DAC Meeting February 17th, 2011 3:30‐6:30 Presenters: Bill Horwath, Dina Hasiotis, Ellen Hur Attendees: Todd Berry, Drew Bissell, Paulette Bogert, Ursula Bostic, Sharron Breedlove, Christopher Brewer, Bernadette Cooper, Rosa DeAnda, Andrew Dewey, Rebad Goodman, Hermas Grayless, Ruth Henderson, Benjamin Hernandez, Earl Jimmison, Linder Johnson, John Lengers, Danette Maldonado, Valerie Manby, Brent McCowan, Mary Nesbitt, Laurie Parkin, Callie Pettway, Marie Pousson, Michael Stackhouse, May Zoghby Meeting notes: 1. Introduction and Welcome: Bill Horwath 1. Today we'll focus on speaking about the Teacher Appraisal and Development System 2. Member introductions 3. Overview of agenda ƒ Share perspectives on the Public Comment Period ƒ Share design process updates ƒ Discuss and brainstorm the appeals process 2. Public Comment Period: Dina Hasiotis 1. Overview goals: Update on public comment period, discuss concerns that arose in public comment period and since 2. Update on where we are with public comment period: i.
Three public forums: Thanking panelists, we didn't have the best showing at those panels ii.
Online surveys i.
Shared response rates ii.
Survey is now closed iii.
Feedback from other stakeholders through open comment forums i.
Parents shared some comments, but it was a small number iv.
This will all be made public so the DAC can review 3. Next steps: i.
SDMCs will review feedback and build recommendations ii.
March 10 is next DAC meeting, 4‐7 i.
Goal is to think through what improvements and tweaks are required ii.
Please reflect leading up to that meeting on the SDMC recommendations and your own experiences 4. Questions and comments i.
Comment: Potential conflict on March 10: Board meeting on Magnet proposals ii.
Question: Response rate‐ (Based on stated rate) that means that 77% chose not to respond. Are we concerned with discovering why more people didn't respond? If we didn't respond means they don't buy into it, they don't believe in it i.
Comment: Some people have expressed that they aren't participating in comments because they feel like it's already completed, or because they think that it's not real yet. ii.
Question: Can the data be further broken down by campus? iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xii.
xiii.
i. Response: Survey was not anonymous, but was confidential. There was diversity broken down by diversity, grade level, and years of experience. ii. Comment: Requested to see it broken down by years of experience. Comment: Several teachers don't want to read the survey in the way it was presented. Comment: Several people say "what survey" because they get so many emails; others didn't answer because it was long; some people say they don't know enough about it. Maybe the survey wasn't something that they felt comfortable doing. Response: We struggled to get enough detail to get to useful, tangible responses we can do something with while keeping it short. We did a lot of outreach‐‐ email, ConnectED. Can still share feedback through teacher website or through additional events coming up soon. Response: There is still an open comment box on the website that has been up throughout the process. Question: What have been some of the other response rates for other district surveys? iii.
Comment: In the past, teachers have never voted on anything or been heard, because they think it's completed Question: Could we do an inservice on the campus to demonstrate the priority of this work? i. Comment: Instead of having a meeting, could cluster meet in the computer room and do the survey? Also, some of the teachers have trouble with the wording. ‘Rigor" was identified as a word that some teachers have concerns about. Response: Rigorous instruction came back in first round from SDMCs. In the second round, comments about rigor, but DAC suggested that the term come out of the rubric, and it did. Question: Definition of classroom teacher wasn't a term that everyone recognized as applying to their classroom. Question: If teachers still want to respond, where can they do that? Response: At the Effective Teacher’s website. Question: What is the difference between the Effective Teachers project and TNTP? i. Response: .
Described categories of the effective teachers website. i.
Vision was to create a micro‐site that could share materials from this process, and it is co‐managed by TNTP and HISD. ii. Response: .
Shared examples of TNTP's work broadly. i.
In HISD, TNTP is helping to carry out the effective teachers' work. ii.
Clarification made that TNTP is a consulting organization that provides capacity and support in running effective teachers initiative. iii. Response: ETI is a district sponsored and driven initiative. TNTP is here to support the HISD efforts. Comment: Don't think that teachers are aware of the effective teachers website i. Response: We're always open to feedback on how to reach all the teachers in the system. It's not going to be through one way, i.e ‐ put out a weekly xiv.
xv.
xvi.
xvii.
xviii.
xix.
