Teacher Evaluation Performance Categories

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
USING THE FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE TEACHER EVALUATION Mary Weck, Ed. D Danielson Group Member.
Advertisements

Leon County Schools Performance Feedback Process August 2006 For more information
PD Plan Agenda August 26, 2008 PBTE Indicators Track
Lee County Human Resources Glenda Jones. School Speech-Language Pathologist Evaluation Process Intended Purpose of the Standards Guide professional development.
Gwinnett Teacher Effectiveness System Training
Teacher Evaluation and Rewards OECD Mexico Joint Workshop December 1-2, 2009 Susan Sclafani National Center on Education and the Economy.
1 Triangulated Standards-based Evaluation Framework Kathleen J. Skinner, Ed.D. Director, MTA Center for Education Policy & Practice Kansas Evaluation Committee.
1.  Why and How Did We Get Here? o A New Instructional Model And Evaluation System o Timelines And Milestones o Our Work (Admin and Faculty, DET, DEAC,
 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.
Applying Assessment to Learning
Group 3 Teachers: No Growth Model Classes
PRIDE Professional Rubrics Investing & Developing Educator Excellence
Virginia Teacher Performance Evaluation System
Stronge Leader Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
Performance and Development Process What to take from 2014/15 Improved understanding of the guidelines Reflective Teacher Practice Genuine and meaningful.
Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,
 Reading Public Schools Staff Presentations March 30, 2012.
Setting purposeful goals Douglas County Schools July 2011.
Geelong High School Performance Development & Review Process in 2014.
Student Growth within the Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (TPGES) Overview 1.
After lunch - Mix it up! Arrange your tables so that everyone else seated at your table represents another district. 1.
What you need to know about changes in state requirements for Teval plans.
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.
TPGES Overview Part II Jenny C. Ray PGES Consultant.
Teacher Incentive Fund U.S. Department of Education.
May Education in the Budget Evaluation; Tenure; Tenured teacher disciplinary hearings; Teacher preparation and certification; and Intervention in.
New Hanover County Schools Board of Education Presentation November 19, 2013.
Educator Effectiveness Process Introduction to the Grant and Guide to the Unit Meeting.
Teacher Evaluation Performance Categories Rose Hermodson Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education July 10,
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.
Education.state.mn.us Principal Evaluation Components in Legislation Work Plan for Meeting Rose Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education.
Educator Recruitment and Development Office of Professional Development The NC Teacher Evaluation Process 1.
APS Teacher Evaluation System Preparing for Implementation May 2012.
August 5-12, 2011 EDUCATOR EVALUATION PILOT. Overview The “Big Picture” – Where are we headed? – Where have we been? – How will we get there? Previewing.
New Teacher Induction.
What it means for New Teachers
Quality Compensation Program
Introduction to the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model for USD 259
Dissemination Training
Teacher Evaluation Performance Categories
IMPLEMENTATION - JANUARY 2013
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
Okeechobee County Instructional Evaluation
Kansas Educator Evaluation
DESE Educator Evaluation System for Superintendents
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
PDS Coalition Meeting April 22, 2016
KSDE Board Presentation Educator Evaluation Systems Update
Personal Growth and Professional Development
Understanding How Evaluations are Calculated
Teacher Effectiveness and Support for Growth
State Board of Education Progress Update
Discussion and Vote to Amend the Regulations
Administrator Evaluation Orientation
McREL TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM
Leveraging Performance Management to Support School Priorities
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
Why do we have to change? Every student is taught by an effective teacher and every school is led by an effective principal. Fair and equitable statewide.
SGM Mid-Year Conference Gina Graham
Teacher Practice Instruments
Welcoming a New Integrated Professional Learning System
McREL TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
Welcoming a New Integrated Professional Learning System
Presentation transcript:

Teacher Evaluation Performance Categories Rose Hermodson Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education May 24, 2012

Agreement on Fundamentals education.state.mn.us Agreement on Fundamentals What are the model components? How many performance categories? What does the process look like?

Agreement on Fundamentals education.state.mn.us Agreement on Fundamentals

Performance Categories education.state.mn.us How Many? What do we name them? Three? Exemplary; Proficient; Unsatisfactory Above Standards; Meets Standards; Below Standards Four? Highly Effective, Effective; Partially Effective; Ineffective Five? Distinguished; Master; Satisfactory; Developing; Unsatisfactory

Performance Categories education.state.mn.us Descriptors: How to we describe each category? Consistently exceeds standards. Exceeds standards in most areas. Meets standards in all areas. Does not meet standards.

Delaware education.state.mn.us Distinguished - 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. Proficient - Evidence of solid performance; strong knowledge, implementation, and integration of teaching standards; clear evidence of proficiency and skill in the component/criterion. Basic - Evidence of novice performance; fundamental knowledge and implementation of teaching standards. Integration Unsatisfactory - Little or no knowledge and minimal implementation of teaching standards. Does not meet minimal teaching standards and needs substantial improvement.

Indiana education.state.mn.us Highly Effective - Consistently exceeds expectations for professional practice, student achievement and professional contribution to the school or corporation. Effective - Consistently meets expectations for professional practice, student achievement and professional contribution to the school or corporation. Improvement Necessary - Room for growth in professional practice, student achievement and professional contribution to school or corporation. Ineffective - Consistently fails to meet expectations for professional practice, student achievement and contribution to school or corporation.

Massachusetts education.state.mn.us Exemplary - Performance on an Indicator or Standard that is of such a high level that it could serve as a model. Proficient - Performance is understood to be fully satisfactory. This is the rigorous expected level of performance; demanding, but attainable. Needs Improvement - Performance that is below the requirements of a Standard but is not considered to be Unsatisfactory at the time. Improvement is necessary and expected. Unsatisfactory - Performance has not significantly improved following a rating of Needs Improvement, or performance is consistently below the requirements of a standard and is considered inadequate, or both.

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.

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

What is purpose of evaluation? education.state.mn.us Summative Results: Teacher receives a rating Where is dividing line between ratings? Who decides?

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. Highly Effective  Consistently exceeds standards of performance. Effective Consistently meets standards of performance. Proficient 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 jointly developed growth plan. One-year improvement plan developed by evaluator. Improves   Does Not Improve   Discipline per Minnesota Statute 122A.40 or 122A.41 or local district option. .

What does this all mean? education.state.mn.us

Minnesota Under NCLB Waiver—Must have at least three Category 1: education.state.mn.us Under NCLB Waiver—Must have at least three Category 1: Category 2: Category 3: