The Teacher Communication Corp (TCC)

Transcription

1 The Teacher Communication Corp (TCC) What is TCC: The TCC is funded by the Gates Foundation through the Consortium of Florida Education Foundations; the work is developed in conjunction with the Florida Teacher Understanding Through Engagement (FTUTE) Project and Coordinated by Bill Hoffman and Associates with Liz Wooten Reschke serving as the Teacher Facilitator and Independent Consultant. TCC members were paid for their participation at meetings and communication efforts with teachers across the school district. Purpose: To provide selected school districts in Florida with assistance in offering an opportunity to recruit a group of interested teachers willing to serve as a conduit of communication for issues of concern, questions, or input regarding the district s Enhancing Teacher Effectiveness Initiative (ETEI) aligned with the Danielson Framework for Teaching as the model for the new evaluation system. Goals for School Year: Discuss Mission/Purpose Define Role of the TCC Member Develop Strategies for Communication Establish Adopted School Assignments Develop Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ s) Determine Meeting Dates for In-Person and Virtual Meetings Goals for School Year: Determine Sustainability Recruit New Members to Represent ALL Schools Review and Revise Communication Strategies Expand Role of TCC Members Develop Group Charter Utilize Technology for TCC User Group (First Class Conference Folder and Adobe Connect Meeting Room for Virtual Meetings Increase Visibility of TCC (Present TCC Members to School Board, Add TCC Mission, Role and Members Names on webpage) Accomplishments for School Year: Developed FAQ s to Post on Website for Teachers to Access Adopted Schools and Initiated Communication Strategies Provided Feedback to IPARC (Instructional Performance Appraisal Revision Committee) to Consider for Continuous Improvement of the System Received Training on ETEI and Technology Resources Trained in Go to Meeting Access for TCC Virtual Meetings TCC Members: Jani Antrim-LPH Patricia Carter-Curriculum Resource Mary Pinson-LPM Steve Picklesimer-SHS Sherryl Wolfe-CTE Jon Spencer-WES Cheryl Humphrey-LPM Stephanie Moreo-LPM

2 Enhancing Teacher Effectiveness Initiative (ETEI) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Provided by: Highlands County Teacher Communications Corp (TCC) The TCC is sponsored by FADSS and the Consortium of Florida Education Foundations 1. Why ETEI? (i.e. explanation of the origin, rationale behind the new evaluation system) Florida was one of several states awarded The Race to the Top (RTTT) Federal Grant. The grant stipulated specific requirements be included in each states body of work. This came to Florida school districts in the form of a Memo of Understanding (MOU) that school districts would agree to in their grant application to the Department of Education (DOE). Each district was required to complete a lengthy and detailed Scope of Work with timelines and deliverables to be submitted to DOE for review and approval. The MOU included nine projects that were applicable to Highlands County. Project eight entitled Great Teachers and Leaders contained as a prerequisite a revised performance evaluation system for teachers and principals. The evaluation systems essential parameters were compulsory for approval and eligibility for grant funds. Both systems were developed by committee which included union representation, recommended by the Superintendent for approval by the School Board, and submitted to DOE for review and approval by June 1, Value Added Model Explanation/Overview (including the caveat that the district office developed the cut scores this year, with next year the state determining) The Value Added Model (VAM) is a complex formula developed by an outsourced contracted company using RTTT funds appropriated to the DOE and used by DOE to calculate the (value) effect of a teacher s instruction upon the student s learning and achievement based on the State s standard of assessment; past achievement, actual achievement and predictors of future achievement measure the added value provided by the teacher. Individual teachers and schools are assigned VAM scores. School-based administrators are also rated (on the administrative leadership assessment system) on school-wide VAM scores. It helps to think about VAM in terms of school improvement and not just individual accountability. A rather simple analogy used by Batelle for Kids to give an illustration of how VAM works depicts two newly planted trees. The two trees were exposed to various conditions. One tree, for example, received a specific measure of sunlight, water, and fertilizer, and was able to flourish and grow. After period(s) of growth, the trees were measured and assessed. In comparison, what would you guess the resulting effect was on the two trees? What value did the factors of sun, water, and fertilizer contribute to the growth of the trees? Additional height, greener leaves, stronger trunk, more fruit, etc.? Simply put, this was helpful in understanding the purpose of VAM and the value that certain factors have on student learning. When Senate Bill 736 became law ( F.S.), the language allowed for school districts to develop their own cut scores based on three years of data for the state standard of assessment (FCAT/student achievement data) received by districts in August of The scores were required to be included in the districts performance appraisal submission to obtain approval. The Commissioner is charged with developing the cut scores for the state standard of assessment beginning with the school year.