email through e‐news, survey. If there are other strategies for reaching out to folks to more broadly share components of the initiative, we're open to hearing your ideas. Comment: For many years, SDMCs have been a non‐entity in this district and haven't been important to school culture. Now all of a sudden these groups have become a driving force in the schools. People don't pay attention to the groups, and they aren't important to the schools. The next thing we hear, SDMCs' work is recommendations, but we don't see them that way. i. Response: Is there way to get the word out to all teachers that the SDMCs are the tool for recommending, and teachers will get their feedback to SDMCs? ii. Comment: SDMCs aren't effective in schools, and need to build them up first Comment: Press has shared the word, and now teachers are talking and asking about. I share back to my campus from these conversations. i. Response: I understand concerns about SDMCs. We have one more round, and we can work to make the feedback more meaningful. Question: Couldn't this be something that the district emphasizes to campus leadership? i. Response: This has been really emphasized in meetings with Dr. Grier, we have heard it. Question: Is SDMC disseminating information to campus? i. Response: They should be sharing agendas and minutes. Question: Have teachers been receiving effective teachers updates each week? i. Comment: I thought effective teachers were about traveling professional development. ii. Response: 2‐3 SDMC members from every campus have come to each meeting, and they're supposed to share back to their schools Comment: SDMC members on my campus work very hard on this topic and project, and in Cycle 1 came to some meetings thinking they were going to present the questions from the group, but when they got to the meeting, it was just a power‐point, and they couldn't get their feedback to you that they wanted. i. Response: Have they participated since then? We've struggled with how much open‐ended feedback we have in meetings vs. trying to move recommendations forward through facilitation and try to come with an agenda and to‐dos for the group each time. This doesn't mean we're not open to feedback through a survey and through conversations like this. i. Question: Is the best way for comments from a campus to be heard at this point in time is to go through the HISD website? ii. Response: For individual teachers, yes. But for SDMC members, they can enter open comments in the recommendation or come talk to their DAC member. iii. If there are ways that we can better get this information out to you, this is the job of some communications team members at HISD. i.
Comment: Our campus put up signs, and told teachers that if this doesn't go the way you want it to go, it's your fault. SDMCs need to be more pro‐active and effective. 3. Update on Working Groups: Dina Hasiotis 1. Teacher support and development group are building a template and proposed tool. Identified working group members who are also DAC members. 2. Instructional practice and professional expectations: only got through the Level 3 section of the rubric. i.
Another opportunity for teachers to get involved: Focus groups will be happening in early March and will be advertised tomorrow 3. Process and synthesis group: Working on forms. Identified working group members who are also DAC members. 4. Measures of Student Learning: Rubrics for appraiser‐approved assessments. 4. Update on Second Observer/Teacher Development Specialist: Ellen Hur i.
Explained role of second appraiser as someone who brings content expertise into the appraisal process ii.
Trying to determine if this is something that HISD can make work given resource constraints. i.
There is a pot of funds federally required to be spent on professional development, and the budget committee has examined how these dollars are being spent and considering re‐imagining how those dollars would be used. ii.
Has to go to the budget committee to see if it works. Has to be cost neutral. iii.
If nothing goes awry, we'll be able to provide the type of professional development that teachers have been asking for and that we've heard through the surveys and throughout the design process. iii.
Comments/Questions: 1. Question: Where is the development of the teacher? Will these teachers be modeling in classrooms for teachers? Instrument currently looks to teachers like, "what are you doing wrong?" i. Response: This is a cycle of observation and feedback, and there are more checkpoints embedded in the process to move away from the idea that observation is a one‐time experience. Get towards useful feedback that happens regularly. Idea of second observer isn't to have someone who comes in and tells you what you're doing wrong. 2. Question: Are master teachers going to stand up and teach, or are they going to identify what they're doing wrong? How is that development? Will there be modeling of the lessons? i.
Response: Yes, they would come into classrooms to do this kind of work. 3. Question: Would they be at our schools? My teachers have a fear of having someone from outside the school come in to observe. i.
Comment: People who have been involved throughout the process knew these people as Master Educators, and I think it's an issue of naming these people “Second Appraisers.” ii.
Comment: Critical that second appraisers are vetted and have the same mindset; also have their appraisal tied to how their teachers do. In MSL working group, consider having second appraiser help 4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
iii.
write appraiser‐approved assessments for classes that don't have Stanford or TAKS. Question: Will these be announced or unannounced observations? Will I have the opportunity to give them context? Will they model a perfect lesson, or will they just sit in the back and observe? i. Response: If that is what happens, we've failed. They have to have meaningful input into professional development. Question: How many people will you hire? ii. Response: That's being decided by budget committee as well. iii. Response: These will be centrally hired and deployed‐‐ won't be inequitably offered to schools with more resources. Funding will come through federal funds set aside for PD. These are untouchable during budget process. iv. Response: Right now you have instructional specialists but their support is not consistent across schools. Question: Is this professional development, or is it appraisal? Will they have same rubric that other appraiser would have? If they're looking for content, how can they grade us on the instructional practice rubric? i.
