compensated for additional hours of service if specified in the Final Work Plan), and must work with new teachers for at least two years.
Districts may develop their own teacher mentoring program or contract with training organizations such as CESAs, The New Teacher Center, or institutions of higher education to implement this reform. (See Exhibit I of the MOU in Appendix 2)
Strategy 6: Require Participating LEAs to implement a principal mentoring program that includes ongoing feedback and supports principal development. Principal mentors must be highly trained and principal leadership programs must be high quality. Mentoring programs should address effective use of data and teacher evaluations to inform instructional improvement and staff professional development. Districts may develop their own principal mentoring program or contract with training organizations such as New Leaders for New Schools to implement this reform. (See Exhibit I of the MOU in Appendix 2)
Strategy 7: Require Participating LEAs to provide school-based coaches for reading and mathematics at a level such that there are coaches in each school in the district at least the equivalent of one full day each week. These coaches must be highly trained and work with teachers in classrooms to implement new curriculum and/or instructional strategies as well as assist teachers in using data effectively to improve instruction. (See Exhibit I of the MOU in Appendix 2)
Strategy 8: Require Participating LEAs to provide professional development and support to staff to implement new curriculum and/or instructional strategies as well as to use data effectively to improve instruction. Districts must use student achievement data, as well as teacher and principal evaluations, to inform professional development. Districts must participate in evaluations or conduct their own evaluations of the effectiveness of the professional development offered by the district. (See Exhibit I of the MOU in Appendix 2)
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
156 Table 47 – Implementation plan for mentoring.
MENTORING
GOAL KEY ACTIVITIES TIMELINE KEY PARTIES
Develop mentor and
Stakeholders (AWSA, WASB, WASDA, New Teacher Center, LEAs, education related experts)
Review key literature Year 1 (Q1) WDPI
Stakeholders
Develop mentor guidelines Year 1 (Q1) WDPI
Stakeholders
Develop guidelines for math and reading coaches
Contract with outside experts for resource development
Develop mentor training curriculum and resources
Year 1 (Q2 – Q4) Contract entity
WDPI
Develop coaching resources Year 1 (Q2 – Q4) Contract entity
WDPI
Plan mentor training and coaching institutes
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
157
Provide coaching institutes and training throughout the state, using the guidelines, best practices, resources and tools
(D)(2)(iv) Strategy 4:
Coaching Institutes, Training, and Support
Ongoing support Year 2 - Year4 WDPI
Currently, per statute, LEA’s must provide a trained mentor for all initial educators. Inconsistent practices exist across the state as the language is interpreted. While some funding is available to LEAs to provide mentoring, funding does not exist for all LEAs to implement a high-quality induction program. A set of concrete guidelines for selection, training, and using mentors for a two-year induction program is needed to provide greater consistency and improve the quality of initial educator induction. Once the guidelines are developed, resources and support tools along with high-quality mentor training will provide quality induction. RTTT funding will allow the state to develop a high-quality two-year mentoring program with training and resources accessible to all LEAs.
Currently, guidance does not exist to assist LEAs in selection, training, and use of math and reading coaches. Additionally, licensure questions have not been addressed. RTTT funding will allow the state to develop clear guidelines on how to select, train, and use reading and math coaches. It will also support the development of resources to support coaches and coaching institutes to train coaches.
