1. education

Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System
Developmental Pilot
Process Manual for Teacher Evaluation of Practice
DRAFT
June 27, 2012
1
Dear Wisconsin Education Leaders:
The great state of Wisconsin has been recognized as an educational leader in
this nation for some time as our work has always been focused around
student achievement. It’s no surprise that as a nation, educational reform
initiatives are directed at teacher quality as it is the most significant factor
impacting student achievement.
Wisconsin’s record of educational
achievement is the result of the hard work of so many quality educators and
education leaders to improve outcomes for all students.
For the past two years, the state has been working to develop a new
evaluation system for teachers and principals – a system that focuses on
professional growth and student achievement. Together, stakeholder groups
representing teachers, administrators, school boards, higher education, and
others have developed the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System which
is grounded on the 2011 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards and—for
principals—the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
(ISLLC) Educational Leadership Policy Standards. The implementation of
this evaluation system represents the best thinking of stakeholders statewide.
This Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness Process Guide is an essential tool to
ensure the success of this effort. The intent of the Educator Effectiveness
System is to support educators in professional development for the benefit of
our students. In addition to this process guide, training and ongoing
professional development will strengthen district implementation as the state
works toward successful statewide implementation of the system in 2014-15.
This work represents a significant change for our educational system, and a
transformation such as this takes time and practice. This gradual
implementation will allow schools to be well supported and successful, and
provides feedback opportunities that will help to inform the refinement of the
components as we near statewide implementation. Continued communication
and feedback from districts and stakeholder groups will help the state of
Wisconsin to develop one of the best evaluation systems in the country.
Sincerely,
Tony Evers, PhD
State Superintendent
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter from State Superintendent Tony Evers
Developmental Pilot Introduction
Section 1: The Teacher Evaluation Process at a Glance
Section 2: Classroom Practice Measure - Framework for Teaching
Section 3: The Teacher Practice Evaluation Process – Steps, Tasks and Forms
Orientation
Self-Reflection and Educator Effectiveness Plan
Evaluation Planning Session
Observations and Evidence Collection
Pre- and Post-Observation Feedback
Rating of Practice
Final Evaluation Conference
Use of Evaluation Results
Developmental Pilot Evaluation Process Responsibilities
Section 4: Evaluation of Developmental Pilot
Purpose and Basic Design
Participating Districts’ Roles in the Evaluation of the Developmental Pilot
Teacher Evaluation During the Developmental Pilot
Section 5: Definitions
Section 6: Frequently Asked Questions
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Wisconsin Framework for Educator Effectiveness Design Team Report and
Recommendations
APPENDIX B: Danielson 2011 Framework for Teaching Evaluation Rubric
APPENDIX C: DRAFT Wisconsin Teacher Self-Rating Form
APPENDIX D: DRAFT Wisconsin Teacher Educator Effectiveness Plan
3
APPENDIX E: DRAFT Wisconsin Teacher Observation/Artifact Form
APPENDIX F: DRAFT Wisconsin Teacher Pre-Observation (Planning) Form
APPENDIX G: DRAFT Wisconsin Teacher Post-Observation (Reflection) Form
APPENDIX H: DRAFT Wisconsin Teacher Final Evaluation Form
APPENDIX I: Evidence Sources
4
DEVELOPMENTAL PILOT INTRODUCTION
Thank you for participating in the Developmental Pilot of the process for evaluating teaching practice.
Your involvement in this pilot is a critical part of learning how this evaluation process is carried out and
can potentially be improved. The pilot builds on a six-month design process carried out by Wisconsin
educators. The focus this year is only on the teacher professional practice components of the Educator
Effectiveness System which includes the use of a rubric, evidence sources, and a process and timeline for
carrying out evaluation activities. This pilot does not include outcome measures that will be part of the
full Educator Effectiveness System. The outcome measures will be pilot tested in 2013-14 (for more
information, see Wisconsin Framework for Educator Effectiveness Design Team Report and
Recommendations, Appendix A)
This guide is organized into six sections to help evaluators and teachers as they test the process for
evaluating teaching:






