Alternative Teacher

Evaluation Systems
Summary Overview: 2015-16
Prepared by the State Board of Education
In partnership w/ the Teacher & Leader Effectiveness Unit (TLEU)
January 2016

Current Alternative Educator

Evaluation System Application
Requirements
Local Education Agencies may apply for a waiver to the Delaware
Department of Education from the Delaware Performance Appraisal
System II (DPAS-II)1. Application requirements include:
Collective Bargaining/Community Engagement: Evaluation systems
submitted for an alternative evaluation system must be a product of the
collective bargaining process (if applicable) and other required
community engagement
Student Growth: Evaluation systems must incorporate multiple
measures of student growth when assessing educator performance
Evaluator Certification: Evaluation systems must contain a mechanism
to certify/credential evaluators and ensure quality control
The Department of Education must also ensure that the system is a
rigorous and as educationally sound at DPAS-II.
1. (f) A local school district, vocational-technical school district or charter school may make application to the Department for a waiver of the provisions of the DPAS-II evaluation system, which shall be
granted, subject to the provisions of rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to this subchapter, if the request for a waiver is based on a locally developed evaluation process that is demonstrated to be
the product of the collective bargaining process pursuant to Chapter 40 of this title and community review and is as rigorous and as educationally sound as DPAS-II, provides for evaluating educator
performance by measuring student growth using multiple measures over the course of a curricular year, and contains a mechanism for certifying evaluators and for quality control.

Summary of Current Efforts

As of school year 2015-2016:
Colonial School District (To Be Determined)

Five different systems (see right) utilize four

different evaluation frameworks (Delawares
Charter Collaboratives I and II both utilize
the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF))
One traditional district and twelve (12)
charter schools have applied and received
approval for alternative teacher evaluation
systems
Ten (10) charter schools are members of a
cohort in order to benefit from economies of
scale, learn from each others efforts, and
scale best practices in student goal-setting
and observation/feedback cycles

Freire Charter School (Fall 2015)

Delaware Charter Collaborative I (Fall 2013)
East Side Charter School
Family Foundations Academy Charter
School
Kuumba Academy
Prestige Academy Charter School
Thomas A. Edison Charter School
Las Americas ASPIRA Academy (Fall 2015)
Delaware Charter Collaborative II (Fall 2015)
Academia Antonia Alonso Charter School
Delaware College Preparatory Academy
Early College High School
First State Military Academy
Positive Outcomes Charter School

Delawares Alternative Teacher

Evaluation Systems - Summary
System
Component

System #1:
DPAS-II

Systems #2 and #3:

Delaware Charter
Collaborative I and II

System #4:
Freire Charter School

System #5:
Las Americas ASPIRA
Academy

System #6:
Colonial School District

Observation
Rubric

Charlotte Danielson

Teaching Excellence
Framework

Freire Instructional
Principles Framework

Educator Effectiveness
Framework

Colonial Teaching &

Learning Framework

Observations &
Notification

Differentiation between
experienced and novice

All observations are

unannounced

All observations are

unannounced

Differentiation between
benchmark and coaching

Varies; determined at
school leader discretion

Length

Minimum of 30 minutes

Minimum of 10 minutes

Minimum of 10 minutes

Benchmark are 60 minutes

and coaching 30 minutes

Minimum of 15 minutes
per observation

Frequency

Three times annually

Minimum of 8 times per

year

Four times per year from

certified evaluator and
two peer observations

Minimum of 6 times per

year

5-7 times annually,

depending on teacher
classification

Observers

DDOE certified evaluators

Campus leadership/
certified evaluators

Certified campus
leadership

Professional Learning
Leader

Campus leadership/
certified evaluators

Components
and Weights

Components I-IV
evaluated in all
observations and weighted
equally

Differentiated based on
need (evidence required
4x annually for each rubric
row) and not weighted
equally with focus on
instruction

Two observations focus on

all four components while
other two have
differentiated focus

Dimensions I-IV are

evaluated in all benchmark
and coaching observations
and weighted equally

Performance standards are

evaluated in all
observations (except
walkthroughs) and
weighted equally

Pre-Work

Pre-observation form and

conference (if announced)