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
158 Table 48 – Timeline for implementing and expanding mentoring activities.
MENTORING
Establish stakeholder process
Review key literature
Develop mentor guidelines
Develop guidelines for math and reading coaches
Publish the guidelines
Identify resources to be developed
Contract with outside experts for resource development
Develop mentor training curriculum and resources
Develop coaching resources
Plan mentor training and coaching institutes
Conduct Mentor training
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
159 Table 49 – Implementation plan for model evaluations.
MODEL EVALUATIONS
GOAL KEY ACTIVITIES TIMELINE KEY PARTIES
Develop and pilot a model evaluation system for
Stakeholders (AWSA, WASB, WASDA, UW-Madison, Wallace LEAs, education
Make recommendations for tool development
Provide training to support implementation of tools
Develop and pilot a model evaluation system for
Stakeholders (WEAC, AFT, AWSA, WASB, WASDA, education related experts, teachers)
Review key literature Year 1 (Q1) Contract entity
WDPI
Stakeholders
Review and evaluate tools currently in use by LEAs
Year 1 (Q1) Contract entity
WDPI
Stakeholders
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
160
Make recommendations for tool development
Year 1 (Q1) Contract entity
WDPI
Stakeholders
Develop remaining evaluation tools Year 1 (Q2-3) Contract entity
WDPI
Pilot tools Year 1 (Q3-4) – Year 2 Contract entity
WDPI
LEAs
Provide training to support implementation of tools
Years 2-3 Contract entity
WDPI
Conduct follow up evaluation Year 4 Contract entity
WDPI
stakeholders
Two grants from the Wallace Foundation to the WDPI have been used to develop a site tool for principal evaluation as well as the initial development of other preliminary principal evaluation tools. Prior to beginning this work, Wisconsin did not have a well-developed, research-based principal or teacher evaluation model. Wisconsin school districts have a wide variety of evaluation tools and student growth assessment systems/models currently in use at the local level.
The RTTT funding will allow us to develop a model principal evaluation system and a model teacher evaluation system that includes a student growth component and evaluation tools to differentiate ineffective, effective, and highly effective categories. The model evaluation system will be available for LEAs to use.
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
161 Table 50 – Timeline for implementing model evaluation activities.
MODEL EVALUATIONS
KEY TASK YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Contract with outside expert
Establish stakeholder process
Review key literature
Evaluate Wallace grant site visit tools Make recommendations for tool development
Develop remaining evaluation tools
Pilot tools
Provide training to support implementation of
tools
Conduct follow up evaluation
Contract with outside expert Establish stakeholder process
Review key literature
Review and evaluate tools currently in use
by LEAs
Make recommendations for tool development
Develop remaining evaluation tools
Pilot tools
Provide training to support implementation of
tools
Conduct follow up evaluation
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
162 Table 51 – Implementation plan for preservice assessment tool.
PRESERVICE ASSESSMENT TOOL
GOAL KEY ACTIVITIES TIMELINE KEY PARTIES
Participate in a ten state partnership created by the
Conduct PACT critique of current model
Secure access to completed tools, and electronic results
Year 3 WDPI
Report field test results and project updates to Wisconsin Preparation
Currently Wisconsin WDPI along with Alverno College, UW-Madison, and UW-Eau Claire have joined a ten state partnership to develop, field test, and bring to scale a national preservice teacher performance assessment tool. The project is fully funded by AACTE up to the final phase of implementation. RTTT funding will assist Wisconsin in completing the final phase of implementation by accelerating the field testing and securing access to results. As a result, Wisconsin preparation programs will be able to begin accessing the tool for use sooner.
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
163 Table 52 – Timeline for implementing preservice assessment tool activities.
PRESERVICE ASSESSMENT TOOL
KEY TASK YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Sign letters of intent to participate Conduct PACT critique of current model
Field test tools
Evaluate the field tests
Secure access to completed tools, and
electronic results
Report field test results and project updates to
Wisconsin Preparation programs
Table 53 - Performance Measures (D)(2)
Notes: Data should be reported in a manner consistent with the definitions
contained in this application package in Section II. Qualifying evaluation systems are those that meet the criteria described in (D)(2)(ii).
Actual Data:
Baseline
(Current school End of SY
2010-2011 End of SY
2011-2012 End of SY
2012-2013 End of SY
2013-2014
Criteria General goals to be provided at time of application: Baseline data and annual targets (D)(2)(i) Percentage of Participating LEAs that measure student growth
(as defined in this notice). 77% 79% 82% 91% 100%
(D)(2)(ii) Percentage of Participating LEAs with qualifying evaluation
systems for teachers. 14% 18% 48% 79% 100%
(D)(2)(ii) Percentage of Participating LEAs with qualifying evaluation
systems for principals. 28% 38% 48% 75% 100%
(D)(2)(iv) Percentage of Participating LEAs with qualifying evaluation systems that are used to inform:
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
164 Performance Measures Data
Of the 431 LEAs signing MOUs, 357 submitted data to the survey (covered in greater detail in the following paragraphs). Our baseline data and targets in this data table are calculated based on the 357 LEAs who submitted both a signed MOU and completed a survey. On award of a RTTT grant this baseline data and annual targets will be updated through a more robust survey of all Participating LEAs.
Since performance evaluation documentation is housed within each school district, a collective perspective of the teacher or principal evaluation systems used by districts across the state is not known at this time. Yet, anecdotally we know models of teacher performance assessments and evaluation systems are in use. As well, districts have introduced student assessment systems to measure student growth.