Section 1 provides a brief overview of the evaluation process
Section 2 gives an overview of the 2011 Framework for Teaching©, the rubric for teacher
professional practice evaluation
Section 3 provides an in-depth description of the process for teacher evaluation
Section 4 describes the Developmental Pilot
Section 5 lists terminology and definitions of key terms used in this guide
Section 6 addresses answers to frequently asked questions
5
SECTION 1: THE TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS AT A GLANCE
The Wisconsin Teacher Evaluation system is structured on a performance management cycle. Figure 1
identifies the key components in the cycle.
Orientation
SelfReflection
and Educator
Effectiveness
Plan
Use of
Evaluation
Results
Final
Evaluation
Conference
Evaluation
Planning
Session
Observations
and Evidence
Collection
Rating of
Practice
Pre- & PostObservation
Discussions
Figure 1: Teacher Evaluation Cycle
Orientation: Teacher and evaluator review the evaluation policy and procedures, evaluation rubrics,
timelines, and forms.
Self-Reflection and Educator Effectiveness Plan: Teacher reviews the Framework for Teaching, selfassesses, sets goals, and completes the Educator Effectiveness Plan (EEP).
Evaluation Planning Session: Teacher and evaluator meet to review EEP and set evidence collection
schedule.
Observations and Evidence Collection: Throughout the year, teachers are observed and other evidence is
gathered by teachers and evaluators for the evaluation. Teachers should receive ongoing feedback.
Pre- and Post-Observation Discussions: at least one observation includes a pre-observation discussion and
a post-observation discussion between teacher and evaluator.
Rating of Practice: Throughout the year, evaluator gathers evidence to rate practice according to the
rubric. The ratings should occur after all evidence is collected for the relative components and domains.
6
Final Evaluation Conference: Teacher and evaluator meet to review evidence collected, EEP, progress
made on goals, and Professional Practice Rating.
Use of Evaluation Results: Teachers personalize professional development based on evaluation results.
They set new goals for following year’s EEP.
7
SECTION 2: TEACHING EVALUATION OF PRACTICE BASED ON FRAMEWORK FOR
TEACHING
Data for teacher evaluation will come from classroom observations and other evidence sources. Charlotte
Danielson’s 2011 Framework for Teaching©, a research-based model for assessing and supporting
teaching practice, has been adopted for evaluating teachers. The infrastructure and support for utilizing
Danielson’s Framework will be accessed through Teachscape. Teachscape provides a combination of
software tools, the latest research-based rubrics, electronic scheduling, and observation and data
collection tools necessary for carrying out the evaluation process.
The Framework is organized into 4 domains and 22 components. Evidence can be gathered for all
components, although only domains 2 and 3 are usually observed during a classroom lesson. The full
rubrics can be found in Appendix B. A complete description of the Domains and Components, as well as
indicators and descriptions of performance levels is available in The Framework for Teaching Evaluation
Instrument, 2011 Edition, which participants in the Developmental Pilot will receive. The four
Framework domains are as follows:
 Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Defines how a teacher organizes the content that the students are to learn—how the teacher designs
instruction. All elements of the instructional design—learning activities, materials, assessments, and
strategies—should be appropriate to both the content and the learners. The components of domain 1
are demonstrated through the plans that teachers prepare to guide their teaching. The plan’s effects
are observable through actions in the classroom.
 Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
Consists of the non-instructional interactions that occur in the classroom. Activities and tasks
establish a respectful classroom environment and a culture for learning. The atmosphere is
businesslike; routines and procedures are handled efficiently. Student behavior is cooperative and
non-disruptive, and the physical environment supports instruction. The components of domain 2 are
demonstrated through classroom interaction and are observable.
 Domain 3: Instruction
Consists of the components that actually engage students in the content. These components represent
distinct elements of instruction. Students are engaged in meaningful work that is important to students
as well as teachers. Like domain 2, the components of domain 3 are demonstrated through teacher
classroom interaction and are observable.
 Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
Encompasses the teacher’s role outside the classroom. These roles include professional
responsibilities such as self-reflection and professional growth, in addition to contributions made to
the schools, the district, and to the profession as a whole. The components in domain 4 are
demonstrated through teacher interactions with colleagues, families, and the larger community.
Framework for Teaching
8
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
1a Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and
Pedagogy
1b Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
1c Setting Instructional Outcomes
1d Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
1e Designing Coherent Instruction
1f Designing Student Assessments
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
4a Reflecting on Teaching
4b Maintaining Accurate Records
4c Communicating with Families
4d Participating in a Professional Community
4e Growing and Developing Professionally
4f Showing Professionalism
Domain 2: Classroom Environment
2a Creating an Environment of Respect and
Rapport
2b Establishing a Culture for Learning
2c Managing Classroom Procedures
2d Managing Student Behavior
2e Organizing Physical Space
Domain 3: Instruction
3a Communicating With Students
3b Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
3c Engaging Students in Learning
3d Using Assessment in Instruction
3e Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
The Framework for Teaching© defines four levels of performance for each component. The levels of
performance describe teaching practice for a specific lesson (not the teacher). The levels of performance
are defined as follows:
Highly Effective
(Level 4)
Effective
(Level 3)
Minimally Effective
(Level 2)
Ineffective
(Level 1)
Refers to teaching that
does not convey
understanding of the
concepts underlying the
component. This level of
performance is doing harm
in the classroom.
Refers to teaching that has
the necessary knowledge
and skills to be effective,
but its application is
inconsistent (perhaps due
to recently entering the
profession or recently
transitioning to a new
curriculum, grade level, or
subject).
Refers to successful,
professional practice. The
teacher consistently
teaches at a proficient
level. It would be expected
that most experienced
teachers would frequently
perform at this level.
Refers to professional
teaching that innovatively
involves students in the
learning process and
creates a true community
of learners. Teachers
performing at this level are
master teachers and
leaders in the field, both
inside and outside of their
school.
Evidence of teaching practice relative to the Framework for Teaching components will be gathered
through classroom observations, artifacts such as student work samples and logs of parent
communications, and conversations about practice with the evaluator. Teachers will typically demonstrate
varying degrees of proficiency on the different components. This variation is expected. Perfection may
9
be the ideal, but no one can perform at the highest levels all of the time. New teachers may perform at the
basic level most of the time while working toward proficiency. Experienced teachers should be practicing
at the proficient level for most components most of the time. Teachers may be at the distinguished level
on some components, while demonstrating proficiency in other areas.
The following is an example of the rating rubric with descriptions of levels of performance pertaining to
component 1a: Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy, which falls under the domain of Planning and
Preparation (see Appendix B for full rubric).
1a. Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
Ineffective
In planning and practice,
teacher makes content
errors or does not correct
errors made by students.
Teacher’s plans and
practice show little
understanding of
prerequisite relationships
important to student’s
learning of the content.
Teacher shows little or no
understanding of the range
of pedagogical approaches
suitable to student’s
learning of the content.
Minimally Effective
Teacher is familiar with
the important concepts in
the discipline but displays
lack of awareness of how
these concepts relate to
one another.
Teacher’s plans and
practice indicate some
knowledge of prerequisite
relationships, although
such knowledge may be
inaccurate or incomplete.
Teacher’s plans and
practice reveal a limited
range of pedagogical
approaches to the
discipline or to the
students.
Effective
Teacher displays solid
knowledge of the
important concepts of the
discipline and the way
they relate to one another.
Teacher’s plans and
practice reflect accurate
knowledge of prerequisite
relationships among topics
and concepts.
Teacher’s plans and
practice reflect familiarity
with a wide range of
pedagogical approaches in
the discipline.
Highly Effective
Teacher displays extensive
knowledge of the
important concepts of the