3 3. How can the district help me through this process? The District is committed to supporting teachers and administrators as they strive to understand the Performance Appraisal System aligned with the Danielson Framework for Teaching (FfT) Model. Administrators and Peer Evaluators were trained extensively (by Cambridge Education) on the calibration of the instrument to ensure inter-rater reliability across schools and district wide with periodic follow-up training scheduled. A common language of instruction was developed and used for consistency in understanding of terms. Teachers were given the opportunity to view the Framework for Teaching videos at the district office in June and July of 2011 prior to implementation. Trained Teams were designated to school sites to work with administrators in presenting ETEI to their faculties during Pre-School week. The district purchased licenses from Educational Impact with passwords for all teachers and administrators to have access to online professional development directly linked to the FfT Domains and Components. An administrator on special assignment was hired to assist teachers and administrators in understanding the performance appraisal system ratings and acclimating to the Peer Evaluator Program. Ongoing professional development at Faculty Meetings and calendared PD days has continued as the ratings rubric necessitates clarification of terms, expectations, and evidence. While teachers have experienced some degree of angst over the new system, those who have been through the entire process have shared that they have come to appreciate it as a true growth model; they state that they have learned a lot from the formative feedback and numerous rich conversations with their administrators centered on instructional practices and collaboration on areas of development. Additional follow-up training offerings are planned for this summer for experienced teachers (TBA) and new hires will receive training at New Hire Processing, New Teacher Orientation, the first faculty meeting, and at the district office presented by the district s Danielson experts in the field. The Department of Human Resources, Recruitment, and Professional Development is available to answer questions from teachers and administrators on the ETEI performance appraisal; the Curriculum and Instruction Department is available to answer questions regarding the VAM and cut scores; the Coordinator on Special Assignment located at the district office (Dr. Bryan) is available to answer questions regarding the rating instrument/calibration and training, and the Peer Evaluator Program and process. 4. How will those teachers who do not have students who take the FCAT receive a VAM score? (specifically address teachers whose students take SAT10) Classroom Teachers of students who do not take FCAT and non-classroom teachers will have combined student achievement scores based on school-wide reading and math as well as specific learning targets (IPDP). This information is available on the district s website contained in the Instructional Performance Appraisal Guidelines (IPAG) as well as the Teacher Toolkit found on First Class (see weighting factors pie charts on page of IPAG). Elementary teachers with students who take SAT-10 (used as a standardized assessment) will be measured on growth from the pre-test to the post test. These growth measures cut scores have not been established to date, however, they are a work in progress. For additional information, call the Curriculum and Instruction Department, Director of Elementary Programs. 5. Peer evaluator vs. PSA explanation.

4 The Peer Evaluator is assigned ( school year) to teachers in their first three years of teaching experience. They have been trained extensively by Cambridge Education and were certified in the calibration process, along with school-based administrators and selected districtlevel administrators and content area specialists/resource teachers. This training was to provide consistency on the Danielson rubric, how to link to evidence, the appraisal process and to ensure inter-rater reliability with observations utilizing the rubric, reviewing evidence, and calculating ratings. The Peer Evaluator conducts pop-ins which are generally shorter ( snap shots ) classroom observation visits, are formative in nature, and include constructive and timely feedback with prescriptive professional development when appropriate. They are also responsible for the formal observation(s) with pre/post conferences and the summative evaluation(s). The PSA or Positive Support Approach is language previously in Article IX of the HCEA Contract. This language was intended to support annual contract teachers who did not meet the standards for the existing rating of meets expectations ( ). The support was offered by the administrator with the consent of the employee in an effort to give the teacher an opportunity to correct the areas that did not meet expectations. It was a four step process that began with discussion regarding the job performance areas in question and expectations for improvement. The PSA was a plan that offered support and assistance to provide annual contract teachers the opportunity to improve their performance at a successful level in order to raise their retention rates. 6. Why are decimal points allowed in the scoring system? This was a decision made by the IPARC (Instructional Performance Appraisal Revision Committee). The rating ranges for each of the four rating levels in each Domain s components would be enabled to add decimals in.25 increments in an attempt to benefit a teacher s rating if there was a question regarding which rating level more accurately defined the teacher s performance. For each Domain, the decimals could add up to positively influence the rating score for that domain and ultimately the sub-total on the computation page. This topic is currently under review by the IPARC. 7. What is the estimated amount of time a teacher would be expected to spend to prepare for a formal evaluation (i.e. observation)? This is not an easy question to answer because many times it depends upon what the individual teacher believes they need to prepare as well as the personality and work style of the teacher. The TIME INVOLVED responses are based on what teachers have reported through the Teacher Communication Corp (TCC). Understanding the ETEI Performance Appraisal System is managed in stages. When implemented initially, the recommendation was for teachers to first become familiar with the Danielson model in order to understand the rubric for each of the rating levels. Early in the year, a formative self-assessment was conducted after the initial review of the rubric for teachers to help predict which area(s) to focus on. Reviewing the rubric helped teachers know what the administrator and peer evaluator are looking for when being observed. TIME INVOLVED: ONGOING SELF-RELFECTION IS RECOMMENDED

