Teacher Evaluation Performance Categories Rose Hermodson Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education July 10, 2012 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PD Plan Agenda August 26, 2008 PBTE Indicators Track
Advertisements

Gwinnett Teacher Effectiveness System Training
Virginia Teacher Performance Evaluation System 0 August 2012.
Kansas Educator Evaluation Bill Bagshaw Asst. Director Kansas State Department of Education February 13, 2015.
April 6, 2011 DRAFT Educator Evaluation Project. Teacher Education and Licensure DRAFT The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be… TO IMPROVE.
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
Overview of the New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework Opening Day Presentation August 26, 2013.
 Reading School Committee January 23,
Student Growth Developing Quality Growth Goals II
Educator Evaluation System Salem Public Schools. All DESE Evaluation Information and Forms are on the SPS Webpage Forms may be downloaded Hard copies.
North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Lee County Schools New Hire Training
Virginia Teacher Performance Evaluation System
Stronge Leader Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
OverviewOverview Virginia Principal Performance Evaluation System February 2013.
Performance and Development Process What to take from 2014/15 Improved understanding of the guidelines Reflective Teacher Practice Genuine and meaningful.
Developing School-Based Systems of Support: Ohio’s Integrated Systems Model Y.S.U. March 30, 2006.
Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,
SSL/NYLA Educational Leadership Retreat New York State Teacher Evaluation …and the School Librarian John P. Brock Associate in School Library Services.
Iowa’s Teacher Quality Program. Intent of the General Assembly To create a student achievement and teacher quality program that acknowledges that outstanding.
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
 Reading Public Schools Staff Presentations March 30, 2012.
C.O.R.E Creating Opportunities that Result in Excellence.
Setting purposeful goals Douglas County Schools July 2011.
EDUCATOR EVALUATION New Regulation adopted on June 28, 2011.
NCATE Standard 3: Field Experiences & Clinical Practice Monica Y. Minor, NCATE Jeri A. Carroll, BOE Chair Professor, Wichita State University.
{ Principal Leadership Evaluation. The VAL-ED Vision… The construction of valid, reliable, unbiased, accurate, and useful reporting of results Summative.
PERSONNEL EVALUATION SYSTEMS How We Help Our Staff Become More Effective Margie Simineo – June, 2010.
Geelong High School Performance Development & Review Process in 2014.
Teacher and Principal Evaluations and Discipline Under Chapter 103.
Student Growth within the Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (TPGES) Overview 1.
Educator Evaluation Regulations, Mandatory Elements & Next Steps Prepared by the MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice January 2012.
After lunch - Mix it up! Arrange your tables so that everyone else seated at your table represents another district. 1.
Hastings Public Schools PLC Staff Development Planning & Reporting Guide.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update 11/29/12.
Making Plans for the Future April 29, 2013 Brenda M. Tanner, Ed.D.
April 29, 2011 Developing Effective Leaders: Principal Evaluation Systems CCSSO – National Summit on Educator Effectiveness.
TPEP Teacher & Principal Evaluation System Prepared from resources from WEA & AWSP & ESD 112.
Primary Purposes of the Evaluation System
 Development of a model evaluation instrument based on professional performance standards (Danielson Framework for Teaching)  Develop multiple measures.
Teacher Growth and Assessment: The SERVE Approach to Teacher Evaluation The Summative or Assessment Phase.
Educator Evaluation System: District Process and Responsibilities.
Jeffrey Freund. Jeff Freund: Education and Work History Class of 2000 Class of 2004 Elementary Education Middle Level Mathematics.
Kimberly B. Lis, M.Ed. University of St. Thomas Administrative Internship II Dr. Virginia Leiker.
Kansas Educator Evaluation Bill Bagshaw Asst. Director Kansas State Department of Education February 25, 2015.
ESEA, TAP, and Charter handouts-- 3 per page with notes and cover of one page.
A Signature Tool of The Institute for Learning
 Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence National Institute April 12 and 13, 2012.
Standard VI Teachers Contribute to the Academic Success of Students.
Lead Teach Learn PLC Fundamental II: Inclusive Practice.
Office of Service Quality
 Teachers 21 June 8,  Wiki with Resources o
New Hanover County Schools Board of Education Presentation November 19, 2013.
Student Achievement Teacher & Leader Effectiveness Overview of Stronge & MyLearningPlan/OASYS Interim Report #1 January 27,
UPDATE ON EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS IN MICHIGAN Directors and Representatives of Teacher Education Programs April 22, 2016.
Teacher Evaluation Components in Legislation Rose Hermodson Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education May 2, 2012.
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation and Observation Minnesota Teacher Evaluation Requirements Develop, improve and support qualified teachers and effective.
1 Rose Hermodson Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education December 13, 2011 Teacher Evaluation Components in Legislation.
Identifying and Using Multiple Measures Bill Bagshaw.
Indicator 5.4 Create and implement a documented continuous improvement process that describes the gathering, analysis, and use of student achievement.
Springfield Public Schools Springfield Effective Educator Development System Overview for Educators.
Education.state.mn.us Principal Evaluation Components in Legislation Work Plan for Meeting Rose Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education.
Quality Compensation Program
Teacher Evaluation Performance Categories
Teacher Evaluation Performance Categories
IMPLEMENTATION - JANUARY 2013
Kansas Educator Evaluation
DESE Educator Evaluation System for Superintendents
Teacher Effectiveness and Support for Growth
Administrator Evaluation Orientation
Linking Evaluation to Coaching and Mentoring Models
Presentation transcript:

Teacher Evaluation Performance Categories Rose Hermodson Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education July 10,

Performance Categories Four Categories  Category 1: Exemplary  Category 2:Proficient or Effective  Category 3: Developing  Category 4: Unsatisfactory/Ineffective education.state.mn.us 2