discipline and the ways
they relate both to one
another and to other
disciplines.
Teacher’s plans and
practice reflect knowledge
of prerequisite
relationships among topics
and concepts and provide a
link to necessary cognitive
structures needed by
students to ensure
understanding.
Teacher’s plans and
practice reflect familiarity
with a wide range of
pedagogical approaches in
the discipline, anticipating
student misconceptions.
10
SECTION 3: THE TEACHER PRACTICE EVALUATION PROCESS – STEPS, TASKS AND
FORMS
The following section details the eight steps in the process for Teacher Evaluation, including descriptions
of each task, timing, teacher and evaluator responsibilities and necessary forms used during the
Developmental Pilot.
Step 1: Orientation – Summer of 2012
The orientation process for the Developmental Pilot starts with training for teachers and evaluators. The
Department of Public Instruction hosts this training for three full days during the summer of 2012. In
addition to covering the expectations and formative aspects of the Developmental Pilot, the training
familiarizes participants with Danielson’s 2011 Framework for Teaching© and its use in evaluations of
teacher practice. The training also includes instruction on how to use Teachscape© software for
communication, data collection, and accessing professional resources. All teacher evaluators (typically
principals) participating in the Developmental Pilot receive the training but have additional on-line
training. The on-line training allows evaluators do practice evaluations at any time. It includes a
certification assessment so that observers will be able to match expert evaluators before using the 2011
Framework in “real-time.”
Step 2: Self-Reflection and Educator Effectiveness Plan - September
Each teacher participating in the Pilot will self-assess his or her practice during September, by reflecting
on practice and completing the Wisconsin Teacher Self-Rating Form (see Appendix C).
The self-reflection informs the development of the Educator Effectiveness Plan (EEP). The selfreflection process begins with a review of the Framework for Teaching© and the completion of the SelfRating Form. After self-rating, the teacher creates two to three professional growth goals related to
Framework components that were identified as areas for development. The two to three professional
growth goals guide the evaluation activities for the year, but all of the components from the Framework
for Teaching© will be assessed. The teacher then incorporates these professional growth goals into the
creation of the EEP. The teacher includes the following information on the EEP (see Appendix D):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Two to three goals related to practice1
Domain related to the goal
Actions needed to meet the goals, including how the goals will be measured
Timelines for the completion of the goals
What evidence will be collected to demonstrate progress
Teachers should identify SMART goals: SMART goals are Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Realistic
and Timely. These goals should be relevant to current practice and classroom needs.
1
During the Developmental Pilot, the goals should relate to specific components of the 2011 Framework for
Teaching. In the future, the goals may also relate to school improvement goal(s); Professional Development Plan
(PDP) goal(s); team goal(s) and/or Student Learning Objective (SLO) goal(s).
11
The teacher submits the completed EEP and the Self-Rating Form to the evaluator prior to the
Evaluation Planning Session.
Step 3: Evaluation Planning Session – September or October
Also during September or October, the teacher meets with his or her evaluator in an Evaluation Planning
Session. At this session, the teacher and evaluator collaborate to complete the following activities:
1. Review and agree upon the goals, actions, resource needs and measures of goal completion to
meet the EEP
2. Set the evaluation schedule including scheduled observations and meetings and/or methods of
collecting other sources of evidence (see Appendix I for descriptions of other sources)
Step 4: Observations, Evidence Collection & On-going Feedback – October through March
Observations and Evidence Collection take place from October through March. The teacher is observed
by his or her evaluator2. The following are the minimum observations to be conducted:
Frequency
1 announced observation
1 unannounced observation
3-5 informal and unannounced observations
(walkthroughs)
Duration
45 minutes or (2) 20-minute observations
45 minutes or (2) 20-minute observations
At least 5 minutes
Other evidence shall be provided by the teacher as agreed upon in the Evaluation Planning Session,
such as:
 Lesson/unit plans
 Classroom artifact
o Teacher-created assessments
o Grade Book
o Syllabus
 Communications with families
o Logs of phone calls/parent contacts/emails
o Classroom newsletters
 Logs of professional development activities
Verbal and/or written feedback should follow each observation.
In addition to observations, additional evidence identified during the Evaluation Planning Session is
collected and shared during this period, as agreed upon during the Evaluation Planning Session. The
2
For purposes of the pilot, the administrator will be the primary observer but a peer mentor/evaluator may also
be implemented. In future years, observations may be done by a combination of administrator and peer mentor.
12
Observation/Artifact Form (see Appendix E)3 is used to document evidence gathered pertaining to a
teacher’s professional practice.
Step 5: Pre- & Post-Observation Discussion - October through March
Discussions between teachers and evaluators take place throughout the year, and can be formal
conferences or informal means of delivering feedback (written or verbal). At least one of the observations
must include both a pre- and a post-observation discussion, which involves the use of the PreObservation (Planning) Form and the Post-Observation (Reflection) Form.
Teachers complete the Pre-Observation (Planning) Form (see Appendix F) in advance of the preobservation discussion. This form helps shape the dialog of the pre-observation discussion and allows the
teacher to “set the stage” for the lesson. The information allows the teacher to identify the context of the
classroom, the specifics of the lesson focus and its intended outcomes. The teacher may submit this
information in writing or come prepared to have a dialog with the evaluator during the pre-observation
discussion.4
The Post-Observation (Reflection) Form (see Appendix G) also helps frame the dialog and resulting
feedback from the observed lesson during the post-observation discussion. Both the teacher and evaluator
can use the questions to identify areas of strength and suggestions for improvement. The post-observation
discussion can also focus on classroom teaching artifacts (lesson plans, student work samples, etc.) that
are related to the classroom observation.
Both the pre-and post-observation forms and discussions can also help provide evidence of reflective
skills that are relevant to Domain 4 of the Danielson Framework for Teaching©.
Step 6: Rating of Practice – February through end of school year
Throughout the school year, evaluators collect and teachers provide evidence of teaching practice. This
evidence is used to rate a teacher’s practice, using the rubric and appropriate levels of performance.
Although evidence is collected throughout the year, evaluators should not make ratings of practice until
adequate information is obtained to assess each component. This will likely occur during the second half
of the school year. Evaluators will need to organize the observation/artifact forms used to record
evidence and any notes compiled during the year (e.g., notes from the post-observation discussions and/or
other feedback sessions). Once the evaluator determines that there is enough evidence for each
component, they will select the rubric level that best matches the evidence of practice for that component.
Step 7: Final Evaluation and Final Evaluation Conference – April - June
3
Observations and artifact collection using Teachscape will be accessed through the Teachscape ReflectLive
feature.
4
These forms will also be accessible using Teachscape ReflectLive.
13
The Final Evaluation Conference takes place during April, May or June. During this conference, the
teacher and his/her supervising administrator meet to discuss achievement of the goals identified in the
EEP and review collected evidence. The teacher submits the completed EEP prior to the Final Evaluation
Conference. The administrator then provides written feedback for the goals and components identified in
the EEP. In addition to the EEP, other collected evidence is used by the evaluator to rate each of the
components from the four domains and twenty-two components. The evaluator then completes the Final
Evaluation Form (Appendix H) and reviews it with the teacher during the Final Evaluation Conference.
The teacher has the opportunity to comment on the final evaluation results on the Final Evaluation
Form.
Step 8: Use of Evaluation Results – end of evaluation year, beginning of following year
Results from the evaluation process inform performance goals and the teacher’s Educator Effectiveness
Plan for the following year. During the Developmental Pilot, NO evaluation results will be used for
employment purposes or other high-stakes decision-making.
14
Developmental Pilot Evaluation Process Responsibilities
The following lists the responsibilities for Teachers and for the Supervising Administrator during the
evaluation process.
Teacher responsibilities