5 The Educational Impact (EI) training videos are available to help teachers obtain a deeper level of knowledge and research base about the Danielson Framework for Teaching upon which the performance appraisal is based. This learning is ongoing and should translate into enhanced instructional practices that ultimately result in improved student achievement. TIME INVOLVED: ONGOING There are five forms used with the formal observation process. The Pre-observation Conference Form is completed by the teacher and provided to the observer prior to the Pre-observation Conference to be used for discussion with the observer. This is designed to help the teacher be prepared; it is not expected that long detailed answers be provided for every question as these questions are used to prompt the teacher to think about learning goals/objectives, assessment, instructional strategies and activities, and connecting the learning. This system is a growth model whereby teacher reflection is pivotal to the growth and learning process. TIME INVOLVED: From 30 minutes to a couple of hours (it is recommended by Danielson experts that once familiar and comfortable with the process, 1 hour or less should be sufficient) The second form, used by the observer, is the Pre-observation Conference Guide. This form uses guiding questions to help facilitate the discussion based on the teacher s responses on the Preobservation Conference Form. The observer will select appropriate bulleted questions to guide the discussion. Teachers may also review this guide to help prepare their responses. TIME INVOLVED: For observer The third form, which is the actual Formal Classroom Observation Form, contains all four domains and components to align with the performance appraisal instrument. The observer will attempt to capture and script as much as possible in the time allotted for the lesson and within the class time structure; however, components for all domains may not be observed in the lesson (example Domain 4 Professional Responsibilities). TIME INVOLVED: The length of the prepared lesson 45 minutes 1 hour (depends on school schedule) The fourth form is the Post-observation Summary Form to be completed by the observer. Discussion topics include what was observed - strengths of the lesson, areas of development (limit three), and next steps. Observers will use the scripted evidence observed based on the rubric to form the discussion. Teachers will have the opportunity to reflect, question, respond, and provide further evidence if they feel the lesson was not accurately portrayed and/or something was missed. TIME INVOLVED: For observer The fifth and final form is the Post-observation Conference Discussion Guide to be used in conjunction with the summary form by the observer in conducting the conference with the teacher regarding the formal observation. The form allows teachers to provide responses relative to what was observed and the evidence used. The conference is a collaborative effort on behalf of both the observer and teacher to discuss the lesson s success, i.e., strengths and areas of development and what to continue or what to change. Next steps are again discussed to provide the teacher with any prescriptive recommendations and/or keep up the great work! TIME INVOLVED: minutes (Peer Evaluators reported less time spent than administrators)

