Arizona Framework for Teacher Effectiveness Governing Board Meeting May 1, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
. Information from “Countdown to Accountability” Summer Leadership Institute July 2002 Arizona School Boards Association from presentations by Chris Thomas.
Advertisements

Connecting Teacher Evaluation to Student Academic Progress Implementing Standard 7 0 August 2012.
 Teacher Evaluation and Effectiveness laws are now in place  Legislature has passed a law that student performance can now be a part of teacher evaluation.
Update on Teacher and Principal Evaluation Implementation of ARS
Annual UMES Summer Institute “Making the Adjustment” Student Learning Objectives :
PUSD Teacher Evaluation SY12/13 Governing Board Presentation May 10, 2012.
PUSD Teacher Evaluation SY 13/14 Governing Board Presentation May 9, 2013 Dr. Heather Cruz, Deputy Superintendent.
The Monitoring Process
PUSD Site Administrator Evaluation SY 13/14 Governing Board Presentation May 23, 2013 Dr. Heather Cruz, Deputy Superintendent.
Teacher & Principal Evaluation: As Easy as Doing the Hula.
Teacher Evaluation & Developing Goals Glenn Maleyko, Executive Director, Ph.D Haigh Elementary September 8, 2014.
Multiple Measures for Teacher Effectiveness
Georgia School Standards District Strategic Plan School Strategic Plan (SSP) Heavy focus on CRCT, ITBS, Perceptual Surveys Teacher Evaluation Instrument.
M I N N E S O T A 2012 School Health Profiles Report Weighted Principal Survey Results.
Statement of Intent for Growth Metrics Presented to the PARCC Governing Board June 26, 2013.
STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES PART 1: AN OVERVIEW LEADING CHANGE 2014 VIRGINIA STODOLA & SUSAN POOLE EFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND LEADERS UNIT.
Developing Effective Teacher Evaluations Christina Linder Director, Certification and Professional Standards
AZ Learns and A-F Letter Grades Arizona Department of Education Presentation to the NCAASE Committee ASU Washington Center, Washington D.C. March 7, 2012.
JUNE 26, 2012 BOARD MEETING Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)
March, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
Student Achievement Plan A Guide for Development.
NEW TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS CONNECTING TEACHER PERFORMANCE to ACADEMIC PROGRESS.
1 Connecting Principal Performance to Student Academic Progress February 2013.
Statewide Awareness Presentation Dr. Karen Butterfield, Associate Superintendent Jan Amator, Deputy Associate Superintendent Highly Effective Teachers.
Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) Evaluation Process for Teachers.
The Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Partnership Program A Quasi Experimental Design Study Abdallah Bendada, MSP Director
What is the SQRP?  The School Quality Rating Policy (SQRP) is the Board of Education’s policy for evaluating school performance.  It establishes the.
The REIL Score Ownership Observation Score – 50% Evaluations
Establishing the Student – Teacher Connection How Hard Can It Be? ADE Information Technology Division 1 Enterprise Data Architect: Dr. Alex Jones Project.
State Teacher Evaluation Model Professional PracticeStudent Growth Planning and Preparation 12.5% Instruction 12.5% Classroom Environment 12.5% Professional.
Effective Instructional Feedback Mike Miles July 2009.
Teacher Effectiveness Pilot II Presented by PDE. Project Development - Goal  To develop a teacher effectiveness model that will reform the way we evaluate.
HEE Hui For Excellence in Education June 6, 2012
NEW TEACHER PRINCIPAL EVALUATION. RACE TO THE TOP AND ESSB 5895  The principles guiding the change  Quality teaching and leading is critically important.
IES Evaluations and Data Collection Instruments Lauren Angelo National Center for Education Evaluation and Sally Atkins-Burnett Mathematica Policy Research.
1 Educator Evaluation Overview Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability.
Horizonte Instruction and Training Center Salt Lake City School District School Community Council Meeting November 14, 2012.
Standards IV and VI. Possible Artifacts:  School Improvement Plan  School Improvement Team  North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey  Student.
Educator Effectiveness Evaluation MERA Fall 2013 Conference November 25-26, 2013 Frankenmuth, Michigan.
1 West Denver Prep Performance Bonus School Year.
PUSD Evaluations for Governing Board Presentation May 14, 2015 Dr. Heather Cruz, Deputy Superintendent.
PUSD Teacher Evaluation SY 14/15 Governing Board Presentation May 13, 2014 Dr. Heather Cruz, Deputy Superintendent.
Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System. Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System (Background) Senate Bill 1: Standards for teachers, principals and professional.
Petraine Johnson, Moderator, Presenters: Millie Bentley-Memon, Fengju Zhang, Elizabeth Judd Office of English Language Acquisition Language Enhancement.
Educator Effectiveness: State Frameworks and Local Practice CCSSO Annual Conference, June 2012 Allan Odden Strategic Management of Human Capital (SMHC)
Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers Virginia Department of Education Approved April 2011.
SEPT 2014 Administrator Student Growth Goal Planning.
TEACHER EVALUATION After S.B. 290 The Hungerford Law Firm June, 2012.
Riverside County Assessment Network (RCAN) Update Chun-Wu Li, Ph.D. Assessment and Accountability Services Division of Educational Services September 18,
Educator Effectiveness Summit School District’s Recommendation for the School Year.
PARENT & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT GRACIELA AVILA DIVISION OF INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT OFFICE OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMPLIANCE.
14/15 301Plan for Governing Board December 2, 2014 Dr. Heather Cruz.
Teaching and Learning Courageous Journey Presentation by: Glenn Maleyko, Ph.D December 9, 2013.
Weighting components of teacher evaluation models Laura Goe, Ph.D. Research Scientist, ETS Principal Investigator for Research and Dissemination, The National.
New Hanover County Schools Board of Education Presentation November 19, 2013.
Kentucky’s Professional Growth and Effectiveness System.
1 Update on Teacher Effectiveness July 25, 2011 Dr. Rebecca Garland Chief Academic Officer.
Our State. Our Students. Our Success. DRAFT. Nevada Department of Education Goals Goal 1 All students are proficient in reading by the end of 3 rd grade.
Diane Mugford – Federal Accountability, ADAM Russ Keglovits – Measurement and Accountability, ADAM Renewing Nevada’s ESEA Waiver Flexibility Request.
TEACHNJ Proposed Regulations. TEACHNJ Regulations Proposal  Two Terms that are very important to know: SGO – Student Growth Objective (Created in District)
Charter School Contract Outcomes: Establishing Clear Outcomes for Your Performance Contract Shya Tran and Paula Higgins Minnesota Department of Education.
Differentiated Teacher Supervision and Evaluation Models
Overview of the Title I, Part A Program at [school name]
Value-Added Evaluation & Tenure Law
الوحدة 20 مهارات التواصل مع الآخرين
Two Accountability Systems This Year
State Board of Education Progress Update
State Teacher Evaluation Model
All first grade teachers in all schools in the state will be using the NC Formative Assessment Process next year.
School-Wide Title I Plan
Presentation transcript:

Arizona Framework for Teacher Effectiveness Governing Board Meeting May 1, 2012

Arizona Framework for Teacher and Principal Effectiveness “School districts and charter schools shall use an instrument that meets the data requirements established by the State Board of Education to annually evaluate individual teachers and principals beginning in school year 2012–2013.”

Requirements/Teacher Evaluation Domain V added to the evaluation instrument: Student Growth Group A Teachers Classroom teachers Group B Teachers Limited or no classroom-level student achievement, i.e. PE, Music, Art, etc.

Group A Teachers Utilize student achievement data Account for 33% AIMS (8%); NWEA MAP (25%) Group B Teachers Utilize aggregate school data Account for 33% AIMS (8%); NWEA MAP (25%)

LEA Flexibility/Teacher Evaluation Data Source: NWEA MAP (25%); AIMS (8%) Method: Individual Student Growth Criteria: Based on normal distribution of expected growth; 2011/12 to be used as the baseline

Principal’s Evaluation Domain I: Student Achievement Utilize School student achievement data NWEA MAP Adequately Yearly Progress AZ Labels Survey Results Account for 33% of evaluation

District Level Administrators Domain I: Student Achievement Utilize District student achievement data NWEA MAP District Adequately Yearly Progress District AZ Labels District Customer Service Survey Results Account for 33% of evaluation

Arizona Framework for Teacher Effectiveness Governing Board Meeting May 1, 2012