Response: Let's take a step back on where we are in this process and how we got here and what the goal is. Response: Secondary appraiser role came up through the DAC‐‐ always was an idea, because of the funding question. i.
Response: In theory, the idea was that this person conducts another observation as someone who doesn't know your content and is unfamiliar with your appraisal. ii.
Response: Would play into your instructional practice appraisal. Development role: Proposal hinges on how all appraisals can be supportive of professional development of for teachers throughout the process. i.
Response: What we're doing here is talking about how this could work based on the idea that it could be good for teachers. How could this fit into the appraisal process as part of the appraisal and development system? Questions: i. Question: Give examples of what you're talking about. What exactly other type of person would you talk about? i. Response: They could be part of a teacher career track, but this is a full time position that is not in the classroom. Must have been a teacher. ii. Question: Isn't this what an instructional specialist is? i. Response: Yes, that's where this idea came from. iii. Question: After I get compliments or after someone doesn't like what you said, what happens? i. Response: This gets back to earlier question‐ we're trying to build a very comprehensive feedback‐appraisal‐development‐self reflection cycle. Any time an appraiser is in your classroom or sits down with you, you build in a way to help that person get better. Engage in a more holistic systematic way than PDAS currently allows for. ii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
Response: The fewer times you're observed, the more high‐stakes that observation is. If I'm in your class every day, I have a better picture of how you are as a teacher. The idea of the system is that you have regular and consistent feedback so that each observation is not high‐stakes. Question: Don't we already have people who come onto campuses who do this? i. Response: Currently it's only once for most teachers. And not all teachers are observed by Instructional Specialists, but yes, it would be the same idea. Comment: This is more like formative assessments for our students, and that allows us to choose PD that will benefit us as a teacher. Comment: Most teachers, based on survey, say that PDAS doesn't effectively assess their work, and that they don't have aligned professional development opportunities. This proposal is meant to respond to these issues. Question: How will you judge the impact of this after it has been deployed? Will there be field testing before you use it full district? i. Response: No on the field testing, but we're doing focus groups in the spring, and are still in the design mode right now. The judge of anything we do going forward should be student achievement. Also surveys on whether this is an improvement on PDAS. ii. Response: One of the things that the team is thinking about now: it's not going to be perfect in year 1. As it's implemented in year 1, we need to gather feedback to make it better over time. In longer term, we want all students to achieve at high levels. In short term, if teachers are telling us that this helping them become more effective, that's a good interim indicator. iii. Response: Focus groups will allow us to get more nuanced information from teachers that we trust. Question: Where does the funding for this come from? Is this a bottomless well of money? What about federal government cuts? i. Response: It's certainly not bottomless, but it's consistently coming through. We want to make sure we get the budget piece cleared up before we share further ideas, which is why it's less developed than other parts. ii. Response: Second appraiser is just one piece of system. The whole system is about what is to make system better with the people who are already doing this work. If title dollars go away, full proposal is the same, minus second appraiser. Question: How bad do you have to be to get a second appraiser? i. Response: Right now you get a second appraisal if you want to appeal the first appraisal. This is different ‐ this is someone who would observe you, and provide an additional source of evidence to build that instructional practice rating. This isn't a second appraisal in the way you're used to thinking of it in the district. ii. Comment: Content area expert is important because a lot of elementary principals might not have pre‐K experience, and a x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
second appraiser who knows pre‐K would give more valuable feedback. Question: What happens for people who teach more than one core level? i. Response: Appraiser would have to cover a wide breadth of grade levels and subject areas. May be a group of people who are master teachers in lower elementary, or upper elementary. In secondary grades, could be more specific to subject area. Question: The thing that scares most people is the second appraiser, who will be someone from outside my campus. If it's an outsider who doesn't know the campus well, how will they be able to know if I'm doing something wrong? i. Response: Don't forget this person will be grounded in the same rubric as your primary appraiser. Rubrics would provide a definition of effective teaching in HISD. Shouldn't be marking you down for something that isn't there or that your appraiser didn't see. Comment: From campus to campus, rigor is different and a highly effective teacher is different. One principal might think that the highly effective teacher produces high test scores, others might have another definition. We want a definition of highly effective and rigor. Also, how often will someone be in my classroom? i. Response: Fundamental to this entire effective teacher work is the definition of an effective teacher. Rubric is meant to define what an effective teacher looks like in HISD. We will need to do a lot of training and norming and communicating so there's a common understanding. Rigor piece we can talk about later. Comment: A lot of people are confused about highly effective teachers. Our school's teachers think that HISD believes that highly effective teachers are the ones who get the most money on ASPIRE. Comment: APRENDA scores and Stanford are different. Why aren't we ever trying to get a test that is equivalent to Stanford? Comment: I found the IPDP to be helpful because it was self guided and was able to target ‐ with input from my appraiser ‐ what would make me a better teacher. This wasn't something that was loaded or dangerous. Back in the days when we did critical friends group, we would do observations with a particular lens, or asking for particular types of feedback. I think that there are a lot of teachers who could do that for themselves, just like the IPDP, specialists should set framing questions. If you're a resource to the teachers, they'll respond. Need to have access to those support people. i. Response: That is part of this work. IPDP isn't going anywhere‐‐ that's part of this process. There's still a joint development process. This second person could help give you feedback on other things you want to work on, and could share insights and ideas from other schools. Question: Will there be a space between first appraisal and second appraisal? i.
