Teacher Evaluation & Development Program

The Teacher Performance and Practice component is a comprehensive review of teaching practice conducted through multiple observations, which are evaluated against a standards- based rubric. It comprises 40% of the summative rating. Following observations, evaluators provide teachers with specific feedback to identify strong practice, to identify teacher development needs and to tailor support to meet those needs.

The West Hartford Instructional Framework is the core document within the evaluation system and is the rubric used to provide the criteria by which a teacher’s performance can be directly measured. The indicators of teaching practice outlined in the rubric have been developed by West Hartford teachers and represent the collective values and beliefs about high quality teaching and learning within the educational community, contributing to a mutual understanding among stakeholders of those practices that are most essential for improving student learning and preparing students to be college and career ready. The WHPS Instructional Framework in closely aligned with the CCT Rubric for Effective Teaching 2017 and the CT Core of Teaching. Teaching practice is described across four focus areas of Classroom Environment, Planning for Active Learning, Instructional Practice for Active Learning, and Professional Responsibilities.

In accordance with the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation, West Hartford has developed a specialized matrix for evaluating Student and Educator Support Specialists based on the Core Requirements for the Evaluation of Student and Educator Support Specialists and the CCT Rubric for Effective Service Delivery 2017. This framework is used in the evaluation of school counselors, school psychologists, speech and language pathologists, school social workers, special education resource teachers, curriculum specialists, reading specialists, and other groups in a service provider role as determined by the PLEC.

 

Each teacher will annually develop, through consultation and mutual agreement with their evaluator, two Professional Learning Objectives for the year. These objectives should highlight performance and practice focus areas directly aligned to indicators of the Instructional Framework, reflect district and school priorities, and be informed by results of parent and student surveys. One objective may be a parent goal related to a targeted area of school improvement identified through survey results. Goals selected should a) represent growth areas for the teacher; b) have a direct link to student achievement; and c) have improvement targets that are ambitious and attainable.

Direct classroom observations, when accompanied by specific, evidencebased feedback delivered in a timely manner, provide teachers with valuable opportunities to develop and reach their full potential. West Hartford’s Teacher Evaluation and Development Program provides all teachers with multiple opportunities to be observed formally and informally and receive both verbal and written feedback about their practice. The processes associated with the direct observation of classroom practice are designed in accordance with CT’s Guidelines for Educator Evaluation and vary for our non-tenured and tenured teachers as well as for high-performing and low- performing tenured teachers.

Our plan provides for a combination of announced and unannounced observations in order to capture an authentic view of practice and to promote a culture of openness and comfort with frequent observations and feedback. For purposes of calibration, formal and informal observations are defined as follows:

• Formal - Observations that last at least 45 minutes, or a single instructional period, and are preceded by a pre-conference (if announced), are always followed by a post-observation conference, and are followed by timely verbal and written feedback.

• Informal - Observations that last at least 10 minutes, are unannounced, and are followed by timely written feedback, and verbal feedback when possible.

• Non-classroom Observations/Reviews of Practice – Observations of aspects of practice other than in-class teaching, include but are not limited to observations of planning, data team or PLC meetings, participation in Collaborative Inquiry Teams, observations of coaching or mentoring other teachers, observations of concerts, special programs or or culminating activities for which the teacher was responsible for producing, facilitation of professional development experiences with colleagues, parent conferences, PPTs, reviews of student work, lesson/unit plans and assessments, or other teaching artifacts, call logs or notes from parent-teacher meetings, and attendance records from professional learning or school-based activities/events.

Please Note: Reviewing lesson plans in a pre-conference, prior to a scheduled observation, generally provides evidence for the planning domain and is considered a part of the formal observation process. It does not serve as a separate observation or review of practice.

All observations must be followed by written feedback provided in a timely manner. For purposes of clarity and consistency, “timely” is defined by this plan as within three work days.

All non-tenured teachers follow the same process, regardless of their rating or years of experience teaching. Upon achieving tenure, teachers are assigned to one of three observation cycles – A, B or C.

Each year, on a rotating basis, one of the three cycles is designated as the “Formal” Observation cycle. Each year, teachers are assigned to an evaluation process based on two factors: (1) their tenure level and (2) their performance level. The table that follows outlines the requirements of the different processes that are in place for the various categories of teachers in our district.

Teacher Process	WHPS Observation Requirements
Non-Tenured Teachers – all performance levels	At least 3 in-class formal observations – 1 of which is unannounced, and all of which include a post-conference; At least 2 in-class unannounced informal observations – one prior to September 30.
Tenured Teachers – Formal observation cycle	At least 1 in-class formal observation which includes a pre-conference and post-conference; At least 1 review of practice, documented in writing.
Tenured Teachers – Informal observation cycle	At least 3 in-class informal observations; At least 1 review of practice, documented in writing.
Tenured Teachers – Special Assistance (Rating of Developing or Below Standard regardless of the cycle)	At least 3 in-class formal observations – 1 of which is unannounced, and all of which include an post-conference; At least 2 in-class unannounced informal observations – one prior to September 30.

Pre-conferences are a required component of the formal observation process. Pre-conferences are a valuable opportunity for teachers and evaluators to establish the context for the lesson, discuss important information about the students being observed, set expectations for the observation process and provide the evidence for Focus Area 2 - Planning for Active Learning.

Pre-conferences are required for:

• two of the three required formal observations for non-tenured teachers and

• one required formal observation for tenured teachers in the formal observation cycle.

For each scheduled formal observation, the teacher should complete and submit all pre-observation paperwork to their administrator prior to the pre-observation conference.

Post-conferences provide an opportunity for reflecting on the observation against the West Hartford Instructional Framework and for generating action steps that will lead to the teacher’s improvement. A post-conference is a required step following every formal observation, whether announced or unannounced. Following each formal observation, the teacher should reflect on the lesson in writing and complete and submit this post-observation reflection paperwork to their administrator prior to the post-conference.

A good post-conference:

• Begins with an opportunity for the teacher to share his/her reflections on the lesson;

• Cites objective evidence about the teacher’s successes, what improvements will be made, and where future observations may focus;

• Connects evidence to performance indicators in the Instructional or SESS Framework;

• Connects teacher and student actions to identify the impact of instructional decisions on student learning;

• Involves both written and verbal feedback from the evaluator; and

• Occurs in a timely manner.

For additional guidelines regarding feedback, please see the SEED document.

Observation Scoring

During observations, evaluators should take evidence-based notes of teaching and learning, capturing specific instances of what the teacher and students said and did in the classroom. Once the evidence has been recorded, the evaluator aligns the evidence with the appropriate indicator(s) on the West Hartford Instructional Framework and then determines which performance level the evidence supports for each indicator.

At the end of the year, primary evaluators will complete a holistic review of all evidence collected to determine an overall rating of teacher performance and practice across all focus areas of the WHPS Instructional or SESS Framework. Evaluators holistically review evidence collected through observations, interactions and reviews of practice (e.g., team meetings, conferences, etc.) and use professional judgment to determine a rating on each indicator of the framework. An Excel spreadsheet is used to catalog and accurately weight the ratings for each focus area as follows to derive total performance and practice score for each teacher:

Classroom Environment – 25%

Planning for Active Learning – 20%

Instructional Practice for Active Learning – 40% Professional Responsibilities – 15%

Primary evaluators will discuss this rating with teachers during the end-of-year conference.

Evaluators may also follow this process in advance of the mid-year conference to discuss with teachers their formative progress related to the Teacher Performance and Practice rating.

The total Performance and Practice score obtained above contributes 40% to a teacher’s overall summative rating for the year.

The West Hartford Teacher Evaluation and Development Program is a holistic evaluation. As such, evidence is collected about all aspects of a teacher’s practice. Classroom observations generally provide the most evidence for Focus Areas 1 and 3 of the West Hartford Instructional and SESS Frameworks. Non-classroom observations/reviews of practice generally provide the most evidence for Focus Areas 2 and 4 of the West Hartford Instructional and SESS Frameworks. Pre-and post-conferences provide the opportunity for discussion of all four focus areas, including practice outside of classroom instruction (e.g., lesson plans, reflections on teaching).