Actively participate in evaluation activities.
Attend the evaluation Orientation.
Reflect on practice and, using the 2011 Framework for Teaching©, complete the Self-rating of
performance.
Based on the Self-rating of performance, identify 2-3 goals related to practice to include in an
Educator Effectiveness Plan (EEP).
Submit the Self-rating of performance and the EEP to the evaluator prior to the Evaluation
Planning Session.
Meet with evaluator for the Evaluation Planning Session, discuss actions needed to achieve
goals identified in EEP, agree upon measures of goal completion, determine evidence sources;
schedule observations and outline timing/process for other evidence collection.
For formal observations be prepared for pre-observation and post-observation meetings. The
teacher may submit this information in writing or come prepared to discuss the information.
Work collaboratively with the peer mentor or secondary observer (if applicable).
Provide the supervising administrator with other evidence as appropriate prior to Final
Evaluation.
Prepare for the Final Evaluation and provide any evidence requested by the supervising
administrator.
Meet with the supervising administrator for the Final Evaluation Conference, review EEP and
goal achievement; sign off on Professional Practice Rating.
Use Evaluation results to inform performance goals and professional development planning for
the following year.
Supervising Administrator responsibilities:










Attend training sessions and be certified in 2011 Framework for Teaching© evaluation.
Participate in the Orientation.
Review EEP prior to the Evaluation Planning Session.
Schedule and facilitate the Evaluation Planning Session, discuss actions needed to achieve goals
identified in EEP, agree upon measures of goal completion; determine evidence sources;
schedule observations and outline timing/process for other evidence collection.
Complete a minimum of one announced observation of 45 minutes or two 20-minute
observations.
Complete a minimum of one pre-conference and post-conference observation with the teacher.
Complete one unannounced observation of 45 minutes or two 20-minute observations.
Complete 3-5 informal and unannounced observations (walkthroughs), of at least 5 minutes.
Provide constructive, written or verbal formative feedback within one week of the observations.
Monitor and review evidence collection throughout the year.
15