Response: Appraisal process is whole process‐‐ not just one observer. This person just comes once. Also, this person might be a more objective appraiser than your primary appraisal xvii. Comment: The only appraisal that is like the appraisal we're used to is the end of the year appraisal. The rest of the year is an opportunity to grow. xviii. Comment: It's got to be an appraisal process to develop the teacher and not to get the teacher. Have to get teachers to believe that they're not here to fire us. When we hear the board say that they want to get rid of ineffective teachers, what else are we going to think? Also, this doesn't allow for teaching context‐‐ students don't come with same background and abilities, and what is successful at one school might not be successful at another school. Troubles me that an appraiser comes from off campus because they don't know my context. People come from other places and look at my bulletin boards. i. Response: Current system is set up on strategies and ideas that are meant to apply across the board‐‐ trying their best to think about how it can apply across multiple contexts. Survey responses said overall that the criteria apply across multiple contexts. Primary appraiser knows your school and context. The idea is to have a consistent tool so they're not looking at your classroom walls. xix. Question: Definition of first and second appraiser? i. Response: Second appraiser is an observer that contributes one observation that would contribute to the first appraisers' appraisal. xx. Question: Have you figure out how this would work? i. Response: Appraisers would have relationships with the principals that would allow them to bring a second source of evidence. xxi. Question: Would second appraisal be part of the four observations? i. Response: No, would be in addition. xxii. Question: How will principals get the time to do this? i. Response: Principals have said they need to prioritize this work. ii. Comment: I’m worried about grieving if the process isn't right xxiii. Question: Is this all online somewhere? i. Response: Cited HISD website xxiv. Comment: Further discussion of appraisers i.
Response: Need to support teachers to get an effective teacher in every classroom in every school. Need to train principals on how to do this work, and how to balance their schedules. Ultimately, all of this well will be included in principal appraisal. xxxv.
Question: Will focus groups get paid? i. Response: Yes, extra dutypay. xxvi.
Question: Could DAC members count this as PD hours? i. Response: Unclear answers, but consensus in group was yes. 4. Next steps: Bill Horwath 1. We will table the appeals discussion for our next meeting. 2. If you don't feel you have enough information on the current draft proposal, reach out and we can walk you through the proposal and how we got here. 3. Question: When I first looked at 44 page document, it was overwhelming. Still haven't read it carefully. .
Response: Would beg you to read it carefully. As a DAC member, you need to do that. i.
Response: Critical that conversations come from basic understanding of proposal. 4. Question: What are SDMCs doing by March 4? .
Response: Feedback on proposal for cycle 4.Review draft proposal, indicate what they’d like to change. They will get materials on Monday. i.
Response: Send back recommendations by March 10th. 5. Question: Why are appraisers responding to survey? i.
Response: They'll be implementing appraisal system too and we're getting feedback from all stakeholders. 6. Comments i.
Comment: Communicate out with concise sheet to the teachers i.
Response: We have an FAQ that we've shared a) Comment: Teachers won't click a link, need to send document directly b) Comment: We need to push it out, rather than sending links send the actual FAQ ƒ Response – We will send with update on Thursday. ƒ Response – We are willing to commit TNTP staff to contact DAC members individually to go thru presentation. ii.
Comment: This is the first time that I'm aware of that teachers and the community have had input. There are a lot of people who believe that they already have their minds made up. From the first SDMC meeting, people felt like it was already decided. i.
Response: We're happy to talk through deck with you, and also to come to campuses if we can arrange that. We're eager for opportunities to talk about this. ii.
Comment: I like concept of coming to campus to discuss with teachers. Perhaps combine schools/ combine by feeder patterns. iii.
Response: We will share a message with you all with additional resources via email, and provide information to you about conducting information sessions at your school, if you would like to organize such an event. iv.
Response: There are already a lot of demands on teachers’ time‐‐ perhaps we can empower you with the answers and you can be the representatives. V. Conclusion 1. The next DAC meeting will be on March 10th from 4‐7pm. 2. Please contact the Effective Teachers Initiative Team with any questions you may have at effectiveteachers@houstonisd.org.