Because the West Hartford Teacher Evaluation and Development Program aims to provide teachers with comprehensive feedback on their practice as defined by the four focus areas of West Hartford Instructional or SESS Framework, all interactions with teachers that are relevant to their instructional practice/service delivery and professional conduct may contribute to their performance evaluations When information collected outside of formal or informal observations significantly influences the overall scoring of a teacher’s performance, written feedback will be provided detailing the evidence and the impact it has on the teacher’s overall summative evaluation.

The West Hartford Teacher Evaluation and Development Program includes parent feedback in the evaluation of its teachers. Feedback collected from parents is used to determine the remaining portion of the Teacher Performance and Practice rating and constitutes 10% of a teacher’s overall summative rating.

Parent surveys are conducted and scored at the whole-school level as opposed to the teacher level. Parent surveys must be administered in a way that allows parents to feel comfortable providing feedback without fear of retribution. Surveys must be confidential, and survey responses should not be tied to parents’ names. Parent surveys will be administered every spring and trends analyzed from year to year.

The process for determining the parent feedback rating includes the following steps:

1. The school conducts a whole-school parent survey in the spring of each year.

2. Prior to the start of each school year, administrators and teachers review spring survey results and determine several school-level parent goals based on the survey feedback. Ideally, this goal-setting process would occur between the evaluator and teachers (possibly during faculty meetings) in August or September so agreement can be reached on two to three improvement goals for the entire school.

3. Evaluator and teacher review progress with parent engagement efforts at mid-year conferences;

4. Evaluator determines an aggregate rating for the school and assigns all teachers this rating based on four performance levels.

An important part of the evaluator’s job is to ensure that the teacher goals are related to the overall school improvement parent goals, and that improvement targets are aligned, ambitious and attainable.

Parent feedback will be aggregated and reviewed during the End-of-Year meetings wherein evaluators will determine the degree to which the targets set at the beginning of the year were met.

Based on the aggregate progress across the school, the evaluator will assign a rating to all teachers and record the rating on page 2 of the summative spreadsheet and in the corresponding portion of each teacher’s electronic Summative Evaluation form (Form I). Parent survey results are rated as follows:

Level 1: Did not meet goal

Level 2: Partially met goal

Level 3: Met goal

Level 4: Exceeded goal

SLOs are carefully planned, long-term academic objectives that reflect high expectations for learning or improvement and aim for mastery of content or skill development. SLOs are written as broad goal statements for student learning that identify core ideas, domains, knowledge and/or skills students are expected to acquire for which baseline data indicate a need. Teachers with similar assignments may have identical SLOs although they will be individually accountable for their own students’ results.

SLOs are measured by Indicators of Academic Growth and Development (IAGDs) which include specific assessments/measures of progress and targets for student mastery or progress. Indicators should be aspirational in nature, reflecting high expectations for student growth that will realize greater improvement in student performance. Because each teacher’s students differ, it is imperative that teachers and evaluators take into account each teacher’s assignment, students, and context when setting SLOs and IAGDs. The final determination of SLOs and IAGDs is made through mutual agreement between the teacher and his/her evaluator with a minimum of 2 IAGDs resulting from the objectives set for the year. The steps in the SLO process are outlined and described below.

 

The process of developing SLOs begins with reviewing district initiatives and key priorities, school/district improvement plans and the building administrator’s goals. Once teachers know their class rosters, they should examine multiple sources of data about their students’ performance to identify an area(s) of need. Documenting the “baseline” data, or where students are at the beginning of the year, is a key aspect of this step. It allows the teacher to identify where students are with respect to the grade level or content area the teacher is teaching.

Examples of data to be used in developing an SLO include but are not limited to the following:

• Initial performance on writing samples, student interest surveys, preassessments, etc.

• Results from standardized and non-standardized assessments

• Report cards from previous years

• Results from diagnostic assessments

• Artifacts from previous learning

• Feedback from other teachers across grade levels and content areas who have previously taught the same students

• Conferences with students’ families

• Individual Educational Plans (IEPs) and 504 plans

• Data related to English Language Learners (ELL) and gifted and talented students

• Attendance records

• Information about families, community and other local contexts

It is important that the teacher has a clear understanding of both the individual student and group strengths and challenges since this information serves as the foundation for setting the ambitious yet realistic goals in the next step of the process.

