OTES 2.0 IS HERE. NOW WHAT?

from TRIAD - FALL 2021

LOVE MUSIC

Rachael Fleischaker

Adopting the revised Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES 2.0) framework is really happening this year. The model, piloted three years ago, was set to “roll out” in the 2019-2020 school year. However, amidst a global pandemic and statewide school closures, temporary changes were made to House Bill 197, House Bill 164, and House Bill 404 that allowed districts to suspend or postpone teacher evaluations until the 2021-2022 school year.

Now that the appointed year has begun, most music educators will find themselves navigating the OTES 2.0 framework. This article is meant to explain the required components of the framework, outline steps for collecting and analyzing high quality student data and clarifying some questions that are specific to music educators.

Changes to the OTES Framework

For many music educators, the student learning objective (SLO) process felt contrived. It was a test for the sake of testing, but the results greatly impacted the entire teacher evaluation. OTES 2.0 is an attempt to more accurately reflect what teachers do on a daily basis. School districts are not allowed to use student growth measures such as value-added data, student learning objectives (SLOs), or any other metric as a sole indicator for the effectiveness of a teacher. In other words, the 50/50 model for determining a teacher’s overall score (50% of the teacher’s evaluation being determined by the evaluator and 50% determined by how students scored on an SLO) has been replaced with a more holistic approach. The new framework still includes student data, but the data should emphasize students’ continued growth as it aligns to the daily interactions with their instructor. In other words, the assessments are just one of many pieces of evidence that learning is taking place. High quality student data (HQSD) will be designed by music educators in a way that authentically represents their instructional goals.

Also gone is the use of shared attributions. Many music teachers across the state found themselves being evaluated on reading and math scores for their building rather than the effectiveness of teaching their own content. Under the revised model, music educators will be evaluated on the merit of individual professional growth and student growth in their specialized content area.

Components of OTES 2.0

The OTES 2.0 framework is an outgrowth of the original model and therefore has many similarities. While the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has several suggested practices for teacher evaluation, the required components of the revised model include

a professional growth plan (PGP), observations and walkthroughs by a certified OTES 2.0 evaluator, and conferences with the evaluator to discuss growth on the PGP as well as a final summative rating. Student progress, as evidenced by two forms of high-quality student data (HQSD), is part of that final rating.

The overall ratings are reduced to four categories, Accomplished, Skilled, Developing, or Ineffective. The frequency of observations, walkthroughs, and conferences with the evaluator is based on the last rating received. Note that many districts in Ohio were not able to complete teacher evaluation for a year or more. For some music teachers, their current rating could be from the 2018-2019 school year (check with your evaluator or human resource director if you are not sure of your last completed OTES cycle).

The use of the less frequent versus the full evaluation cycle is determined by the local school district and based on your final summative rating. For example, some districts may adopt a policy in which teachers who are rated Accomplished would be on a less frequent evaluation cycle. In that situation, the teacher would determine their goals for their PGP, have only one formal observation, and one final conference with their evaluator to determine progress on the PGP. Check with your principal, union representative, or building administrator to understand your school district’s policy on frequency of evaluation cycles.

Professional Growth and Improvement Plans

The professional growth plan (PGP) and improvement plan are key components of the OTES 2.0 framework. Teachers who are rated Accomplished, Skilled, or Developing must create a PGP that include one or two professional goals. These goals must align with school district/building goals. Accomplished teachers determine their own goals. Skilled teachers decide jointly with an evaluator what their goals will be. Developing teachers write goals with guidance from their evaluator. Teachers who are rated Ineffective are placed on an improvement plan that is at the discretion of the evaluator. During the course of the school year, teachers are encouraged to review and reflect on their goals and to collect evidence for how they are making progress towards achieving them.

Ohio’s only

usic Store

Since 2011

Music • Rentals • Lessons • Repairs • Kindermusik • Accessories Competitive School Bids • Music Therapy • Pro Instruments

10167 Royalton Rd. North Royalton, OH 44133 (440) 237-9400 www.royaltonmusic.com

Observations and Walkthroughs

The observations and walkthroughs will be similar to the original OTES model. Evaluator’s schedule formal observations which are a minimum of thirty minutes. Full evaluation cycles include one formal observation that specifically looks for evidence of growth in focus areas that were identified in the PGP and one formal observation that gives a holistic review of classroom practices. Teachers on a less frequent evaluation cycle are only required to have one formal observation. Walkthroughs are not scheduled in advance. They are informal observations that are less than 30 minutes and should connect to the focus areas identified in the PGP. The frequency of observations and walkthroughs is determined by individual districts and evaluators.