Prepare for and schedule the Final Evaluation Conference, review EEP and evidence collected,
assign rating level for each component, and determine Professional Practice Rating.
Facilitate the Final Evaluation Conference using the Final Evaluation form; review goal
achievement, provide formative feedback, identify growth areas for the following year, and
provide Professional Practice Rating.
16
SECTION 4: EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL PILOT
Purpose and Basic Design
During the 2012-13 school year, the Developmental Pilot of the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness
System will be evaluated by researchers from the Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER) at
UW-Madison. The purpose of the evaluation is to study the quality of implementation of certain aspects
of the Educator Effectiveness System and to provide responsive feedback to stakeholders as these aspects
are tested by schools and districts. Parts of the evaluation will include analysis of implementation data,
observations, surveys of teachers and principals, and interviews and focus groups of participating
teachers, principals, and others. Topic areas will include understanding, attitudes, training received and
needed, data utilization, and feedback on the pilot implementation.
Since parts of the Educator Effectiveness System are still in development, the evaluation will not yet
focus on impact on teacher effectiveness or student learning. The success of the evaluation will be
determined by the pilot’s use of information obtained for improving the execution of the system to match
its intended design. In subsequent years, the evaluation will gradually change to focus more on impact as
the system’s aspects become more routinized.
Participating Districts’ Roles in the Evaluation of the Developmental Pilot
Districts and the individual educators participating in the Developmental Pilot are expected to help
facilitate access to the data necessary for evaluating the Pilot. Data collection may include participating in
individual or group interviews (focus groups), completing surveys, and/or sharing documents relevant to
the system as requested by DPI and the evaluation team at WCER. This feedback will be critical as DPI
works to learn from educators in the pilot and make needed adjustments in the System.
Since the Educator Effectiveness System is still in development, any outcomes, including educator
evaluation ratings, should NOT be used for employment or other high-stakes decisions. If an educator is
identified during the Pilot as having serious performance deficiencies, that individual should be removed
from participation in the pilot study and the district should implement their existing personnel support
structures to address the situation.
Teacher Evaluation During the Developmental Pilot
Teachers will be evaluated by their supervising administrator (the principal or a designee). Those districts
piloting the teacher practice evaluation process will include a small number of teachers (about 3) and their
evaluators (principal or associate principal) and peer evaluators.
17
SECTION 5: DEFINITIONS
The following are definitions for terminology relevant to the teacher practice evaluation system during the
Developmental Pilot.
Announced observation – a formal and pre-scheduled observation. It may be preceded by a preobservation discussion and followed by a post-observation discussion where verbal and/or written
feedback is provided by the evaluator to the teacher.
Artifacts – forms of evidence that support an educator’s evaluation. They may include lesson plans,
examples of student work with teacher feedback, professional development plans and logs of contacts
with families. Artifacts may take forms other than documents, such as videos of practice, portfolios, or
other forms of evidence.
Components - the descriptions of the aspects of a domain, there are 22 components in the 2011
Danielson Framework for Teaching©.
Developmental Pilot – the limited test of a system to further refine its components and processes. The
Wisconsin Model Educator Effectiveness System is undergoing a Developmental Pilot in 2012-2013 in
approximately 100 volunteer districts across the state.
Domains - There are four domains, or broad areas of teaching responsibility, included in the 2011
Framework for Teaching©: Planning & Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and
Professional Responsibilities. Under each domain, 5-6 components describe the distinct aspects of a
domain.
Educator Effectiveness System– the Wisconsin state model for teacher and principal evaluation, built by
and for Wisconsin educators. Its primary purpose is to support a system of continuous improvement of
educator practice—from pre-service to inservice—that leads to improved student learning. The Educator
Effectiveness System is legislatively mandated by 2011 Wisconsin Act 166.
Educator Effectiveness Plan (EEP) – a document that lists the specific year-long goals for an educator,
along with the actions, resource needs required to attain these goals and the measures necessary to
evaluate the progress made on them. The EEP also allows for a review of progress made on each goal at
the end of the year and serves as the organizer for feedback given by the educator’s evaluator during the
Final Evaluation Conference.
Evaluation Planning Session – A conference in the fall during which the teacher and his or her primary
evaluator discuss the teacher’s Self-Rating and Educator Effectiveness Plan, agree upon goals and actions
needed to meet goals, set an evaluation schedule and schedule any announced observations and the timing
and process for other evidence collection.
Evaluation Rubric – an evidence-based set of criteria across different domains of professional practice
that guide an evaluation. Practice is rated across four rating categories that differentiate effectiveness,
with each rating tied to specific look-fors to support the ratings.
18
Evidence collection – the systematic gathering of evidence that informs an educator’s practice
evaluation. In the Educator Effectiveness System, multiple forms of evidence are required to support an
educator’s evaluation and are listed in this guide in Appendix D.
Final Evaluation Conference – the teacher and his/her evaluator meet to discuss achievement of the
goals identified in the Educator Effectiveness Plan, review collected evidence, and discuss results and
ratings.
Formative Evaluation – the systematic gathering of information with the purpose of understanding an
educator’s strengths and weaknesses in order to improve teaching and learning.
Framework – the combination of the evaluation rubric, the collection and rating of evidence sources, and
the process for evaluating an educator. The Framework is the basis for the evaluation process and the
determination of an overall performance rating.
Goal setting /Professional growth goals – establishing practice related goals are an important part of
professional practice. Goals are set as educators prepare for their Educator Effectiveness Plan, and they
are monitored by the educator during the year.
Indicators/Look-fors – observable pieces of information for evaluators to identify or “look-for” during
an observation or other evidence gathering. Indicators are listed in the Sources of Evidence (Appendix D).
Inter-Rater Agreement – the extent to which two or more evaluators agree in their independent ratings
of educators’ effectiveness.
Observations – one source of evidence informing the evaluation of a teacher. Observations may be
announced (scheduled in advance, possibly with a pre- and/or post-observation conference) or
unannounced; formal (lengthy and with conferences) or informal (short and impromptu). Observations are
carried out by the educator’s evaluator, who looks for evidence in one or more of the components of the
Framework for Teaching© evaluation rubric.
Orientation – The first step in the Educator Effectiveness evaluation process, the Orientation takes place
prior to or at the beginning of the school year. Educators receive training in the use of their professional
practice frameworks, the related tools and resources, timelines for implementation, and expectations for
all participants in the system.
Peer evaluator - A teacher who is trained to do informal observations. A peer evaluator may be a
department-head or grade-level lead or other instructional leader. Peer evaluators are trained in the
Framework and Educator Effectiveness process.
Post-observation conference - a conference that takes place after a formal observation during which the
evaluator provides feedback verbally and in writing to the teacher.
Pre-observation conference - a conference that takes place before a formal observation during which the
evaluator and teacher discuss important elements of the lesson or class that might be relevant to the
observation.
19
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) - a specific learning outcome measuring student achievement
and/or growth throughout the year. More details on Student Learning Objectives can be found in the
Student Learning Objectives process manual.
Self-rating of performance – teachers will complete a self-assessment at the beginning of the year and
will review it prior to each conference. This self-assessment will ask educators to reflect on their past
performance, relevant student learning data, prior evaluation data, and professional goals for the
upcoming year.
Unannounced Observation – an observation that is not scheduled in advance. No pre-observation
conference is held with an unannounced observation, but written or verbal feedback is expected within
seven days.
Walkthrough - a short (5 minute minimum) informal and unannounced observation of a teacher’s
practice in the classroom.
20
SECTION 6: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
The following are some frequently asked questions specific to the teacher practice evaluation system
during the Developmental Pilot. For a more complete listing of FAQs, please see [Web link]
1) What is the Educator Effectiveness System?
In 2011 the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System was endorsed within Wisconsin Act 166. The
purpose is to provide a fair, valid and reliable state evaluation model for teachers and principals that
supports continuous improvement of educator practice resulting in improved student learning.
2) How was the Educator Effectiveness System developed?
State Superintendent Tony Evers convened an Educator Effectiveness System Development Team
that included a broad representation of educators and education stakeholders to develop a framework
for teacher and principal evaluation. A full list of participating organizations is available on the DPI
website. The Design Team’s main recommendations were embraced in Act 166.
3) How will the Educator Effectiveness System be implemented?
The Educator Effectiveness System will be implemented in 3 stages over 4 years:
Stage 1: 2011-12: Evaluation process developed for a) teacher evaluation of practice; b) teacher
developed Student Learning Objectives; c) principal evaluation of practice
Stage 2: 2012-13: Developmental Pilot test of the 3 evaluation processes in school districts that
have volunteered to participate and provide feedback for improvement. Principal School
Learning Objectives will be tested in the spring of 2013.
2013-14: Full Pilot test of the Educator Effectiveness models for Teacher Effectiveness
and Principal Effectiveness. These models will include the measures of practice and
measures of student outcomes (to be developed in 2012-2013). This full pilot will occur in a
sample of schools in all districts.
Stage 3: 2014-15: Educator Effectiveness System implemented state-wide. The system will be
fully implemented statewide, but will still be the subject on an external evaluation to
address the impact and need for any additional improvements.
4) Have other states done this?
Yes, many states have developed or are in the process of developing new teacher and principal
evaluation systems that include both professional practice and student outcome measures. A number
of states have passed legislation requiring the implementation of a statewide system and are on a
timeline similar to Wisconsin.
5) How will staff understand the Educator Effectiveness System?
All teachers participating in the Pilot will receive the same comprehensive training as administrators
and evaluators. A series of informational webinars will be released to participating districts
throughout the pilot years for use by all stakeholder groups.
21
The Framework for Educator Effectiveness is available and the process manuals for the Pilot Phase
will be available on the DPI Educator Effectiveness website.
6) Who will be evaluated using the new Educator Effectiveness System?
In 2012-13 principals and teachers will be evaluated. During 2012-13, teachers include PK – 12 (prekindergarten through grade 12) core content/grade level teachers and teachers of music, art and
physical education. Assistant/associate principals and teacher specialist positions will be added later,
