Partnerships & Outreach Field & Clinical Partnerships & Outreach Friday, October 21, 2016 2 hours? Hendrix Center? Handouts: SC Teaching Standards Rubric (also share electronic version – with Professionalism standards) ADEPT – SC Teaching Standards Rubric Alignment Old Lesson Observation form – for comparison purposes Old Professionalism indicators – for comparison purposes Materials: None Friday, October 21, 2016

Agenda Overview of SC Teaching Standards Clemson’s implementation plan Important dates to remember 2-3 minutes Brief overview of the agenda. QUESTION: Are we calling this the “SC Teaching Standards 4.0” or the “NIET rubric?” 2

South Carolina Teaching Standards What do you already know? We must use the full rubric for mid-term and final evaluations during student teaching We can use the shortened form for lesson observations Evaluators must attend training session Evaluators must be certified 3-5 minutes I’m not sure how appropriate this is but I always think it is a good idea to get a sense of what participants know prior to getting started. QUESTION: Are we calling this the “SC Teaching Standards 4.0” or the “NIET rubric?” 3

South Carolina Teaching Standards 2016-2017: State Guidelines for Implementation 2017-2018: Readiness and Training for districts 2018-2019: Implementation 5 minutes As a reminder to our faculty, during our April Department Meeting, we discussed using the new South Carolina Teaching Standards rubric during the upcoming spring. At a minimum, we will use this rubric for all student teachers during their mid-term and final evaluations. Talking Points: IHE’s create their own timeline to prepare PSTs. The Business Rules around the use of the SC Teaching Standards 4.0 rubric will be determined collaboratively with stakeholders this summer. Districts will begin receiving training from the state in September/October of 2016. All evaluators must attend the “three-day” training sessions (University Supervisors). There is a “one-day” training session for others who use the rubric. We will hold three evening sessions with student teachers this fall. Our purpose will be to familiarize them with the rubric. We will also hold training sessions with Cooperating Teachers. In 2018-2019, teachers in SC will be formally evaluated using this rubric. Our current seniors will be formally evaluated for the first time in 2018-2019; that’s why we’re starting to use this rubric in the spring, with this year’s seniors ESSA Reauthorization and Expanded ADEPT (according to SCDoE): Slow down – full implementation not until 2018-2019 Remove requirement for test-score based measures in teacher evaluation Continue to use SLO’s and local measures Engage stakeholders in feedback: focus groups, surveys 4

South Carolina Teaching Standards SC plans to remove the requirement for test-based measures in teacher evaluation Continue to use SLOs and other local measures Once every five years, GBE teachers will engage in a more comprehensive evaluation process. SLOs are now aligned to LRP (2016-2017); less duplication. 5 minutes – do we want to include this slide? These points are from my notes and are things that, I think, will be of interest to the faculty. However, these notes are not included in the “1-day training” folder and ppt that we received. As a reminder to our faculty, during our April Department Meeting, we discussed using the new South Carolina Teaching Standards rubric during the upcoming spring. At a minimum, we will use this rubric for all student teachers during their mid-term and final evaluations. Talking Points: IHE’s create their own timeline to prepare PSTs. The Business Rules around the use of the SC Teaching Standards 4.0 rubric will be determined collaboratively with stakeholders this summer. Districts will begin receiving training from the state in September/October of 2016. All evaluators must attend the “three-day” training sessions (University Supervisors). There is a “one-day” training session for others who use the rubric. We will hold three evening sessions with student teachers this fall. Our purpose will be to familiarize them with the rubric. We will also hold training sessions with Cooperating Teachers. In 2018-2019, teachers in SC will be formally evaluated using this rubric. Our current seniors will be formally evaluated for the first time in 2018-2019; that’s why we’re starting to use this rubric in the spring, with this year’s seniors ESSA Reauthorization and Expanded ADEPT (according to SCDoE): Slow down – full implementation not until 2018-2019 Remove requirement for test-score based measures in teacher evaluation Continue to use SLO’s and local measures Engage stakeholders in feedback: focus groups, surveys QUESTION: Is this where we notify US that the faculty still has not yet determined when they will use NIET rubric? We know for sure that we will use this rubric for the student teacher mid-term and final evaluations, at the very least. Another option: use this rubric for all lesson observations during student teaching. Another option: use this rubric during fall and spring observations. (I’m pretty confident that no one will vote to use this rubric this fall; it’s too soon.) 5

South Carolina Teaching Standards There is a defined a set of professional indicators, known as the Instructional Rubrics, to measure teaching skills, knowledge, and responsibilities of the teachers in a school. Instruction Exemplary (4) Proficient (3) Needs Improvement (2) Unsatisfactory (1) Standards and Objectives All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines. Expectations for each student’s performance are clear, demanding, and high. State standards are displayed, referenced throughout the lesson with explanations. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding and high. State standards are displayed and referenced in the lesson. Some learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are sometimes aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are not clearly connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear. State standards are appropriately displayed There is evidence that some of the students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Learning objectives and state content standards are not communicated. Sub-objectives are rarely aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are vague. State standards are not appropriately displayed. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective. 5 minutes Pass out copies of the rubric here. The next slides will walk participants through key parts of the rubric: Domains, Standards, Indicators, and Performance Levels. Talking Points for this slide: The state has adopted this rubric be used for teachers beginning 2018-2019. This means that this year’s seniors will be formally evaluated (during their second year of teaching) using this rubric. Whole number ratings only. This is NOT a checklist. Student may score a 3 and not “meet” every bullet in 3. More holistic – about overall performance.