6 8. What is proper feedback (amount and time allotted) for teachers? There are two kinds of feedback. Formative feedback helps to shape, develop, or mold; a formative assessment (classroom walk-throughs/pop-ins) is provided for improved performance and assessment. It is characterized by an ongoing cycle of Plan-Teach-Reflect-Apply which serves to focus the teacher s growth and examine instructional practices to use for development. It is interactive and collaborative; objective in nature and responsive to the teacher s developmental needs. It is recommended that teachers focus on development of 1-3 practices only, depending upon the formative observation discussion (may be less, however, not more). Strengths are reinforced during formative feedback with specific examples of observable practices that are considered highly effective or effective. When formative feedback is given using the Administrator Classroom Walk-through Form or the Peer Evaluator Pop-In Form, it takes approximately minutes in the classroom and the observer typically leaves a copy with the teacher upon completion of the observation. The observer has ten days (five day response is strongly recommended) to provide formative feedback using the form. In addition, regular conversations and discussions should be taking place as both formative observations and feedback are conducted. These types of ongoing observations are considered snapshots of a teacher s performance. The Summative is an assessment (based on standards) of a teacher s performance and effectiveness measured through observed instructional practices and student learning. This measurement is produced by the formal observation and the summative performance appraisal. Based on RTTT and , F.S., there are now two major components of the summative performance appraisal. The instructional practices component (Four Domains assigned 50% weighting) and the student achievement component (State Standard of Assessment/FCAT, EOC s, Standardized Tests, District Approved Learning Targets or a combination assigned 50% weighting). The summative performance appraisal may take up to 45 minutes to one hour, depending upon the need for explanation prompting further discussion. While walk-through and pop-in observations are considered snapshots the final summative is considered the photo album of performance. The formal observation discussion during the Post-observation Summary Conference (lasting approximately minutes) is considered summative as it will culminate in the final summative performance appraisal. Many administrators are also using the formal observation conferences as an opportunity for formative feedback and rich conversations about educational practices as it aligns well with our purpose to use the process and experience as a growth model for teachers. 9. Is there a hard and fast rule that only 3% of teachers at a school can be rated highly effective? No, this statement (or rule ) is not stated anywhere in the DOE RTTT and/or School Board approved Instructional Performance Appraisal Guidelines; nor is it used in any of the statutory language upon which ETEI is based. A statement from Charlotte Danielson describing her rigorous Framework for Teaching model, expressed that a number of teachers may no longer find themselves rated as overall Highly Effective. We anticipate this to be the case as teachers begin to understand the new system and embrace it as a true growth model. 10. How will this affect teachers whose students are typically considered low performing?

7 The VAM model being used by the state measures student growth as it relates to the value of the teacher s instruction with student learning factoring past achievement, current achievement and predicted future achievement; it is based on a complex formula that considers several variables or conditions which are: Students with disabilities, ELL, Gifted, attendance, mobility/number of transitions, difference from modal age in grade as an indicator of retention. Therefore, the formula factors the growth that resulted within the given parameters. The same question has been asked by gifted teachers who have a concern that their students are already achieving at a high level and may not show as much growth as lower performing students. 11. How will this address students who transfer various classes or schools throughout the year? The VAM formula includes specific measures for factors and characteristics of student populations. This is one of the variables or conditions applied to the VAM formula (i.e., students with disabilities, ELL, Gifted, attendance, mobility/number of transitions, difference from modal age in grade as an indicator of retention). 12. Please clarify the expectations for the Danielson videos. The Danielson videos, accessible through Educational Impact (EI) licenses and passwords for each teacher and administrator, are available to all teachers to view at any time. They are a great resource tool for learning about the Framework for Teaching model upon which our performance appraisal system is based. School administrators are using them in a variety of ways, depending upon allotted time for professional development. Some faculties have viewed them collectively during scheduled professional development days. Some administrators and peer evaluators are using them to recommend prescriptive professional development linked to areas of development. Most schools are integrating the training into IPDP s. Due to limited resources of time and funds, a number of elementary schools in particular have required teachers to complete two of the Danielson videos during the school year. In addition, many autonomous teachers have assumed responsibility for their professional growth and learning and are willingly completing numerous modules available to them via the Danielson videos. For more information on autonomous teachers see the comments at the end of the FAQ s. 13. If a teacher does not agree with part of the evaluation or wishes to add his/her own comments about the evaluation, what is the process? Teachers have the prerogative to disagree with the summative performance appraisal rating. Asking clarifying questions of the administrator or peer evaluator prior to the final summative (during formal observation conference) would be proactive in helping to alleviate conflicting viewpoints when it is time for the summative evaluation. Initiating conversation during or immediately after the summative would help provide understanding about why a specific domain/component was rated as it was and the administrator should be able to discuss the evidence observed based on the rubric for that component rating. If after the explanation, the teacher is not satisfied with the rating, he/she may respond in writing and the response will be attached to the summative performance appraisal. The teacher s attached written response will remain attached to the performance appraisal in the confidential file for the current and preceding school year and after that in the teacher s official personnel file.

8 It is important to note that due to the number of observations and/or conversations around instructional practices and performance, the summative performance appraisal ratings should not come as a surprise. The professional judgment of the evaluator is not subject to the grievance process. 14. When do our evaluations become public record? Based on current statute, evaluations for the current year and preceding school year are not open for public record (they are housed in a separate locked confidential file cabinet for this period of time). Once this date has passed, performance appraisals are filed in the teacher s individual official personnel file. If the teacher is not exempt from the Public Records Law, his/her performance appraisal becomes public record at that point and may be viewed upon request. 15. What is the time frame that peer evaluators and administrators are supposed to give feedback after a formal evaluation? What do I do if this isn t happening in my school? The Instructional Performance Appraisal Guidelines (IPAG) timeline for observations and evaluations recommends that administrators and peer evaluators make every effort to provide feedback within five days with ten days as the maximum number of days to respond (IPAG). To be the most effective, feedback should be timely and constructive which is central to the system s purpose of growth. In addition, teachers will need time to process the feedback, plan how to apply it, and begin to implement the recommendations, when appropriate. We recognize that there are time constraints imposed on administrators as they transition to prioritizing their role as instructional leaders of learning which requires them to spend much more time in the classroom conducting observations and having conversations with teachers about their instructional practices. The primary purpose is to enhance teacher effectiveness to improve student achievement. Therefore, some flexibility in the timeline was necessary to allow for this first year implementation process which involves the combined effort of all administrators and teachers. Both administrators and teachers alike should begin to see the program timelines being met for the subsequent school year as everyone becomes more familiar and experienced with the process. Questions and concerns should be forwarded to Dr. Bryan, Coordinator on Special Assignment for Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems or Vivianne Waldron, Director of Human Resources, Recruitment, and Professional Development. 16. How much and what kind of evidence is expected or required by the teacher? Evidence collected and scripted by evaluators through the observation process is linked directly to the performance appraisal rubric(s) and is used to support ratings in each of the domain and component areas. Evidence provided by teachers as artifacts, products, documentation, etc. is used to support their instructional practices as it relates to a specific domain/component area. Teachers may provide such evidence to support reasons for differing opinions regarding assigned rating levels. In addition, administrators may request one to three vital pieces of support evidence to

9 demonstrate growth in an identified area of development or when there is a question about the rating. Teachers are not asked to provide cumbrous portfolios of evidence to help administrators make decisions about their performance; that is the evaluator s job throughout the observation and evaluation process. 17. How will use of SAT-10 affect the student achievement part of the performance appraisal? SAT-10 is a standardized assessment that was purchased by the district with RTTT funds to meet the requirements of the RTTT language and statutory requirements for the student achievement component for grades K-3 (no FCAT scores for these grades). The assessment was given after school began and administered again prior to the end of the school year to determine growth. Upon receipt of scores from the second assessment, the Department of Curriculum and Instruction will work with the IPARC on the growth measure and how it will be applied to SAT-10 with regard to the student achievement component of the performance appraisal. Once cut scores are developed, they will be applied in much the same way as the state standard of assessment (FCAT) with regard to the individual teacher s ratings on the performance appraisal. For additional questions regarding the use of SAT-10 to determine student growth, contact Joyce McClelland, Director of Elementary Programs. 18. How does one qualify to be a peer evaluator? What kind of training do they receive? Initially, the district s first proposal was to hire full-time Peer Evaluators out of the classroom and/or non-classroom positions to serve three year terms (replicating the Hillsborough model). When this was the tentative proposed plan, the Peer Evaluator job description was developed and approved by the Board. The district s second proposal for Peer Evaluators to stay in their current assigned positions and serve additional hours during the day was the plan approved by the Board. Peer Evaluators were then recommended and selected using the original Board approved Peer Evaluator job description. They included all Content Area Specialists, LCRT s, District-level Resource Teachers, and other recommended school-based resource teachers as well as a district-based coordinator and one retired educator. The Peer Evaluators received extensive and intensive training provided by Cambridge Education in the calibration of the performance appraisal instrument and inter-rater reliability; all passed the calibration certification requirements. In addition, Peer Evaluators received training (along with administrators) by the Danielson Group on the ETEI Performance Appraisal System based on the Danielson Framework for Teaching Model. Use of the observation and evaluation instruments, collecting evidence based on the ratings rubric, scripting, and inter-rater reliability was the focus of numerous hours of training. Follow-ups and reviews are ongoing. 19. Do evaluators (peer and administrators) receive bias training? The training they received from the Danielson Group and Cambridge Education focused on the use of the ratings rubric supported by the evidence observed. Numerous days of training were scheduled with Cambridge trainers to work in teams observing teachers practices and debriefing on the evidence captured that was directly linked to the performance appraisal ratings rubric for each Domain and component area. When a detailed structured rubric is used as a valid measure of teaching performance and effectiveness, there is little, if any, room for bias. Cambridge Education provided very rigorous, high standards for the inter-rater reliability training component to help ensure that evaluator bias would not be an ongoing issue of concern. Is