once the evaluation processes are adapted for those educators.
7) Who will evaluate teachers?
During the pilot stage (2012-14), an administrator will be the primary observer. A peer
mentor/observer may also be utilized if agreed to by the teacher. Once the Educator Effectiveness
System is fully implemented, observations may be made by a combination of administrators and peer
mentors/observers.
8) How will evaluators be trained?
Prior to the implementation of an Educator Effectiveness System, evaluators (including peer mentors
and observers involved in this process) will be required to complete a comprehensive certification
training program approved by DPI. Certification will include training on bias and consistency (i.e.,
inter-rater agreement).
9)
Will the Educator Effectiveness System be used to make employment and/or compensation
decisions?
Not yet. During the pilot stage, 2012-14, pilot participants will be evaluated for formative purposes.
Data collected during the pilot stage (2012-14) will not be used to make employment decisions
because the system is still in development. Once the system is fully developed and tested, districts
may choose to apply the systems to human resource decisions, including targeted professional
development. Any performance ratings will not be made public.
10) Do walkthroughs count as observations?
Yes. The process manuals call for a series of observations which include formal, as well as informal
and unannounced observations such as walkthroughs.
11) Does every observation need to have a pre- and post- conference?
No. Pre- and post- conferences are required for at least one formal observation. Teachers may request
additional pre/post conferences with the evaluator or with a peer mentor/observer.
12) What will the evaluation cycle look like?
22
During the Pilot stage, 2012-14, evaluation activities will be used for formative purposes only. Once
fully implemented in 2014-15, the Educator Effectiveness System requires annual evaluations, with a
summative evaluation once in a three year cycle. The other two years will be formative, unless there
is a determination that performance requires more comprehensive evaluation.
13) How will this evaluation system affect a teacher’s daily work load?
The Educator Effectiveness cycle (outlined in the Process Manual for Teacher Evaluation) calls for
Orientation, an Evaluation Planning Session, a series of observations, and a Final Evaluation
conference with the evaluator. These events represent basic performance management processes that
are common in high performing organizations. They will be coordinated by the teacher and the
evaluator/mentor/observer. Teachers will also be required to collect classroom artifacts as evidence of
ongoing effectiveness. This process will be addressed during training for the Educator Effectiveness
System.
14) What if a teacher does not agree with the evaluation?
During the developmental pilot, there will be no high stakes decisions connected with the evaluation
process. If a teacher disagrees with their evaluation of practice, s/he can comment about the
disagreement on the final evaluation form. Most districts already have an appeals process for
personnel evaluations, but if not, they will need to develop an appeals process once the Educator
Effectiveness System is fully implemented.
15) How will teachers and others provide feedback on the pilot experience?
An external study will be conducted with pilot districts to collect ongoing feedback through
interviews, surveys and document analysis. The data collected will provide ongoing feedback which
will be used by the DPI Educator Effectiveness work groups to make improvements to the system. A
designated email will be set up for on-going feedback to DPI on the Educator Effectiveness System,
though this email is not intended to be used for responses to questions or technical support.
16) Based on the results of the pilot programs, will changes be made?
Yes. The Pilot stage is intended to improve the Educator Effectiveness System and meet its intended
purpose: to provide a fair, valid and reliable state evaluation model for teachers and principals that
supports continuous improvement of educator practice resulting in improved student learning.
17) Will all districts be required to implement the same system, or is there flexibility?
There is some flexibility. This system is intended to be fair and consistent across the state. While each
district will have some flexibility in choosing standards and rubrics to assess teacher and principal
professional practice, there will be similar features required to assess student and school outcomes
(e.g., use of Student Learning Objectives and Value –Added Measures of achievement). All models
must be approved through an equivalency process that will be defined by DPI.
23
18) Who should a district contact for technical advice?
There will be designated contacts at DPI for questions about the developmental pilot. Technical
assistance questions can be presented to the DPI contact.
24
APPENDIX A: Wisconsin Framework for Educator Effectiveness Design Team Report and
Recommendations
25
APPENDIX B: Danielson 2011 Framework for Teaching Evaluation Rubric (to come)
26
APPENDIX C: DRAFT Wisconsin Teacher Self-Rating Form
The self-rating process allows teachers to reflect on their practice and prior evaluations and prepare for the development of their Educator Effectiveness Plan.
Using the Wisconsin Teaching Effectiveness Rubric, review the components within each domain and rate yourself accordingly. Based on that rating, identify an
area of strength or an area for development related to that component.
Domain 1
1.a
1.b
1.c
1.d
1.e
1.f
Planning and Preparation
Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
Setting Instructional Outcomes
Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
Designing Coherent Instruction
Designing Student Assessments
Ineffective
Minimally Effective
Effective
Highly Effective
Effective
Highly Effective
Effective
Highly Effective
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation - Strength or Area for Development
Based on the above ratings, identify a strength or area for development:
Why did you make this assessment (what evidence was used to make the assessment)?
Domain 2
2.a
The Classroom Environment
Creating Environment of Respect and Rapport
2.b
Classroom Observations & Feedback
2.c
2.d
Managing Classroom Procedures
Managing Student Behavior
Ineffective
Minimally Effective
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment – Strength or Area for Development
Based on above rating, identify a strength or area for development:
Why did you make this assessment (what evidence was used to make the assessment)?
Domain 3
Instruction
Ineffective
Minimally Effective
27
3.a
3.b
3.c
3.d
3.e
Communication with Students
Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Engaging Students in Learning
Using Assessment in Instruction
Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
Domain 3: Instruction – Strength or Area for Development
Based on above rating, identify a strength or area for development:
Why did you make this assessment (what evidence was used to make the assessment)?
Domain 4
4.a
Professional Responsibilities
Reflecting on Teaching
4.b
Maintaining Accurate Records
4.c
4.d
4.e
4.f
Communicating with Families
Participating in a Professional Community
Growing and Developing Professionally
Showing Professionalism
Ineffective
Minimally Effective
Effective
Highly Effective
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities – Strength or Area for Development
Based on above rating, identify a strength or area for development:
Why did you make this assessment (what evidence was used to make the assessment)?
28
Additional comments about ratings, strengths, or areas for development:
29
APPENDIX D: DRAFT Teacher Educator Effectiveness Plan
Teacher___________________________________________________ Grade(s)/Subject(s)______________________ Date Reviewed___________________
School_________________________________________________________________________Evaluator__________________________________________
Describe goal:
Identify domain(s) and components related to goal:
Strategies
Timeline
Potential Obstacles
Resources
Evidence Sources
How will you measure progress on goal?
Describe goal:
30
Identify domain(s) and components related to goal:
Strategies
Timeline
Potential Obstacles
Resources
Evidence Sources
How will you measure progress on goal?
Describe goal:
Identify domain(s) and components related to goal:
31
Strategies
Timeline
Potential Obstacles
Resources
Evidence Sources
How will you measure progress on goal?
32
APPENDIX E: DRAFT Wisconsin Teacher Observation/Artifact Form
Teacher_______________________________________________________ Date______________________________
School________________________________________ Observer ___________________________________________
Briefly describe the observation location and activity(s), and/or artifact:
List the relevant component(s) for this observation and/or artifact:
What evidence did you note during the observation and/or from the artifact that applies to the rubric(s)?
Feedback to Teacher:
33
APPENDIX F: DRAFT Wisconsin Teacher Pre-Observation (Planning) Form
1.) To which part of your curriculum does this lesson relate?
2.) How does this learning “fit” in the sequence of learning for this class?
3.) Briefly describe the students in this class, including those with special needs.
4.) What are your learning outcomes for this lesson? What do you want the students to understand?
5.) How will you engage the students in the learning? What will you do? What will the students do? Will the students
work in groups, or individually, or as a large group? Provide any worksheets or other materials the students will be
using.
6.) How will you differentiate instruction for different individuals or groups of students in the class?
7.) How and when will you know whether the students have learned what you intend?
8.) Is there anything that you would like me to specifically observe during the lesson?
APPENDIX G: DRAFT Wisconsin Teacher Post-Observation (Reflection) Form
34
1.) In general, how successful was the lesson? Did the students learn what you intended for them to learn? How do you
know?
2.) If you were able to bring samples of student work, what do those samples reveal about those students’ levels of
engagement and understanding?
3.) Comment on your classroom procedures, student conduct, and your use of physical space. To what extent did these
contribute to student learning?
4.) Did you depart from your plan? If so, how, and why?
5.) Comment on different aspects of your instructional delivery (e.g. activities, grouping of students, materials, and
resources). To what extend were they effective?
6.) If you had a chance to teach this lesson again to the same group of students, what would you do differently?
35
APPENDIX H: DRAFT Wisconsin Teacher Final Evaluation Form
Teacher______________________________________School______________________________________Grade Level_____________________
Evaluator_____________________________________Date__________________________
Domain
Component
Ineffective (1)
1: Planning and
Preparation
1.a Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and
Pedagogy
1.b Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
1.c Setting Instructional Outcomes
1.d Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
1.e Designing Coherent Instruction
1.f Designing Student Assessments
Evidence/Artifact(s) used for evidence:
Comments:
2: Classroom
Environment
2.a Creating Environment of Respect and
Rapport
2.b Classroom Observations & Feedback
2.c Managing Classroom Procedures
2.d Managing Student Behavior
Evidence/Artifact(s) used for evidence:
Comments:
3.a Communication with Students
3: Instruction
3.b Questioning and Discussion Techniques
3.c Engaging Students in Learning
3.d Using Assessment in Instruction
3.e Demonstrating Flexibility and
Rating
Minimally Effective (2)
Effective (3)
Highly Effective (4)
Responsiveness
Artifact(s) used for evidence:
Comments:
4: Professional
Responsibilities
4.a Reflecting on Teaching
4.b Maintaining Accurate Records
4.c Communicating with Families
4.d Participating in a Professional Community
4.e Growing and Developing Professionally
4.f Showing Professionalism
Artifact(s) used for evidence:
Comments:
Total Ratings for Professional Practice
Overall Professional Practice Rating: _________________________________
Key strengths:
37
Areas for development:
Teacher comments on rating (optional)
Teacher Signature_______________________________________________________________ Date__________________________
Evaluator Signature_______________________________________________________________ Date__________________________
38
APPENDIX I: Teacher Evidence Sources
Component
1a: Demonstrating
knowledge of
content and
pedagogy
1b: Demonstrating
knowledge of
students
Evidence Required or Strongly
encouraged (Bold)
 Evaluator/Teacher
conversations
 Lesson/unit plan
 Observation