Conference with Evaluators

The conferences embedded in OTES 2.0 are very similar to the original OTES model. They are a time to have conversations with your evaluator about the progress happening in your classroom. Preobservation conferences are not required, but a school district may implement them. Whether or not this is a requirement for you, having a pre-conference is an excellent opportunity to explain to your evaluator what your goals are and how you will measure your progress toward them throughout the school year. Ineffective, Developing, and Skilled teachers may be required to have multiple conferences throughout the year.

All teachers are required to have at least one summative conference during the evaluation progression. During the final summative conference, the evaluator gives the teacher an overall rating of effectiveness. Evidence used to produce this rating will come from the observation, the data collected from two forms of HQSD, and evidence gathered on the progress made towards the teacher’s PGP. The final conference happens toward the end of the school year. The evaluation process should be completed by May 1.

High Quality Student Data

HQSD provides evidence of student learning. These assessments include, but are not limited to, playing/singing tests, rubrics that show measured growth, online instructional assessments (such as SmartMusic or Sight-Reading Factory), paper/pencil tests measuring music theory, history, or notational

EAGLE MARCHING BAND

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., DIRECTOR | 419.289.5100 | MUSIC@ASHLAND.EDU | WWW.ASHLAND.EDU/MUSIC

knowledge. Simply put, HQSD is any metric that shows the progress made by individual students.

Music educators who felt limited in SLO assessments that tried to quantify musical knowledge, will appreciate that HQSD comes in many forms. For example, under the original OTES model, my school district asked that music teachers show student growth by percentage points gained on a paper/pencil test. The assumption was that performance could be quantified on a scale of one to one-hundred and somehow be shown or described on a written test. In the OTES 2.0 model, rubric based assessment is encouraged. Music educators can describe how the sound qualities and performance techniques of individual students are truly assessed using descriptive rubrics.

Music teachers do not have value-added data or state adopted vendor assessment to use. So, each music teacher must develop their own HQSD. Determining if a particular assessment meets all seven qualities is decided at the local level. When SLOs were used to measure student growth, each school district had to have a committee or designated person approve the SLO before it could be used for a course. A similar system must be used by each district to determine if an assessment can be used to collect HQSD. The committees are district driven so the OMEA Teacher Evaluation committee encourages music teachers to be involved whether volunteering at the district level or working with other music educators to develop HQSD.

Designing HQSD begins with articulating what a student should know and be able to do at the end of the course. These goals are derived from the Ohio Content Standards for Music Teaching which were recently revised and soon to be adopted. They can be found on the ODE webpage (2021 Music Draft Standards). Once goals are identified, music teachers must use assessments to determine whether individual students are on-track to reach the goal. The OMEA Teacher Evaluation committee highly recommends that each music educator develop a means to communicate their goals for the program with rubrics and other metrics so that evaluators can be objective in determining success.

Criteria for HQSD

The OTES 2.0 model includes very specific guidelines for determining HQSD is. Note that while many forms of assessment are encouraged throughout the course of instruction, for an assessment to be considered HQSD all seven elements of the following elements must be included. HQSD must:

1. Align to learning standards

This particular condition means that assessments should collect information about students’ ability to demonstrate their growth towards the learning standards used by the music department. Many districts use the Ohio Department of Education

Content Standards for Music (2021 Draft

Standards), but others may have an adopted curriculum that is specific to K-12 music. If you are unsure what your learning standards are, check with your principal, curriculum specialist, or other music teachers in your district.

2. Measure what is intended to be measured

The assessment must be intentional in the expected outcome. It must also be accessible to students.

For example, if a written assessment is intended to measure a student’s knowledge of notational literacy, the music teacher must be sure that the reading level is appropriate. Any student on an IEP or 504 must be granted the necessary accommodations. A written assessment intending to measure a student’s knowledge of musical content could actually be measuring their reading ability.

3. Be attributable to a specific teacher for course and grade level taught

Any assessment should be directly related to the content taught within the course. Musical growth is often a spiraling process and students must build upon skills taught in each grade level. HQSD must accurately reflect what is being taught. It must be directly linked to the current teacher and the appropriate grade level of the student.

4. Demonstrate evidence of student learning (achievement and/or growth).

The pretest/post-test scenario is perhaps the most common type of assessment which measures growth. If that model works in your teaching situation, then it can still be used. However, OTES 2.0 does not limit music educators to traditional paper/pencil tests. A rubric would be an appropriate metric to compare beginning skills with ending skills. A performance-based assessment that measures musical qualities such as rhythmic accuracy, tone quality, articulation, diction, etc. can be used to measure growth. The repertoire used would not need to be the same at the beginning and end of the course as long as the musical elements are identified and examined.