To gain a basic understanding of our districts and to gather baseline data, a survey was developed. The survey protocol questions are available in Appendix 25. The survey data was collected using survey monkey and data was compiled and analyzed using SPSS. This data will allow the State to identify the components of a teacher and principal evaluation system that are most needed by Wisconsin districts and will assist us in moving forward with the development and piloting of a model evaluation system.
The following explanations will provide context for how our survey data was used to determine our baseline data and to make an initial
(D)(2)(iv)(a) Developing teachers and principals. 14% 24% 38% 65% 100%
(D)(2)(iv)(b) Compensating teachers and principals. 6.12% 7% 12% 19% 25%
(D)(2)(iv)(b) Promoting teachers and principals. 9.81% 100% 100% 100% 100%
(D)(2)(iv)(b) Retaining effective teachers and principals. 5.6% 7.5% 15% 29% 35%
(D)(2)(iv)(c) Granting tenure and/or full certification (where
applicable) to teachers and principals. 9.24% 11% 19% 35% 50%
(D)(2)(iv)(d) Removing ineffective tenured and untenured teachers
and principals. 13% 19% 34% 47% 60%
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
165 projection of annual targets across the next four years.
Criteria - General goals to be provided at time of application:
(D)(2)(i)
Percentage of Participating LEAs that measure student growth (as defined in this notice)
Using the student growth definition and the student achievement definition in the Race to the Top Application for Initial Funding CFDA Number: 84.395A, three survey questions were developed. Two examples of common student assessment systems being used in
Wisconsin to measure student growth were included in the first question. Participating LEAs would need to respond yes to the first question to be included in our baseline data. We expect to see this number near a full participation rate by SY 2013-2014. However, we expect a small increase in the first two years of the project, as districts research and implement systems and as the State builds a new student assessment system.
Student Growth Models
Y N a) Other than the WKCE, our district tracks student progress across time (for example: MAPS, ThinkLink, etc.) Y N b) Our district provides teachers with student growth data for their students, classes, and schools
Y N c) Our district provides principals with student growth data for their students, classes, and schools (D)(2)(ii)
Percentage of Participating LEAs with qualifying evaluation systems for teachers
Using the effective teacher definition and the highly effective teacher definitions in the Race to the Top Application for Initial Funding CFDA Number: 84.395A, using the parameters we have identified for the model teacher evaluation system that will be developed within
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
166
this project, and using the MOU requirements for our Participating LEAs, survey questions were developed. The first two questions (a) and (b) focus on student growth attributes of a teacher evaluation system. Questions (c) through (f) focus on multiple supplemental measures, including the parameters outlined as possibilities within Wisconsin’s model teacher evaluation system that will be developed and piloted during this project. The next questions, (g) through (i), are examples identified in the RTTT definition of highly effective teacher or principal. Some LEAs in Wisconsin are recognizing and awarding additional pay for National Board Certification and Master Educator licensure. Perhaps LEAs are using this as a component within their teacher evaluation system, perhaps even to measure highly effective. The final question (l) will provide a profile of LEAs that are using a purchased teacher evaluation system.
For our baseline data, a qualifying evaluation system must include:
Student growth models and a classroom observation, or
Student growth models and a purchased product.
We expect to see this number near a full participation rate by SY 2013-2014. However, we expect a small increase in the first two years of the project, as districts research and implement the components of a teacher evaluation system and as the State builds a model teacher evaluation system.
Does your district use any of these methods/models/measures within your teacher evaluation system?
Y N a) State standardized test results – WKCE, WIDA-ACCESS Y N b) Student growth models
Y N c) Classroom observations
Y N d) Portfolios containing teacher artifacts
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
167 Y N e) Analysis of classroom artifacts
Y N f) Teacher self reports of practices
Y N g) High school graduation rates; attendance rates
Race to the Top Application for Initial Funding CFDA Number: 84.395A
Effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice). States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth (as defined in this notice). Supplemental measures may include, for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance.
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice). States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth (as defined in this notice). Supplemental measures may include, for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance or evidence of leadership roles (which may include mentoring or leading professional learning communities) that increase the effectiveness of other teachers in the school or LEA.