Parts of the Rubric * Domains Instruction Exemplary (4) Proficient (3) Needs Improvement (2) Unsatisfactory (1) Standards and Objectives All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines. Expectations for each student’s performance are clear, demanding, and high. State standards are displayed, referenced throughout the lesson with explanations. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding and high. State standards are displayed and referenced in the lesson. Some learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are sometimes aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are not clearly connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear. State standards are appropriately displayed There is evidence that some of the students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Learning objectives and state content standards are not communicated. Sub-objectives are rarely aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are vague. State standards are not appropriately displayed. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective. 1-2 minutes

Parts of the Rubric * Domains *Indicators Instruction Exemplary (4) Proficient (3) Needs Improvements (2) Unsatisfactory (1) Standards and Objectives All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines. Expectations for each student’s performance are clear, demanding, and high. State standards are displayed, referenced throughout the lesson with explanations. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding and high. State standards are displayed and referenced in the lesson. Some learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are sometimes aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are not clearly connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear. State standards are appropriately displayed There is evidence that some of the students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Learning objectives and state content standards are not communicated. Sub-objectives are rarely aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are vague. State standards are not appropriately displayed. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective. 1-2 minutes

Parts of the Rubric Domains *Indicators *Descriptors Instruction Exemplary (4) Proficient (3) Needs Improvement (2) Unsatisfactory (1) Standards and Objectives All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines. Expectations for each student’s performance are clear, demanding, and high. State standards are displayed, referenced throughout the lesson with explanations. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding and high. State standards are displayed and referenced in the lesson. Some learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are sometimes aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are not clearly connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear. State standards are appropriately displayed There is evidence that some of the students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Learning objectives and state content standards are not communicated. Sub-objectives are rarely aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are vague. State standards are not appropriately displayed. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective. 1-2 minutes

Parts of the Rubric * Domains *Indicators *Descriptors *Performance Levels Instruction Exemplary (4) Proficient (3) Needs Improvement (2) Unsatisfactory (1) Standards and Objectives All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines. Expectations for each student’s performance are clear, demanding, and high. State standards are displayed, referenced throughout the lesson with explanations. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding and high. State standards are displayed and referenced in the lesson. Some learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are sometimes aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are not clearly connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear. State standards are appropriately displayed There is evidence that some of the students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Learning objectives and state content standards are not communicated. Sub-objectives are rarely aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are vague. State standards are not appropriately displayed. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective. 1-2 minutes

South Carolina Teaching Standards Planning Environment Instruction Managing Student Behavior Expectations Environment Respectful Culture Instructional Plans Student Work Assessment Standards & Objectives Motivating Students Presenting Instructional Content Lesson Structure & Pacing Activities & Materials Questioning Academic Feedback Grouping Students Teacher Content Knowledge Teacher Knowledge of Students Thinking Problem Solving LOOK FOR ALIGNMENT SLIDE! 2-3 minutes This slide is just an overview of the domains and the standards for each of the domains – keep this slide displayed as participants talk. We know that you will want to take this home and look over it. You will want to consider how this aligns to ADEPT. Professionalism Staff Development Instructional Supervision School Responsibilities Reflecting on Teaching

Domains: Instruction, Planning, Environment, and Professionalism Compare changes in descriptors across performance levels for each indicator. What do the descriptors look and sound like in practice? What is the essence of each domain, according to the indicators in that domain? (2 to 3 words) 15 minutes Groups should be prepared to share their “essence” for each domain – need an appropriate way to share out. In small, preferably program area groups, they should compare the entire SC Teaching Standards Rubric (all four domains, the indicators under each domain) to our old observation forms. **Need to provide “old” copy of Professionalism part of observation to compare it to SC Teaching Standards 12

ADEPT Planning Domains SC Teaching Standards Planning Instruction Environment Professionalism 5-8 minutes Pass out Crosswalk handout and allow participants time to review the document. The state has created a crosswalk document to show the connections between the new SC Teaching Standards rubric and the ADEPT domains. 13

Clemson’s Plan Event Tentative Date(s) Faculty conversations On-going University Supervisor Workshops December 5 & 6, 2016 Student Teaching Orientation January 11-13, 2017 Cooperating Teacher Workshops Scheduled with individual districts (starting in January, 2017) 3-5 minutes Talking Points: We are creating a master Field and Clinical Partner calendar that will be shared with everyone (faculty, CT, US, ST) and that will be posted on our website We are in the process of updating our lesson observation rubrics, assignments, etc. These will all be posted to our website soon. The main purpose of this slide is to reassure our supervisors that we are working on incorporating this rubric into our placements so that we can prepare our preservice teachers. Cooperating Teacher Workshops planned: Anderson One: January 9th Anderson Five: January 17th Oconee: TBD Anderson Four: TBD Pickens: TBD Greenville: doing own training – will make our training virtual and share this with all CTs December 5th will be devoted to Media X training; December 6th will be devoted to SC Teaching Standards rubric training 14

Questions? 5 minutes Time to see what additional questions folks may have. 15