Evaluator/Teacher
conversations
Lesson/unit plan
Observation
Student / Parent Perceptions
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Indicator/“look-fors” (* = Danielson 2011)
-
Descriptive feedback on student work
Adapting to the students in front of you
Scaffolding based on student response
Questioning process
Teachers using vocabulary of the discipline
Accuracy or inaccuracies in explanations
1.
-
Artifacts that show differentiation
Artifacts of student interests and backgrounds, learning
style, outside of school commitments (work, family
responsibilities, etc.)
Differentiated expectations based on assessment
data/aligned with IEPs
Obtaining information from students about:
background/ interests, relationships/rapport
1.
Same learning target, differentiated pathways
Students can articulate the learning target when asked
Targets reflect clear expectations that are aligned to
standards
Checking on student learning and adjusting future
instruction
Use of entry/exit slips
Diversity of resources (books, websites, articles,
media)
Guest speakers
College courses
Collaboration with colleagues
Connections with community (businesses, non-profit
organizations, social groups)
Evidence of teacher seeking out resources (online or
other people)
1.
-
1c: Setting
instructional
outcomes



Evaluator/Teacher
conversations
Lesson/unit plan
Observation
-
1d: Demonstrating
knowledge of
resources



Evaluator/Teacher
conversations
Lesson/unit plan
Observation
Evidence Collection
-
2.
3.
2.
3.
4.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Evaluator/Teacher conversations
 Guiding questions
 Documentation of conversation (e.g.,
notes, written reflection, etc.)
Lesson plans/unit plans
Observations
 Notes taken during observation
Evaluator/Teacher conversations
 Guiding questions
 Documentation of conversation (e.g.,
notes, written reflection)
Lesson plans/unit plans
Observations
 Notes taken during observation
Optional
 Student / Parent surveys
Evaluator/Teacher conversations
 Guiding questions
 Documentation of conversation (e.g.,
notes, written reflection, etc.)
Lesson plans/unit plans
Observations
 Notes taken during observation
Evaluator/Teacher conversations
 Guiding questions
 Documentation of conversation (e.g.,
notes, written reflection, etc.)
Lesson plans/unit plans
Observations
 Notes taken during observation lesson plan
39
1e: Designing
coherent instruction
(use of appropriate
data)






Evaluator/Teacher
conversations
Lesson/unit plan
Observation
Pre observation form
Learning targets
Entry slips/Exit slips
-
Grouping of students
Variety of activities
Variety of instructional strategies
Student voice and choice
Same learning target, differentiated pathways
Linking concepts/outcomes from previous lessons
1.
2.
3.
4.
1f: Designing
student assessment




Evaluator/Teacher
conversations
Lesson/unit plan
Observation
Formative and summative
assessments and tools
-
Component
2a: Creating an
environment of
respect and rapport
Evidence Required or Strongly
encouraged (Bold)
 Evaluator / Teacher
conversations
 Observations
 Video
 Illustrations of response to
student work
Alignment of assessment to learning target
Plan for bringing student assessment into your
instruction (feedback loop from student within
assessment plan)
Uses assessment to differentiate instruction
Expectations are clearly written with descriptions of
each level of performance
Differentiates assessment methods to meet individual
students needs.
Students have weighed in on the rubric or assessment
design
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
Indicator/”look fors” (* = Danielson 2011)
-
Respectful talk and turn taking
Respect for students’ background and life outside the
classroom*
Teacher and student body language*
Physical proximity*
Warmth and caring*
Politeness*
Encouragement*
Active listening*
Fairness*
Response to student work: Positive reinforcement,
respectful feedback, displaying or using student work
1.
2.
3.
4.
Evaluator/Teacher conversations
 Guiding questions
 Documentation of conversation (e.g.,
notes, written reflection, etc.)
Lesson plans/unit plans
Observations
 Notes taken during observation
Optional
 Pre observation form
 Learning targets
 Entry / exit slips
Evaluator/Teacher conversations
 Guiding questions
 Documentation of conversation (e.g.,
notes, written reflection, etc.)
Lesson plans/unit plans
Observations
 Notes taken during observation
Optional
 Formative and Summative assessments and
tools (i.e. rubrics, scoring guides,
checklists)
 Student developed assessments
Evidence Collection
1.
2.
3.
Evaluator/Teacher conversations
 Guiding questions
 Documentation of conversation (e.g.,
notes, written reflection, etc.)
 Use questions on observation forms
(especially describing students in class)
Observations
 Observer “scripts” lesson or takes notes on
specially – designed form (paper or
electronic)
 Observer takes notes during pre- and postobservation conferences
Optional
 Video
 Response to student work
40
2b: Establishing a
culture for learning




Observations
Student Assignments
Lesson plan
Video/Photos
-
Belief in the value of the work*
High expectations, supported through both verbal and
nonverbal behaviors*
Expectation and recognition of quality*
Expectation and recognition of effort and persistence
Confidence in students’ ability evident in teacher’s and
students’ language and behaviors*
Expectation for all students to participate*
Use of variety of modalities
Student Assignments: Rigor, Rubrics Used, Teacher
Feedback, Student Work Samples
Use of Technology: Appropriate Use
1.
2.
3.
2c: Managing
classroom
procedures



Observations
Syllabus
Parent Communication
-
Smooth functioning of all routines*
Little or no loss of instructional time*
Students playing an important role in carrying out the
routines*
Students knowing what to do, where to move*
1.
2.
2d: Managing
student behavior




Observations
Disciplinary records/plans
(content)
Student / Parent Feedback
Parent Communications
-
Clear standards of conduct, possibly posted, and
referred to during a lesson*
Teacher awareness of student conduct*
Preventive action when needed by the teacher*
Fairness*
Absence of misbehavior*
Reinforcement of positive behavior*
Culturally responsive practices
Time on task, posting classroom rules, positive
reinforcement.
1.
2.
Observations
 Observer “scripts” lesson or takes notes on
specially – designed form (paper or
electronic)
 Observer takes notes during pre- and postobservation conferences
 Observer interacts with student about what
they are learning.
Student Assignments
 Teacher provides examples of student
work.
Optional
 Lesson plan
 Video / Photo
Observations
 Observer “scripts” lesson or takes notes on
specially – designed form (paper or
electronic)
 Observer takes notes on what is happening
at what time, tracking student engagement
/ time on task, classroom artifacts on
procedures.
Optional
 Syllabus
 Communications to Students / Parents
Observations
 Observer “scripts” lesson or takes notes on
specially – designed form (paper or
electronic)
 Observer may tally positive reinforcement
vs. punitive disciplinary action.
Optional
 Disciplinary records/plans (content)
 Student / Parent Feedback
 Parent Communications
41
2e: Organizing
physical space
Component
3a: Communicating
with students



Observations
Video/Photos
Online Course Structure
Evidence Required or Strongly
encouraged (Bold)
 Observations
 Assessed Student work
 Communications with students
 Handouts with instructions
 Formative Assessments
-
Pleasant, inviting atmosphere*
Safe environment*
Accessibility for all students
Furniture arrangement suitable for the learning
activities*
Effective use of physical resources, including computer
technology, by both teacher and
Students*
Established traffic patterns
Domain 3: Instruction
Indicator/”look-fors” (* = Danielson 2011)
1.