The West Hartford Teacher Evaluation and Development Program requires that each teacher, through mutual agreement with her/his evaluator, select one or more SLOs to measure student growth and development. For each SLO, the teacher will select at least one Indicator of Academic Growth and Development (IAGD) to measure student improvement. The number of SLO and IAGD’s can vary by teacher as long as each teacher meets the minimum requirement of 2 IAGDs annually.

For any teacher whose primary responsibility is not the direct instruction of students, the mutually agreed upon SLO and indicators shall be based on the assigned role of the teacher. The Indicators of Academic Growth and Development used as evidence of whether SLOs are met shall be determined through the comparison of data across assessments administered over time. State mastery test data will be used to inform goal-setting and professional learning but will not be used as a measure of SLO/goal attainment or to calculate the final summative rating.

The decision regarding the number of SLOs established for the year rests with the teacher, as long as there is alignment with the needs identified within the review of applicable data and the criteria for having at least two (2) IAGDs is met.

The SLOs are broad goal statements for student learning and expected student improvement. These goal statements identify core ideas, domains, knowledge and/or skills students are expected to acquire for which baseline data indicate a need. Each SLO should address a central purpose of the teacher’s assignment and should pertain to a large proportion of her/his students, including specific target groups. Each SLO statement should reflect high expectations for student learning, at least a year’s growth (or a semester’s growth for shorter courses), and should be aligned to relevant district, state or national standards for the grade level or course. Depending on the teacher’s assignment, an SLO statement might aim for content mastery or it might aim for skill development. Teachers with similar assignments may have identical SLOs although they will be individually accountable for their own students’ results.

The following examples of SLOs are taken from the CT SEED Handbook 2017:

Grade/Subject	Student Learning Outcomes
6th Grade Social Studies	Students will produce effective and well-grounded writing for a range of purposes and audiences.
9th Grade Information Literacy	Students will master the use of digital tools for learning to gather, evaluate and apply information to solve problems and accomplish tasks.
11th Grade Algebra	Students will be able to analyze complex, real-world scenarios using mathematical models to interpret and solve problems.
9th Grade English/Language Arts	Students will cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
1st and 2nd Grade Tier 3 Reading	Students will improve reading accuracy and comprehension leading to an improved attitude and approach toward more complex reading tasks

 

An Indicator of Academic Growth and Development (IAGD) is an assessment/ measure of progress with a quantitative target that will demonstrate whether the SLO was met. Each SLO must include at least one IAGD but may include multiple, differentiated IAGDs where appropriate.

One half (22.5%) of the indicators of academic growth and development used as evidence of whether goals/objectives are met shall not be determined by a single isolated standardized test score, but shall be determined through the comparison of data across assessments administered over time, including a standardized indicator for grades and subjects where available and appropriate. Those without an available standardized indicator will select, through mutual agreement subject to the local dispute-resolution process of the Guidelines for Educator Evaluation, an additional non-standardized indicator. For the other half (22.5%) of the IAGDs, there may be a:

• Minimum of one non-standardized indicator, and

• Maximum of one additional standardized indicator, if there is mutual agreement.

In the calculation to determine the summative student growth and development rating, the SLOs are weighted equally, each representing 22.5% of the final summative rating.

The following flow chart may help to determine appropriate IAGDs:

As stated in the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation, a standardized assessment is characterized by the following attributes:

• Administered and scored in a consistent – or “standard” – manner;

• Aligned to a set of academic or performance “standards”;

• Commonly-administered (e.g., nation-, state- or district-wide); and

• Often administered only once a year, although some standardized assessments are administered two or three times per year.

IAGDs should be aspirational in design – i.e., rigorous, attainable and meet or exceed district expectations (rigorous targets reflect both greater depth of knowledge and complexity of thinking required for success). Each indicator should be written in SMART goal format (i.e., Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-Oriented, Time-Bound), and should make clear:

• What evidence/measure of progress will be examined;

• What levels of performance are targeted; and

• What proportion of students is projected to achieve each targeted performance level.

IAGDs should capture all students including student subgroups, such as high or low-performing students or ELL students. It is through the initial examination of student data that teachers will determine what level of performance to target for which population(s) of students.

