingandlearning,statesshoulddevelopfactorstodetermineifthe
systemiseffectiveandimplementedwithfidelity(Goe,HoldheideandMiller,2014;
NationalCouncilonTeacherQuality2011).Onewaytodothisistoensure
consistencyandaccuracyofevaluationdataacrossthestate(TheCouncilofChief
StateOfficers2016).
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
26
Further,providingassistancetodistrictstosupporttheorganizationalcultureand
climateintheplandevelopmentandimplementationprocesswillresultin
improvedimplementationfidelityintheteacherevaluationprocessandalignswith
theintendedpurposeofIndiana’slegislation—tosupportteachersandstudentsfor
success.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Deepappreciationtothefollowingindividualswhosupportedallaspectsofthe
INTASSDistrictEvaluationPlanReview:
JimAnsaldo,Ph.D. CELL/INTASS
LoriBrown CELL/INTASS
PatriciaCampbell CELL/INTASS
JeanHaley HaleyConsultingServicesLLC
SarahPies CELL/INTASS
MalloryRickbell
CELL/INTASS
JamesRobinson
CELL/INTASS
ChristinaWray
IndianaInstitute
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
27
REFERENCES
Cole,C.,Robinson,J.,Ansaldo,J.,Whiteman,R.,&Spradlin,T.(2012).Overhauling
IndianaTeacherEvaluationSystems:Planningandimplementationissuesofschool
districts.Bloomington,IN:CenterforEvaluationandEducationPolicy,Indiana
University
Goe,L.,Holdheide,L,&Miller,T.(2014).PracticalGuidetoDesigning
ComprehensiveTeacherEvaluationSystems.RetrievedfromtheCenteronGreat
TeachersandLeaderswebsite:
http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/practicalGuideEvalSystems.pdf
Hallinger,P.,Heck,R.H.,Murphy,J.(2014).Teacherevaluationandschool
improvement:Ananalysisoftheevidence.EducationalAssessment,Evaluationand
Accountability,26,5-28.Doi:10.1007/s11092-013-9175-5
Herman,J.L.,Heritage,M.,&Goldschmidt,P.(2011).Developingandselecting
assessmentsofstudentgrowthforuseinteacherevaluationsystems.LosAngeles,
CA:UniversityofCalifornia,NationalCenterforResearchonEvaluation,Standards
andStudentTesting.(CREESST)
IndianaStateBoardRule(2012).Retrievedfrom
http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/iac_title?iact=511&iaca=10
IndianaStateBoardofEducation(2015)StakeholderDesignCommittee
Recommendations.Retrievedfrom
http://www.in.gov/sboe/files/SBOE_Stakeholder_Design_Committee_Recommenda
tions.pdf
Murphy,H.&Cole,S.(2013).INTASSTeacherEvaluationPlanRubric.Centeron
EducationandLifelongLearning:IndianaInstitute,IndianaUniversity
Lacireno-Paquet,N.,Morgan,C.,&Mello,D.(2014).Howstatesusestudentlearning
objectivesinteacherevaluationsystems:Areviewofstatewebsites(REL2014013).Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofEducation,InstituteofEducation
Sciences,
Marshall,K.(2012).Fine-tuningteacherevaluation.EducationalLeadership70(3),
50-53.
McCullough,M.,English,B.,Angus,M.H.,&Gill,B.(2015).Alternativestudent
growthmeasuresforteacherevaluation:Implementationexperiencesofearlyadoptingdistricts(REL2015-093).Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation,
InstituteofEducationSciences,NationalCenterforEducationEvaluationand
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
28
RegionalAssistance,RegionalEducationLaboratoryMidAtlantic.Retrievedfrom
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Murphy,H.,Cole,C.,Pike,G.,Ansaldo,J.,&Robinson,J.(2014)IndianaTeacher
Evaluation:Atthecrossroadsofimplantation.Bloomington,IN:CenteronEducation
andLifelongLearning,IndianaUniversity.
PrinciplesforTeacherSupportandEvaluationSystems.RetrievedfromtheCouncil
ofChiefStateOfficerswebsite:
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2016/Principles%20for%20Teacher%20Suppo
rt%20and%20Evaluation%20Systems.pdf
StateoftheStates2011:TrendsandEarlyLessonsonTeacherEvaluationand
EffectivenessPolicies.RetrievedfromtheNationalCouncilonTeacherQuality
website:
http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/State_of_the_States_Teacher_Evaluation_and_Effect
iveness_Policies_NCTQ_Report
StateoftheStates2013:ConnecttheDots-Usingevaluationsofteacher
effectivenesstoinformpolicyandpractice.RetrievedfromtheNationalCouncilon
TeacherQuality:
http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/State_of_the_States_2013_Using_Teacher_Evaluatio
ns_NCTQ_Report
StateoftheStates2015:EvaluatingTeaching,LeadingandLearning.Retrievedfrom
theNationalCouncilonTeacherQualitywebsite:
http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/StateofStates2015
TNTP(2015).FinalRecommendationsforChangestoIndiana’sTeacherEvaluation
System.Retrievedfromhttp://www.in.gov/sboe/files/TNTP_Board.pdf
TrendsinTeacherEvaluation:Howstatesaremeasuringteacherperformance.