5. Follow protocols for administration & scoring

HQSD must be implemented with integrity. To that end, the district committee that oversees the process will need to know how the test will be administered (who gives the assessment and how it is given), as well as how it will be scored (how the growth is measured). For example, will one teacher give all of the assessments or will there be multiple evaluators for each assessment.

6. Provide trustworthy results

This simply means that the metric needs to yield reliable and consistent results. Factors such as allowing ample time, including enough items to accurately measure the content and skill indicated, avoiding ambiguous questions, providing clear directions, and consistently using rubrics or scoring increase trustworthiness. Once while evaluating an assessment for another teacher, I noticed that the directions were “label the following notes with letter names.” Unfortunately, the teacher had not included a clef sign in the musical example.

To me that would be an ambiguous question, but a committee member who does not have musical training may not have seen the error. Having other music teachers review your assessment would avoid those types of mistakes.

PERSONALIZING LEARNING

Real World Experience

Sing with the Toledo Opera, perform in a jazz club, attend a Toledo Symphony performance, and intern in a professional recording studio. Located in a culturally rich Toledo region, UToledo provides opportunities for music students to hone their skills.

You Are Not Just a Number

Professional training in a moderate-sized department where teachers know you by name.

Scholarships Available

Highly competitive scholarships are available for talented students. Apply for an audition online at

utoledo.edu/al/svpa/music/degrees/audition.html

7. Not offend or driven by bias

Test questions and tasks that students are asked to perform should be free from bias. An example of bias might be asking students to read questions in English if it is not their primary language.

Another example of bias would be testing students exclusively on one type or genre of music.

Remember that while music teachers use a variety of assessments throughout a school year, a minimum of two assessments must meet all seven of the above characteristics for the metric to be considered HQSD. Music teachers do not need to have HQSD for each course taught. They can focus on a particular content area, a specific strand or skill set, a particular subgroup of students, or a combination of the three.

Be Proactive

There are several ways music educators can make navigating OTES 2.0 this year a positive experience. First, remember that OTES 2.0 is a framework. Your local district will develop and implement its own policies. Ask questions and have conversations with your evaluator about expectations and protocols. Principals are tasked with evaluating teachers in all content areas. They will not be experts in all of these areas, so take the time to explain what you are doing and why that is important. Use the conferences and/or informal meetings to educate your evaluator on your goals, expectations, and plans for growth.

Second, keep informed. The Ohio Department of Education website has a vast amount of information on the revisions, updates, protocols, and definitions. Bookmark the site and visit it when you need clarification (ODE). The OMEA Teacher Evaluation Committee also offers many professional development opportunities specific to OTES 2.0. Virtual and in-person sessions are planned for this year. Watch the TRIAD and check the OMEA PDC webpage for events and times.

Finally, have conversations with other music teachers. Be reflective on your teaching and on your students’ progress. Whether you are a first year teacher or a 30+ year veteran, use the entire evaluation cycle to think about your strengths, as well as areas that you would like to improve. As educators our hope for students is constant growth and success. Expect the same from yourself.

Batelle for Kids. (2013). Assessment literacy: Identifying and developing reliable and valid assessments. Ohio Department of Education. Retrieved from https://education.ohio.gov/ getattachment/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/ How-to-Design-and-Select-Quality-Assessments/AssessmentLiteracy-Overview-Presentation.pdf.aspx Ohio Department of Education. (2020). Ohio teacher evaluation system 2.0 model. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/ getattachment/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/ Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System/OTES-2-0/Model-OTES-20-Final-03-27-20.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US Ohio Department of Education. (September 9, 2021). Teacher evaluations. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/ Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-TeacherEvaluation-System

Dr. Rachael Fleischaker (rfleisch@kent.edu) has taught elementary general music, band, and choir in Canton, Ohio for over 25 years. She earned her B.M.E. from the College of Wooster. Her M.Ed. and Ph.D. are from Kent State University. Research interests include culturally responsive music education, urban music teaching and learning, assessment and evaluation, and music teacher development and support. She has presented numerous sessions for OMEA and other professional conferences. Rachael is the chair of the OMEA Teacher Evaluation committee.

OTES 2.0 IS HERE. NOW WHAT? - Rachael Fleischaker

Next Article

LOVE MUSIC