IAGDs are unique to the teacher’s particular students; teachers with similar assignments may use the same assessment(s)/measure of progress for their SLOs, but it is unlikely they would have identical targets established for student performance. For example, all second grade teachers in a district might set the same SLO and use the same reading assessment (measure of progress) to measure their SLOs, but the target(s) and/or the proportion of students expected to achieve proficiency would likely vary among second grade teachers. Additionally, individual teachers may establish multiple differentiated targets for students achieving at various performance levels. The following are examples of IAGDs associated with the sample SLOs presented earlier in this document:

 

SLOs are proposals until the teacher and the evaluator mutually agree upon them. Prior to the Goal-Setting Conference, the evaluator will review each SLO relative to the following criteria to ensure that SLOs across subjects, grade levels, and schools are both rigorous and comparable:

• Baseline and trend data used to set SLOs

• Student population

• Standards and learning content

• Interval of Instruction for the SLO

• Assessments/measures of Progress

• Growth targets

• Instructional strategies and supports needed to achieve the SLOs

Resource: SLO Development Guide is available on the CSDE CT SEED website to support this process.

Once SLOs are finalized, teachers should monitor students’ progress towards the objectives by examining student work, administering interim assessments, and regularly tracking students’ accomplishments and struggles. Progress towards SLOs/IAGDs and action steps for achieving progress should be referenced in feedback conversations throughout the year.

If a teacher’s assignment changes, or if his/her student population shifts significantly, the SLOs can be adjusted during the mid-year conference as mutually agreed upon by the evaluator and the teacher.

At the end of the school year, the teacher will collect the evidence required by their IAGDs, compile a summary and analysis of data, identify relevant artifacts, reflect in writing on the SLO outcomes, and submit all of this information to their evaluator using the electronic H2 form in the Talent Ed Perform system. Evaluators will review the evidence submitted along with the teacher’s selfassessment and assign one of four ratings to each SLO: Exceeded, Met, Partially Met, or Did Not Meet.

These ratings are defined as follows:

Exceeded (4): A notable percentage of students substantially exceeded the targets and all or nearly all of the remaining students met the targets

Met (3): All or nearly all students met the targets. Those exceeding or falling below fell within a very small margin of the targets

Partially Met (2): A notable percentage of students fell substantially below the targets while the remaining students met the targets. Progress toward the goal was inconsistent.

Did Not Meet (1): All or nearly all students did not meet the targets. Little or no progress toward the goal was made overall.

Recognizing that SLOs are evaluated using a variety of measures, and that the type of data collected by teachers in different disciplines as evidence of SLO achievement varies widely, it is the goal of this plan to support teachers in their ability to comprehensively analyze, communicate, and reflect on their annual progress with SLOs, as well as to assist evaluators in accurately assessing teacher SLO outcomes in the most calibrated manner possible.

To that end, and after reviewing a wide range of sample documents prepared by teachers in this district, the West Hartford Professional Learning and Evaluation Committee (PLEC) identified a number of key features that hallmark effective data presentation. To ensure clear, comprehensive reporting of SLO outcomes by all teachers, as well as fair, accurate, calibrated assessment of SLO outcomes by evaluators, summative data reporting by teachers should:

• Be explicit and comprehensive

• Include both a visual component and narrative

• Include clear display of evidence

• Include baseline data, targets, and final outcomes for all students

• Include pertinent student details

Teachers should attach their SLO data summaries to their end-of-year SLO SelfAssessment (Form H2) when submitting it electronically

During the 2017-18 school year, the Professional Learning and Evaluation committee (PLEC) carefully reviewed the language used to define SLO ratings and further clarified criteria for each rating in order to remove ambiguities and ensure accurate and consistent interpretation and reporting of SLO results among individual teachers and evaluators, and within and across buildings, levels, and departments.

The language used to describe the ratings is deliberately qualitative, affording evaluators and teachers the opportunity to engage in honest dialogue regarding the unique attributes of each teacher’s caseload and afford teachers and evaluators appropriate flexibility to consider attributes and circumstances unique to their cohort when scoring the SLO and evaluating the teacher’s ability to impact the growth of his or her students throughout the year. The visuals provided below should further clarify the language and assist teachers and evaluators in assigning the appropriate rating to the outcomes achieved.