Wisconsin model evaluation system for teachers
Strategy: Develop and pilot a model evaluation system for teachers based on Wisconsin Educator Standards, aligned with the National Board Certification and the Wisconsin Master Educator Assessment Process, and with student growth as a significant factor. This model evaluation system may include: growth models, classroom observations, supervisor evaluations, analysis of classroom or school artifacts, portfolios, self-reports of practice, and multiple student achievement measures. This evaluation system will be developed in conjunction with educational institutions, professional organizations, and other related education stakeholders. State Plan
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
168 Participating LEAs MOU requirement
Strategy: Require Participating LEAs to develop or implement a rigorous, transparent, and fair annual evaluation system for teachers and principals that differentiates effectiveness using multiple rating categories, takes into account data on student growth as significant factor, and includes multiple observations or examples of actual classroom instruction.
Districts may adopt an established national model, which may include, but not be limited to, piloting the Gates tools for teacher evaluations, contracting with the New Teacher Center formation assessment system, or adopting the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) model or districts may design a comparably rigorous, locally developed evaluation system. MOU
D(2)(ii)
Percentage of Participating LEAs with qualifying evaluation systems for principals
Using the effective principal definition and the highly effective principal definitions in the Race to the Top Application for Initial Funding CFDA Number: 84.395A, using the parameters we have identified for the model teacher evaluation system that will be developed within this project, and using the MOU requirements for our Participating LEAs, survey questions were developed. The first two questions (a) and (b) focus on student growth attributes of a principal evaluation system. The next questions (c) through (e) focus on multiple
supplemental measures, including examples outlined as possibilities within Wisconsin’s model teacher evaluation system parameters that will be developed and piloted during this project. The next questions (f) through (j) were identified as examples in the RTTT definition of highly effective principal. The Wisconsin Master Educator Assessment Process (WMEAP) is parallel to the national board process, and it is used in Wisconsin for administrators and for certificate areas that national board does not have. Question (k) will indicate the LEAs that might be using this as part of their principal evaluation system. The final question (l) will provide a profile of LEAs that are using a purchased principal evaluation system.
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
169 For our baseline data, a qualifying evaluation system must include:
Student growth models and at least one additional item (c) – (j), or
Student growth models and a purchased product.
We expect to see this number near a full participation rate by SY 2013-2014. However, we expect a small increase in the first two years of the project, as districts research and implement the components of a principal evaluation system and as the State builds a model principal evaluation system.
Does your district use any of these methods/models/measures within your principal evaluation system?
Y N a) State standardized test results – WKCE, WIDA-ACCESS Y N b) Student growth models
Y N c) Building site visits
Y N d) Portfolios containing artifacts Y N e) Principal self reports of practices
Y N f) High school graduation rates; attendance rates Y N g) College enrollment rates
Y N h) Evidence of supportive teaching and learning conditions Y N i) Instructional leadership
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
170 Y N j) Family and community engagement
Y N k) Wisconsin Master Educator Assessment Process Licensure
Y N l) A purchased principal evaluation product such as: Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
Race to the Top Application for Initial Funding CFDA Number: 84.395A
Effective principal means a principal whose students, overall and for each subgroup, achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice). States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures,
provided that principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth (as defined in this notice). Supplemental measures may include, for example, high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates, as well as evidence of providing supportive teaching and learning conditions, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and community engagement.
Highly effective principal means a principal whose students, overall and for each subgroup, achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice). States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth (as defined in this notice). Supplemental measures may include, for example, high school graduation rates; college enrollment rates; evidence of providing supportive teaching and learning conditions, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and community engagement; or evidence of attracting, developing, and retaining high numbers of effective teachers.
Wisconsin model evaluation system for teachers
Strategy: Develop and pilot a model evaluation system for principals based on Wisconsin Educator Standards, aligned with the National Board Certification and the Wisconsin Master Educator Assessment Process, and with student growth as a significant factor. This model
State of Wisconsin
Race to the Top Application
171
evaluation system may include: growth models, building site visits, supervisor evaluations, analysis of classroom or school artifacts, portfolios, self-reports of practice, and multiple student achievement measures. This evaluation system will be developed in conjunction with educational institutions, professional organizations, and other related education stakeholders. State Plan Overview
Participating LEAs MOU requirement
Strategy: Require Participating LEAs to develop or implement a rigorous, transparent, and fair annual evaluation system for teachers and principals that differentiates effectiveness using multiple rating categories, takes into account data on student growth as significant factor,
Strategy: Require Participating LEAs to develop or implement a rigorous, transparent, and fair annual evaluation system for teachers and principals that differentiates effectiveness using multiple rating categories, takes into account data on student growth as significant factor,