-
1.
-
3b: Using
questioning and
discussion
techniques





Observations
Lesson Plan
Videos
Student Work
Discussion Forums
-
3c: Engaging
students in learning


Observations
Lesson plans
-
Clarity of the purpose of the lesson*
Clear directions and procedures specific to the lesson
activities*
Absence of content errors and clear explanations of
concepts*
Students comprehension of content*
Correct and imaginative use of language
Assessed student work - specific feedback
Use of electronic communication: Emails, Wiki, Web
pages
Formative Assessments: Exit / Entry Slips

2.
Observation
Observer “scripts” lesson or takes notes on
specially – designed form (paper or electronic).
Observer records classroom physical features
on standard form or makes a physical map.
Optional
 Photos, Videos
 Online course structure
Evidence Collection
2.
Observations
 Observer “scripts” lesson or takes notes on
specially – designed form (paper or
electronic). Dialogue with students and
accurate / precise dialogue.
 Observer collects examples of written
communications (emails / notes)
Assessed Student Work
 Teacher provides samples of student work
& written analysis after each observation
or end of semester
3.
Optional
 Electronic Communication
 Handouts with instructions
 Formative Assessments
Questions of high cognitive challenge, formulated by
both students and teacher*
Questions with multiple correct answers, or multiple
approaches even when there is a single
correct response*
Effective use of student responses and ideas*
Discussion in which the teacher steps out of the central,
mediating role*
High levels of student participation in discussion*
Student Work: Write/Pair/Share, student generated
discussion questions, online discussion
1.
Observations
 Observer “scripts” lesson or takes notes on
specially – designed form (paper or
electronic).
 Observer tracks student responses.
2.
Optional
 Lesson Plan
 Videos
 Student Work
 Discussion Forums
Activities aligned with the goals of the lesson*
Student enthusiasm, interest, thinking, problem-
1.
Observations
 Observer “scripts” lesson or takes notes on
42


Student work
Use of technology/instructional
resources
-
3d: Using
assessment in
instruction




Observations
Formative / Summative
Assessment Tools
Lesson plans
Conversations w / Evaluator
-
3e: Demonstrating
flexibility and
responsiveness




Component
4a: Reflecting on
teaching
Observations
Lesson plans
Use of supplemental
instructional resources
Student Feedback
Evidence Required or Strongly
encouraged (Bold)
 Evaluator/Teacher
Conversations
 Observations
 Teacher PD goals/plan
-
solving, etc.*
Learning tasks that require high-level student thinking
and are aligned with lesson objectives*
Students highly motivated to work on all tasks and
persistent even when the tasks are challenging*
Students actively “working,” rather than watching
while their teacher “works”*
Suitable pacing of the lesson: neither dragging nor
rushed, with time for closure and student*
Reflection*
Student – student conversation
Student directed or led activities / content
Teacher paying close attention to evidence of student
understanding*
Teacher posing specifically created questions to elicit
evidence of student understanding*
Teacher circulating to monitor student learning and to
offer feedback*
Students assessing their own work against established
criteria*
Assessment tools: use of rubrics
Formative / Summative assess tools: frequency,
descriptive feedback to students
Lesson plans adjusted based on assessment
Incorporation of student interests and events of the day
into a lesson*
Visible adjustment in the face of student lack of
understanding*
Teacher seizing on a teachable moment*
Lesson Plans: Use of formative assessment, use of
multiple instructional strategies
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
Indicator/”look-fors” (* = Danielson 2011)
-
Revisions to lesson plans
Notes to self / journaling
Listening for analysis of what went well and didn’t go
well

specially – designed form (paper or
electronic).
Observer tracks student participation, time
on task, examines student work, and
teacher / student interactions.
2.
Optional
 Lesson plans
 Student work
 Use of technology/instructional resources
1.
Observations
 Observer “scripts” lesson or takes notes on
specially – designed form (paper or
electronic).
Formative / Summative Assessment Tools
 Teacher provides formative and summative
assessment tools or data
2.
3.
Optional
 Lesson plans
 Conversations w / Evaluator
1.
Observations
 Observer “scripts” lesson or takes notes on
specially – designed form (paper or
electronic).
 Takes notes on teacher taking advantage of
teachable moments
2.
Optional
 Lesson plans
 Use of supplemental instructional
resources
 Student Feedback
Evidence Collection
1.
Evaluator/Teacher conversations
 Guiding questions
 Documentation of conversation (e.g.,
notes, written reflection, etc.)
43

Student / Parent Feedback
-
4b: Maintaining
Accurate Records





4c: Communicating
with families


Evaluator/Teacher
Conversations
Lesson/unit plan
Grade Book
Artifact – teacher choice
Systems for data collection
Logs of phone calls/parent
contacts/emails
Observation during parent
teacher meeting or conference
-
-
4d: Participating in a
professional
community




Observation
Attendance at PD sessions
Mentoring other teachers
Seeking mentorship
-
Specific examples of reflection from the lesson
Ability to articulate strengths and weaknesses
Capture student voice (survey, conversation w/
students)
Varied data sources (observation data, parent feedback,
evaluator feedback, peer feedback, student work,
assessment results)
Information about individual needs of students (IPs,
etc.)
Logs of phone calls/parent contacts/emails
Lunch count
Field trip data
Assessment data
Student’s own data files (dot charts, learning progress,
graphs of progress, portfolios)
Interaction with PTA or parent groups or parent
volunteers
Daily assignment notebooks Requiring parents to
discuss and sign off on assignments
Proactive or creative planning for parent-teacher
conferences (including students in the process)
Asking parents how they think their student is doing
Regular parent “check-ins”
Take or teach school-level professional development
sessions
Collegial planning (not working in isolation)
Inviting people into your classroom
Using resources (specialists, support staff)
Treating people with respect
Supportive and collaborative relationships with
colleagues
2.
Optional
 Grade Book
 PD Plan
 Student / Parent Survey
 Observations
 Notes taken during observation
1.
Evaluator/Teacher conversations:
 Guiding questions
 Documentation of conversation (e.g.,
notes, written reflection, etc.)
Lesson plans/unit plans
2.
3.
Optional
 Grade Book
 PD Plan
 Progress Reports
1. Logs of communication with parents
 Teacher log of communication (who, what,
why, when, “so what”?)
 Progress reports, etc.
1.
2.
3.
Observations
 Notes taken during observation
Attendance at PD sessions
Optional
 PLC agendas
 Evidence of community involvement
 Evidence of mentorship or seeking to be
mentored
44
4e: Growing and
developing
professionally








4f: Demonstrating
professionalism




Evaluator/Teacher
Conversations
Observation
Lesson/unit plan
Professional development plan
Mentoring involvement
Attendance or presentation at
professional organizations /
conferences / workshops / PLCs
Membership in professional
associations or organizations
Action research
-
Evaluator/Teacher
conversations
Observation of participation in
PLC meetings or school
leadership team meetings
Scheduling and allocation of
resources
School and out-of-school
volunteering
-
Academic inquiry, continuous improvement, lifelong
learning
1.
2.
3.
-
Obtaining additional resources to support students
individual needs above and beyond normal
expectations (i.e., staying late to meet with students)
Doing what’s best for kids rather than what is best for
adults
Mentors other teachers
Draws people up to a higher standard
Having the courage to press an opinion respectfully
Being inclusive with communicating concerns (open,
honest, transparent dialogue)
Evaluator/Teacher conversations
 Guiding questions
 Documentation of conversation (e.g.,
notes, written reflection, etc.)
Lesson plans/unit plans
Observations
 Notes taken during observation
4.
Optional
 PD plan
 PLC agendas
 Evidence of participating in PD
 Evidence of mentorship or seeking to be
mentored
 Action research
1.
Evaluator/Teacher conversations
 Guiding questions
 Documentation of conversation (e.g.,
notes, written reflection, etc.)
2.
Optional
 Teacher provides documents to evaluator
at end of year/semester
 Written reflection
 Parent and student survey
 Observing teacher interacting with
peers/students/families
 Record of unethical behavior
45