Timeline/action steps from

previous observation

Timeline/action steps from

previous observation

Not Applicable

Contingent on announced
context

Follow-Up

Post-observation
conference

Debrief and subsequent

focus on areas of growth

Debrief and
timeline/action steps for
next observation

Debrief and identification

of 2-3 instructional
improvement goals

Debrief and next steps

contingent on observation
type

Alternative Teacher Evaluation

Systems: Observation Components
The Department conducted on-site observations in Fall 2015, with focus on the following
components:

Teacher & Leader Support: The LEA has demonstrated commitment towards rigorous and
meaningful teacher and leader support before and during alternative educator evaluation
system implementation

Evaluator Certification/Credentialing: The LEA has a clear, rigorous process to certify evaluators
and calibrate ratings to ensure validity and reliability within and between schools

Implementation Fidelity: The LEA has successfully implements all components of proposed
alternative educator evaluation system

Implementation Documentation: The LEA has successfully established documentation systems

and protocols to effectively capture implementation efficacy

Teacher & Leader Support

Strengths and Opportunities

Challenges and Barriers

Shared Expertise: Collaborative or

charter network provides new
entrants access to necessary supports
(training, materials, etc.)

Ownership: Significant variance

around buy-in on culture of feedback
between different campuses of
varying contexts

Economies of Scale: Shared

framework enables cost savings and
most likely encouraged schools to take
initial step

Leadership: Transitions in campus

leadership create lack of coherence
and strategy necessary for smooth
implementation

Learning Networks: Collaboration

between schools amplifies learning
and creates culture of continuous
improvement

Differentiated Support: Struggle to

provide ongoing, differentiated
support if teacher development
remains solely at individual campus
and is not connected to broader
ecosystem of opportunities

Evaluator Credentialing
Strengths and Opportunities
Purpose: DPAS-II set stage for
understanding among leaders for
shared instructional vision and need
to calibrate evaluations

Process: Leaders understand process

and reasoning behind evaluator
credentialing and calibration to
ensure full faith among teachers
Network of Evaluators: Collaborative
members expressed interest in
network of evaluators that could
calibrate as a team

Challenges and Barriers

Networks: Campuses dont have
shared responsibility for employees
(charter campuses, notably);
therefore, its difficult to encourage
calibration between schools during
the school year, which can isolate
individual schools in their
implementation.
Leadership: Limited capacity among
leaders to design and deliver
certification/credentialing training
or even just general trainingas this
has historically been a state or
district responsibility

Implementation Fidelity
Strengths and Opportunities

Challenges and Barriers

Timeline: Most schools are on-track

to have all required observations and
feedback cycles done before end of
school year

Onboarding: Late start to training

(mid-August) has led to slow rollout
among campuses just starting system
implementation in the 15-16 school
year

Resources: All campuses have

necessary resources (observers, bell
schedules, etc.) to complete required
observations during year
External Support and Monitoring:
Support from external supports helps
leaders effectively plan and
troubleshoot, if needed

Prioritization: Many schools have

other operational issues that distract
from the core work of improving
teaching and learning
Project Management: Difficult to
successfully manage implementation
if an identified project lead isnt
present within an LEA

Implementation Documentation
Strengths and Opportunities
Tool Utilization: All
participants used a digital
tool to record their
observation and feedback
data
Protocols: All campuses
have a protocol in place to
capture information and
enter into tool, with some
differentiation on its use as
a teacher-facing mechanism

Challenges and Barriers

State-Approved Platforms:
Significant barriers in
utilizing online platforms to
collect and aggregate
observation data due to full
DPAS-II alignment within
those information systems
(on the user-end & backend)

Key Questions/Considerations and

Next Steps
Key Questions
What is the process for a system for be placed on formal review or to rescind and LEAs approval?

How can the Department effectively monitor the credentialing of all evaluators so that implementation is done with
fidelity?

How should the Department utilize state-approved platforms to effectively monitor and support LEAs?

Additional Considerations
How can the Department encourage schools/LEAs to seek out highly effective external supports to guide their work?