(2013).RetrievedfromtheCenterforPublicEducationwebsite:
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Evaluatingperformance/Trends-in-Teacher-Evaluation-At-A-Glance/Trends-in-TeacherEvaluation-Full-Report-PDF.pdf
NationalCenterforEducationEvaluationandRegionalAssistance,Regional
LaboratoryNortheast&Islands.Retrievedfromhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
29
APPENDIXA–TEACHEREVALUATIONPLANASSESSMENTCODE
BOOK
PlanComponent
PlanSubcomponent
1.0Intentand
Philosophy/Belief
Statements
1.0Intentand
Philosophy/Belief
Statements
2.0Strategic
Communication
Plan
4.0Processfor
Classroom
Observations
Attribute
Notes/clarifications
madeafterfirstinterraterreliabilitycheck
01.0Purposeand
beliefstatements
areintheplan.
02.1Strategiesfor
communicatingthe
2.1Communication
district’steacher
structures
evaluationplanare
specified.
2.2Processfor
stakeholder
feedback
4.1HighQuality
TeacherEvaluation
Rubric
02.2Specificsare
providedfor
feedback-(big
picturefeedback,not
individualfeedback)
Yes–ifthere’san
oversightcommittee;
example:theydoa
surveyeveryyeartoget
feedbackontheplan
04.1aDifferentiates
teachinglevels(e.g.,
highlyeffectiveto
noteffective)
Mustbeexplicit
04.1bRubricis
applicablefor
multiplerolesand
teaching
assignmentswith
adaptations.
Yes–multiple
roles/rubricspresent;
RISE,TER,Marzanno,
Danielson,McCrel,TAP
04.1cDefines
differentdomains
04.1dIncludes
explicitpracticesas
differentelements
withindomains.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
Yes–mentiononschool
boardagenda/minutes;
communicationwith
teachersthatthey’re
havinganevaluation
30
PlanComponent
PlanSubcomponent
4.2Evaluators
4.0Processfor
Classroom
Observations
4.3Observation
Timelineand
Procedures
Attribute
Notes/clarificationsmade
afterfirstinter-rater
reliabilitycheck
04.2aPlanclearly
describeswhowill
evaluateteachers.
04.2bEvaluatorroles
andresponsibilitiesare
clearlydefined.
Yes–ifit’sclearfromthe
wholedocumentwhat
evaluators’roleis
04.3aTheplan
describesan
observationprocess
thatincludesthe
numberofannual
observationsrequired
04.3bTheplan
describesan
observationprocess
thatincludeshow
observationswillbe
scheduledincludingpreconferenceplanning
andpost-conference
review,
Yes–explicitlynotesHOW
they’llschedule,notjust
thattherewillbean
observation(orthatitwill
bescheduled)
04.3cTheplandescribes Yes–mustbeexplicit
anobservationprocess No–“short”or“long”
thatincludesthelength
ofobservations,
04.3dTheplan
describesan
observationprocess
thatincludesthe
purposeanddeliveryof
observationfeedback
includingtime
parametersfor
providingit,and
Yes–needstosay
somethingaboutWHY
they’remeeting/giving
feedbackANDthe
timeframeforgivingit
(withinXdays)
04.3eTheplandescribes
anobservationprocess
thatincludeshowthe
observationdatawillbe
recorded.
Yes–mustinclude
somethingabout
how/where–formsor
computersoftware
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
31
Plan
Component
PlanSubcomponent
4.4
Evidence/Artifacts
4.0Process
forClassroom
Observations
4.5PreandPost
Conferences
4.6Evaluator
Training
4.8Meaningful
dialogueand
feedback
Attribute
Notes/clarifications
madeafterfirstinterraterreliabilitycheck
04.4aTheteacher
evaluationprocess
includesthecollection
andsubmissionof
evidence/artifacts.
Yes–collectingartifacts
isnotedbutnotthe
proceduresforcollecting
them
04.4bTheteacher
evaluationprocess
includesclearlydefined
criteriafor
evidence/artifacts.
Yes–isitpurposeful
04.4cHowevidenceand
artifactswillbeusedis
described
Yes–howthey’regoing
toscoreit
04.5Bothpreandpost
Yes–baseline
conferencesarerequired conference/beginningof
(goal-setting)
yearconferenceifit’s
usedforgoal-setting;No
–endofyearconference
doesnotcountasapostconference
04.6aThedistrict
requiresevaluator
trainingwith
certificationforall
evaluators
Yes–certificationor
third-partytraining
noted
04.6bThedistrict
requiresevaluator
trainingwithyearly
renewaltraining.