Minnesota Principal Model education.state.mn.us Distinguished: Consistently exceeds standards of performance. Accomplished: Consistently meets standards of performance. Satisfactory: Demonstrates satisfactory competence on standards of performance. Unsatisfactory: Does not meet acceptable standards of performance. Developing: The designation of “developing” may be added to one of the above ratings where a limited number of performance items are targeted and where one of the following conditions exist: Principal is a probationary principal, Principal assumed a new assignment, A significant change has occurred in district goals, curricula, leadership, or strategic vision during the year. 3

Agreement on Fundamentals education.state.mn.us 4

Application of Categories Across Model Components  Observations/Formative Assessment  Student Performance  Student Engagement & Connectedness Summative Decisions  How to apply?  Separately or in Combination?  What is detail of application? education.state.mn.us 5

Category 1: Exemplary I.Performance is at such a high level that it could serve as a model. II.Outstanding performance; exceeds standards. III.Performance represents a level that exceeds the already high standard of Proficient/Effective. IV.Describes a teacher who is a leader; consistently innovates in teaching and professional development; contributes to school, district and local communities through staff development, mentoring and classroom-based research. V.Describes a teachers is a leader; consistently innovates in teaching and professional development. Contribute to the school district and local community through staff development, mentoring and classroom based research; may be national Board certified. VI.Evidence of exceptional performance; outstanding knowledge, implementation, and integration of teaching standards along with evidence of leadership initiative and willingness to model and/or serve as a mentor for colleagues. education.state.mn.us 6

Descriptor for Exemplary Category 1: Exemplary A.Outstanding performance; exceeds standards. Evidence of leadership initiative; willingness to model and mentor for colleagues. B.Evidence of exceptional performance; outstanding knowledge, implementation, and integration of teaching standards; is a leader; consistently innovates in teaching and professional development; and classroom based research; contributes to school, district and local community. education.state.mn.us 7

Category 2: Proficient or Effective I.Performance is understood to be fully satisfactory. This is a rigorous level of performance. Demanding but attainable. II.Solid performance; Consistently meets standards. III.Performance that is understood to be fully satisfactory; a rigorous expected level of performance that is demanding, but attainable. IV.Describes a teacher who is fully skilled and able to integrate knowledge and experience, instruction, curriculum and professional development into practice. V.Describes a teacher who is fully skilled and able to integrate knowledge and experience in instruction, curriculum and professional development into practice. VI.Evidence of solid performance, strong knowledge, implementation and integration of teaching standards; clear evidence of proficiency and skill in the component/criteria. education.state.mn.us 8

Descriptor for Proficient/Effective Category 2: Proficient or Effective A.Performance is fully satisfactory at a rigorous level ; Consistently meets standards. B.Evidence of solid performance, strong knowledge, implementation and integration of teaching standards; clear evidence of proficiency and ability to integrate knowledge and experience, instruction, curriculum and professional development into practice. education.state.mn.us 9

Category 3: Developing I.Performance is below expectations but is not considered to be unsatisfactory. Improvement is necessary and expected. II.Requires a change (improvement) in performance; development needed in some standards. III.Performance is below the requirements of proficient but showing evidence of progress towards proficiency. IV.Describes a teacher who can teach independently and consistently apply what they know about teaching to daily practice as their learning continues to evolve. V.Needs to work at enhancing methods of teaching with assistance. VI.Growing in professional practice, student achievement and professional contribution to the school education.state.mn.us 10

Descriptor for Developing Category 3: Developing Performance is satisfactory but improvement is necessary and expected; development needed in some standards. Shows evidence of progress toward professional practice, student achievement and professional contributions to the school; can teach independently but needs to work at enhancing methods of teaching. education.state.mn.us 11

Category 4: Unsatisfactory/Ineffective I. Performance is consistently below standards and is considered inadequate. II.Unacceptable performance; Does not meet standards of performance. III.Performance has not significantly improved following the rating of Developing; is consistently below the requirements of a standard and is considered inadequate or both. IV.Performance has failed to meet expectations for positive student outcomes; results in unacceptable levels of growth in specific areas. V.This rating signifies unacceptable performance VI.Consistently fails to meet expectations for professional practice, student achievement and contributions to the school. education.state.mn.us 12

Descriptor for Unsatisfactory/Ineffective Category 4: Unsatisfactory/Ineffective Performance is consistently below standards and has not significantly improved despite assistance. Evidence indicates performance shows unacceptable growth and consistently fails to meet expectations for professional practice, student achievement and contributions to the school. education.state.mn.us 13

Agreement on Fundamentals Component III: Student Engagement & Connections What are options? Surveys?Other? Observations? Components of Summative Evaluation Component I: Observation/Formative Evaluation education.state.mn.us Component II: Assessment Data (35%) What are options? MCA’sEnd of course test Teacher designed NWEAOther tests 14

Summative Evaluation Performance Results Evaluation by Trained Evaluator, Peer Review or Portfolio Evidence of professional practice gained through observations and other evidences. Student Performance Measures Multiple measures of student performance using available data, including measures of student learning and growth. Student Engagement and Connection Additional evidences related to competencies like student input including surveys. Does Not Improve Improves Highly Effective Consistently exceeds standards of performance. Effective Consistently meets standards of performance. Developing Demonstrates satisfactory competence on levels of performance Unsatisfactory Does not meet acceptable standards of performance Self-directed growth plan. Eligible for additional roles; responsibilities; Mentor/Coach Self-directed growth plan. One-year improvement plan developed by evaluator. One-year jointly developed growth plan. Discipline per Minnesota Statute 122A.40 or 122A.41 or local district option.. 15