Are there funds available to help cover start-up/planning costs, such as a project manager?

Are charter schools fully aware of this opportunity when submitting their new charter for initial approval?

10

Summary of Current Efforts

As of school year 2015-2016:
Colonial School District (To Be Determined)

Five different systems (see right) utilize four

different evaluation frameworks (Delawares
Charter Collaboratives I and II both utilize
the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF))
One traditional district and twelve (12)
charter schools have applied and received
approval for alternative teacher evaluation
systems
Ten (10) charter schools are members of a
cohort in order to benefit from economies of
scale, learn from each others efforts, and
scale best practices in student goal-setting
and observation/feedback cycles

Freire Charter School (Fall 2015)

Delaware Charter Collaborative I (Fall 2013)
East Side Charter School
Family Foundations Academy Charter
School
Kuumba Academy
Prestige Academy Charter School
Thomas A. Edison Charter School
Las Americas ASPIRA Academy (Fall 2015)
Delaware Charter Collaborative II (Fall 2015)
Academia Antonia Alonso Charter School
Delaware College Preparatory Academy
Early College High School
First State Military Academy
Positive Outcomes Charter School

11

Delaware Charter
Collaborative II
Teaching Excellence Framework

1/20/2016

12

The Teaching Excellence Framework

1. Planning and Preparation
2. Classroom Environment

Components 1-3 are measured using the

Teaching Excellence Rubric. Ratings are a
summary of frequent, short lesson
observations throughout the school year.

3. Instruction and Assessment

Components 4 is measured using the
Teaching Excellence Rubric. Ratings are
4. Professional Responsibilities
based on a student survey, parent survey
and peer survey.

5. Student Achievement

Components 5 is measured by state and

local growth measures (same as DPAS II)
13

The Teaching Excellence Framework

Observation Rubric

Based n exemplary rubrics from other states, districts, CMOs

Length

15-20 minutes/observation

Frequency

8 observations per year unannounced

Observers

School leaders who participate in several observations and

feedback trainings each ear to ensure strong calibration across
observers

Follow-up

Observation debrief occurs within one week

Teacher writes up his/her own summary of the conversation
and next steps
School leader records scores and action steps for
improvement

Data

Observation Sheet Tally

Fall Teacher Survey
Mid-Year Conferences
Parent-Student-Peer Surveys
End of Year
14

The Teaching Excellence Framework

Praise

Narrate the positive

Probe

Check for Understanding

Start with the goal
Analyze the gap
Close the gap

Action Step

Name explicitly the action step; high-leverage, measurable,

bite-sized

Plan Ahead

Script changes into upcoming lesson plans

Practice

Role play how to implement action step in current or future

lessons

Follow-up

Set timeline for follow-up

15

Las Americas ASPIRA Academy

EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK

16

Overview of
LAAA Educator Effectiveness Framework
LAAAs strategic plan to close the achievement gap of its students is based upon a four pillar approach:
Increasing Educator Effectiveness, Mastery Learning, Data-Driven Instruction, and Culture & Climate.

Increasing
Educator
Effectiveness

Culture &
Climate

Mastery
Learning

Data-Driven
Instruction

the effects of well-prepared teachers on student achievement can be stronger than the
influences of student background factors, such as poverty, language background, and minority
status
(Darling-Hammond, 2000, p.33).

Framework Components
Annual
Benchmarking of
Teacher
Effectiveness

Ongoing
Observations and
Feed-Forward
Professional
Learning
Conversations

Growth Model
System to Track
Educator
Effectiveness

Evidence of DataDriven Instruction

and Measures of
Student
Achievement

Career
Development
Progression Model

Fall
Benchmarking
and Goal-Setting
Conference

October-April

Teacher
Indicators

P1 and P3
teacher
indicator
ratings

Induction
Skillful
Teacher

Annual
Salary
Schedule

Student
Improvement
Measures

Lead Teacher
Instructional
Leader
PLL

Bonus
Program

Spring
Benchmarking
End of Year
Evaluation

No less than 6
per educator

Student
Indicators

Educator
Effectiveness
Compensation
Structure