Yes–anykindof
ANNUALtraining
04.8Teachersusingthe
evaluationtoolforselfevaluation/reflectionis
required
Yes–PDplanworksif
there’sevidenceofselfreflectionandrequired
byall
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
32
PlanComponent
5.0Weightsof
Measures
PlanSub-component Attribute
5.0Weightsof
Measures
Notes/clarifications
madeafterfirstinterraterreliabilitycheck
05.0aAll
individuals
evaluatedhave
thesameweight
assignedto
studentlearning
component
(withinthe
studentlearning
component,
weightsmayvary
05.0bStudent
Yes–anyindicationof
learningdatais
studentdata(notjust
includedinthe
teacherobservation)
summativerating
6.0Clear
timelines/Protocols
7.0Systemfor
MeasuringStudent
Learning
6.0Clear
timelines/Protocols
7.1Multiple
Measures
06.0Timelines
andprotocolsfor
allaspectsofthe
teacher
evaluationplan
areclearly
delineated
Yes–lookingfor
monthswhenthings
happen/numberof
days;No–only
indicatingsemesters
07.1aMultiple
measuresthat
includea
combinationof
publishedand
locallydeveloped
assessmentsare
usedinthe
evaluation
process.
Yes–hasBOTH
publishedandlocally
developed
07.1bOneofthe
Yes–theyaskstudents
measuresincludes forfeedback
studentfeedback.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
33
PlanComponent PlanSubcomponent
7.2Criteriafor
Selectionand
Developmentof
Measures
7.0Systemfor
Measuring
Student
Learning
7.3Processfor
Selectionand
Development
ofMeasures
8.1
Infrastructure
8.0Systemfor
Collecting,
Reportingand
8.4Assessment
StoringData
Securityand
Procedures
Attribute
Notes/clarifications
madeafterfirstinterraterreliabilitycheck
07.2Thecriteriafor
development/selection,
administration,
interpretation,anduseof
assessmentresultsinthe
evaluationprocessis
describedintheplan
Yes–mustmeetALLof
theabove
07.3Clearlyarticulated
standardsforstakeholder
useinselectingand/or
developingmeasuresare
alignedwithinandacross
gradelevelsandcontent
areas,testedandnontestedareasandunique
personnel.
No–ifnofrom7.2
08.1Thereisadata
management
infrastructurespecified–
(pivot,5star,SFSetc)
Yes–unidentified
softwareprogram
Yes–especiallyfor
locally-developed:all
teacherofXdoingitthe
sameway
08.4aThedistricthasclear Yes–lookingfordata
guidelinesthataddress
security
assessmentsecurityand
testingprocedures.
08.4bTheseguidelines
Yes–lookingforprocess
outlinethestandardsand
forinvestigating
proceduresforsecuring
complaintsorbreaches
studenttestdata,including
aprocessforinvestigating
anycomplaintsof
inappropriatetesting
practicesortesting
irregularities,andstipulate
theconsequencesofa
violation.
9.0
Converting
MeasureScores
toSummative
Teacher
Ratings
9.0Converting
MeasureScores
toSummative
TeacherRatings
09.0Cleardirectionsexist
formakingthe
calculationsnecessaryto
convertthescoresofall
measurestotheteacher
summativeratings.
Yes–iftheyprovide
percentagebreakdowns
foreachcomponentof
summativescore
10.0
10.0Oversight
10.0aAnoversight
Yes–mustbea
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
34
PlanComponent PlanSubcomponent
Attribute
Oversight
Process
processisinplace.
Process
11.0
Professional
Development
11.0
Professional
Development
12.0Forms
12.0Forms
Notes/clarifications
madeafterfirstinterraterreliabilitycheck
committeeinplace;
No–superintendent
reviewsthe
process/annually
reviewedbyschool
board
10.0bTheteammeets
regularlytoreviewand
resolveongoing
implementationconcerns,
identifyanomaliesand
inconsistenciesatthe
individualandsystem
level,planfor
improvementsinthe
evaluationsystem,and
reviewallevaluation
materials.
Yes–annuallycounts
11.0aPlansofassistance
areclearandspecific
Yes–morethanthe
“canned”languagefrom
code
11.0bHowevaluation
processisusedfordistrict
professionaldevelopment
isdescribedintheplan
Yes–lookingfor
somethingbigger
picture,notjusthowit
relatestoindividual
teachers
12.0Formshavebeen
developedandare
referencedintheplan.
IndianaSchoolDistrictTeacherEvaluationPlanAssessment
35