10 this system perfect? No and no evaluation system can be perfect. The goal is always to make every effort to implement with fidelity which focuses on consistency in practices between raters and between schools. However, it must ultimately become the responsibility of every observer and evaluator to conduct him/herself as a trained professional and align their observations with the rubric and the evidence captured not personal opinions. Cambridge will continue to provide follow-up on issues such as observation accuracy, evidence and inter-rater reliability/rater-bias and reverse rater-bias. 20. What is the process when a teacher receives overall Ineffective ratings and will it lead to termination? Pursuant to , F.S., the district school superintendent will notify the DOE of any instructional personnel or school administrators who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory (Ineffective for our purposes) evaluations. Pursuant to , F.S. states that (in reference to PSC Contracts) the district school superintendent will notify the employee of performance deficiencies required by or if the employee receives two consecutive annual performance evaluation ratings of unsatisfactory, two annual performance evaluations ratings of unsatisfactory within a three year period, or three consecutive annual performance evaluation ratings of needs improvement or a combination of needs improvement and unsatisfactory ratings, the Superintendent may recommend dismissal. Prior to the final recommendation of dismissal by the superintendent, a Performance Appraisal Review (PAR) Panel will be established to assess all the documents and evidence that resulted in the unsatisfactory ratings. Refer to the IPAG document on the Teacher Toolkit and/or the district s website (page 35) for details of the PAR Panel. The Panel will make a recommendation to the Superintendent to uphold the recommendation for dismissal or disagree with the recommendation based on review of the evidence. Consensus resolution may include the option of an extended timeline for specific improvement in the area(s) in question and/or the assignment of a Peer Evaluator. 21. How does VAM tie into the School Grade and AYP? The School Grade is computed by the FLDOE Office of Accountability and uses a separate and different calculation formula that does not tie into the school-wide VAM score. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a school measure developed by the U.S. Department of Education that was initiated within the No Child Left Behind legislation; it is also a separate and different calculation. The school-wide VAM calculation is a measure based on the same formula used for individual teachers and students taking FCAT. 22. How are IPDP professional development requirements expected to be used during school and district calendared PD days? District PD days are scheduled by various departments, primarily, Curriculum and Instruction, ESE, Student Services, and Human Resources/Professional Development. These days are used to train teachers in subject content (common core), prescribed State DOE or U.S. DOE training (ESOL, Reading, CAR-PD, Gifted, etc.), instruction specific to new legislation or initiatives (Performance Appraisal) to name a few. Schools are responsible for scheduling PD on early release days for targeted PD that is relevant to the school curricula and/or to support state and/or district initiatives.

11 Opportunities for PD specifically identified on a teacher s IPDP (prescriptive to student achievement and instructional practices goals) should be provided at the school-level whenever possible, especially if the instruction involves the entire faculty or a majority of the faculty. The challenge continues to be time for both administrators and teachers. There are best practices being utilized that include Professional Learning Communities (PLC s), Action Research, and Book Studies. These allow teachers to learn together by distributing materials and/or chunking information of assigned texts through smaller groups or partners that bring what they ve learned back to the whole group i.e., teachers teaching teachers. Individual learning is also available through various avenues and resources provided by the district. Educational Impact is one such online resource that is directly linked to the Performance Appraisal Domains and Components. Many others offer a variety of online learning experiences that may align specifically with IPDP PD requirements, i.e., the Harry Wong online Classroom Management course. 23. What is an Autonomous Teacher? Autonomous Teachers..... Assume responsibility for themselves and also see themselves as part of the whole Are aware of and monitor their own behavior and thinking Are self-directed Take responsibility for student learning and how their actions contribute to it Have empathy for multiple perspectives Seek more than one way to approach a challenging situation and remain flexible Are able to set their own goals and find a way to achieve those goals Have a continuing desire for growth and improvement Are not dependent upon approval from others Seek honest feedback and ways to improve their practices Seek to contribute to the common good New Teacher Center 2011