 

Each SLO is scored using the rating criteria described above. For SLOs with more than one IAGD, the evaluator will score each indicator separately and enter the scores in the corresponding boxes on page 3 of the Summative Worksheet. The spreadsheet will automatically average the individual IAGD and/or SLO scores and compute a total Student Growth and Development rating. Evaluators will then transfer the final score to the teacher’s electronic Summative Evaluation Form I. The final Student Growth and Development rating for a teacher is the average of their SLO scores to the nearest hundredth. The final Student Growth and Development rating will be shared and discussed with the teacher during the End-of-Year Conference.

The West Hartford Teacher Evaluation and Development Program includes student feedback in the evaluation of its teachers. Five percent (5%) of a teacher’s evaluation is based on student feedback collected utilizing district-generated surveys. The district uses various delivery models to ensure higher rates of return, fairness, and reliability relative to student surveys.

Student surveys are conducted and scored at the whole-school level as opposed to the teacher level. Surveys are confidential and survey responses will not be tied to students’ names. Support is provided to teachers in the administration of student surveys to ensure that students feel comfortable providing feedback without fear of retribution. Instructions are provided with each survey to ensure that each survey is administered to students in such a way as to yield the best possible feedback for growth in teacher practice. Student surveys are administered every spring and trends analyzed from year to year.

The process for determining the student feedback rating includes the following steps:

1. The school conducts student feedback surveys in the spring of each year.

2. Prior to the start of each school year, administrators and teachers should review spring survey feedback and determine several school-level student feedback goals for the entire school.

3. Evaluator and teacher review progress with student feedback goals at midyear conferences.

4. Evaluator determines an aggregate student feedback rating for the school and assigns all teachers this rating based on four performance levels.

An important part of the evaluator’s job is to ensure that the teacher goals are related to the overall school improvement student feedback goals, and that the improvement targets are aligned, ambitious and attainable. As with parent feedback, student feedback will be aggregated and reviewed during the endof-year meetings wherein evaluators will determine the degree to which the teacher and school student feedback targets set at the beginning of the year were met. Based on the aggregate progress across the school, the evaluator will assign a student feedback rating to all teachers as follows:

Level 1: Did not meet goal

Level 2: Partially met goal

Level 3: Met goal

Level 4: Exceeded goal

Once a teacher’s scores have been determined for each of the four components and entered by the evaluator onto pages 1-4 of the Summative Evaluation Excel spreadsheet, the spreadsheet will automatically calculate the teacher’s score for each of the two major categories (i.e., Teacher Practice and Student Outcomes) as well as an Overall Summative Rating for the year.

For purposes of explanation, the following process is used to calculate the overall summative rating:

1. The Teacher Practice score is calculated by combining the observation of teacher performance and practice score and the parent feedback score. The observation of teacher performance and practice counts for 40% of the total rating and parent feedback counts for 10% of the total rating. These weights are multiplied by the component scores to determine the category points. The points are then translated to a rating using the rating table below.

2. The Student Outcomes score is calculated by combining the student growth and development score and the student feedback score. The student growth and development component counts for 45% of the total rating and the student feedback component counts for 5% of the total rating. These weights are multiplied by the component scores to determine the category points. The points are then translated to a rating using the rating table below.

3. Evaluators use the Summative Matrix to determine the Summative Rating.

Rating Table:

Total Category Points	Performance Level Rating
175-200	Exemplary
125-174.99	Effective
75-124.99	Developing
50-74.99	Below Standard

 

Using the ratings determined for each major category, Student Outcomes Related Indicators and Teacher Practice-Related Indicators, follow the respective column and row to the center of the matrix. The point of intersection indicates the summative rating.

 

Summative ratings must be provided for all teachers by June 30 of each year. Not later than September 15, of each year, the Superintendent shall report to the Commissioner of Education the status of the implementation of teacher evaluations, including the frequency of evaluations, aggregate evaluation ratings, the number of teachers who have not been evaluated and other requirements.

CSDE Educator Evaluation website

Evaluation Support Documents

CT Guidelines for Educator Evaluation

SEED Handbook

CCT Rubric for Effective Teaching

CCT SESS Rubric

CT Evidence Guides

CT Student Learning Goals and Objectives Handbook

SEED Mid-Year Conference Discussion Guide

CT Professional Development Guidelines