B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS 2013-14 Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Calculating The Overall Rating Office of Achievement and Accountability June.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Números.
Advertisements

Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)
& dding ubtracting ractions.
/4/2010 Box and Whisker Plots Objective: Learn how to read and draw box and whisker plots Starter: Order these numbers.
AYP Changes for 2007 K-20 Videoconference June 11, 2007 Presented by: JoLynn Berge OSPI Federal Policy Coordinator.
August 6, 2009 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Training for Teachers and Specialists
Add Governors Discretionary (1G) Grants Chapter 6.
CALENDAR.
Making a Line Plot Collect data and put in chronological order
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress February 2007, Updated.
0 - 0.
SEQUENCES Target: To find the next number in the sequence.
School Performance Framework Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.3.
The 5S numbers game..
Mid-Year Conversations Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation
Guide to Compass Evaluations and
Performance Appraisal Systems
The SCPS Professional Growth System
The basics for simulations
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and the Connecticut Academic Achievement Test (CAPT) Spring 2013 Presented to the Guilford Board of Education September.
Aim: How do we organize and interpret statistical data?
ASSESSMENT UPDATE Rhonda Sims, Director Division of Support and Research Office Of Assessment And Accountability
TCCI Barometer March “Establishing a reliable tool for monitoring the financial, business and social activity in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki”
Evaluation Orientation Meeting Teacher Evaluation System
B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS School Leader Effectiveness Evaluation Calculating The Overall Rating Office of Achievement and Accountability.
School Year. State of South Dakota New Accountability System.
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education Updated: July 2011.
SEED – CT’s System for Educator and Evaluation and Development April 2013 Wethersfield Public Schools CONNECTICUT ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION Overview of.
Wethersfield Teacher Evaluation and Support Plan
Evelyn CP School Foundation Stage Results (Specific Learning Goals – Reading, Writing and Number) 2013 Reading (Expected) 77% Writing (Expected) 43% Number.
Lets play bingo!!. Calculate: MEAN Calculate: MEDIAN
DPAS II Jessica Baker & Cheryl Cresci MED 7701 Dr. Joseph Massare.
SY PIMS/Educator Effectiveness/PVAAS Teacher Specific Reporting Mini PPT for LEA Admin Use Provided by: PVAAS Statewide Team.
2011 WINNISQUAM COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=1021.
Before Between After.
2011 FRANKLIN COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=332.
Foundation Stage Results CLL (6 or above) 79% 73.5%79.4%86.5% M (6 or above) 91%99%97%99% PSE (6 or above) 96%84%100%91.2%97.3% CLL.
By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following:  A new model for teacher evaluation based on current research  The correlation.
Test B, 100 Subtraction Facts
1  Janet Hensley  Pam Lange  Barb Rowenhorst Meade School District.
1 Non Deterministic Automata. 2 Alphabet = Nondeterministic Finite Accepter (NFA)
Why were PERA and SB7 passed? What will be the consequences? Dr. Richard Voltz, Associate Director Illinois Association of School Administrators.
The Design and Implementation of Educator Evaluation Systems, Variability of Systems and the Role of a Theory of Action Rhode Island Lisa Foehr Rhode Island.
Student Growth Measures in Teacher Evaluation Module 3: Using Data to Inform Growth Targets and Submitting Your SLO 1.
Teacher Evaluation & APPR THE RUBRICS! A RTTT Conversation With the BTBOCES RTTT Team and local administrators July 20, 2011.
Static Equilibrium; Elasticity and Fracture
Florida School Accountability Dr. Karen Schafer Accountability and Testing Adapted from Presentation June, 2014 by Ed Croft Bureau Chief, Accountability.
By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following:  A model for teacher evaluation based on current research  The FEAPs as a.
& dding ubtracting ractions.
December 3, Performance Appraisal for Experienced Teachers WCDSBandOECTA.
Columbus Tustin Middle School 3-Year Achievement Results Analysis September 2013.
Sub-heading ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Leader Proposed Adaptations.
Update on Teacher and Principal Evaluation Implementation of ARS
Teacher Evaluation Instructional Collaboration Day #2 January 3, 2014.
TEACHER EVALUATION What it is going to look like….
SMART GOALS APS TEACHER EVALUATION. AGENDA Purpose Balancing Realism and Rigor Progress Based Goals Three Types of Goals Avoiding Averages Goal.
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation August 20, 2014 Elizabeth M. Osga, Ph.D.
McRel’s Evaluation System Training Session 1 May 14, 2013 Herbert Hoover Middle School.
TEACHER EVALUATION UPDATE Center Grove Community School Corporation.
Teacher Evaluation System LSKD Site Administrator Training August 6, 2014.
Title One Program Evaluation Report to the CCSD Board of Education June 17, 2013 Bill Poock, Title One Coordinator Leslie Titler, Title One Teacher.
PUSD Teacher Evaluation SY 13/14 Governing Board Presentation May 9, 2013 Dr. Heather Cruz, Deputy Superintendent.
Connecting the Process to: -Current Practice -CEP -CIITS/EDS 1.
2012 Secondary Curriculum Teacher In-Service
B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Amended Grading Scale December 13,
Understanding How Evaluations are Calculated Professional Practices, Measures of Student Learning/ Outcomes- Calculating Scores & Translating SLOs/SOOs.
Okeechobee County Instructional Evaluation
Understanding How Evaluations are Calculated
Presentation transcript:

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Calculating The Overall Rating Office of Achievement and Accountability June 4,

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Teacher Evaluation Update Given the transition in state assessments, recent legislation (i.e. former Senate Bill 676) prohibits the use of state assessments for teacher and principal evaluation until City Schools will not use student growth measures in the teacher evaluation that will be used for compensation because all of the measures we planned to use include state assessment data. Teachers will experience the full evaluation (i.e. professional practice and student growth measures) through the use of a formative report for developmental purposes. 2

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation* 3 *For , the teacher annual evaluation used for compensation includes professional practice measures with all evaluation measures (professional practice & student growth) being provided for formative purposes.

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Calculating the Scoring Ranges (Cut Scores) As an example, to set the “Highly Effective” scoring range you would start with 3.5 because 3.5 rounds up to 4, which is the highest score available using the Instructional Framework rubric. Then you would multiply by 25 to put the score on a 100-point scale. Then you would multiply by.85 to assign the weight of 85% for classroom observations.  Step 1: 3.5 x 25 = 87.5  Step 2: 87.5 x.85 =

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Revised Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Model Then you would select the lowest score that would yield a “Highly Effective” rating on the Professional Expectations Measure (80 points) Multiply by.15 to assign the weight of 15% for professional expectations.  Step 4: 80 *.15 = 12 Add it to the classroom observations number to get the starting value for the “Highly Effective” range.  Step 5: = We would round down to 86 to set the starting value for “Highly Effective” 5 Professional Expectations RatingScore Range Highly Effective points Effective60 – 79 points Developing45 – 59 points IneffectiveLess than 45 points

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Score Ranges (Cut Scores) 1 The score ranges for the classroom observations are based on the following rounded values: 4.0 for “Highly Effective,” 3.0 for “Effective,” 2.0 for “Developing” and 1.0 for “Ineffective.” Final RatingOverall Score Range 1 Highly Effective86 and above Effective72 – 85 Developing Ineffective54 and below 6

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Determining the Evaluation Rating Step 1: Put all components on the same scale so you can compare apples-to-apples Step 2: Assign weights to each component Step 3: Add all components together Step 4: Determine the rating based on the composite score 7

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Start with the Raw Scores 8 Effectiveness MeasureTeacher’s Raw ScoreExplanation Classroom Observations (Instructional Framework) 3.1Average of this teacher’s formal observation ratings on a scale of Professional Expectations80This teacher’s professional expectations score is already on a 100-point scale

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Step 1: Compare Apples to Apples Evaluation Measure ScoreMultiplierScaled ScoreExplanation Classroom Observation Because of the 1-4 scale of the Instructional Framework and rubric, a multiplier of 25 is used to place the score on a 100-point scale Professional Expectations 80None80Already on 100-point Scale X 25 = 77.5

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Step 2: Assign Weights 10 Evaluation Measure Scaled Score WeightWeighted ScoreExplanation Classroom Observation %65.88Because of the 1-4 scale of the Instructional Framework and rubric, a multiplier of 25 is used to place the score on a 100- point scale Professional Expectations 8015%12Already on 100-point Scale 77.5 x.85 = , round to x.15= 12

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Step 3: Add All Components Together 11 Effectiveness MeasureWeighted Score Classroom Observation Professional Expectations 12 = Overall Weighted Score (round to 78)

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Step 4: Determine the Rating 12 Final RatingOverall Score Range Highly Effective 86 and above Effective 72 – 85 Developing Ineffective 54 and below In this example, the overall weighted score of 78 would place this teacher in the “Effective” range.

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Evaluation Outcomes 13 The new evaluation includes 4 overall performance ratings instead of 3: Composite evaluation ratings will still be used to determine achievement units. PBES Performance Ratings Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Performance Ratings Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective Performance RatingsAchievement Units Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective 12 AUs 9 AUs 3 AUs 0 AUs

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Evaluation Outcomes Cont. The composite evaluation rating, as well as the ratings on any of the measures, will be used to determine professional development opportunities for teachers to target strengths and weaknesses. Performance improvement plans can still be written based on the composite evaluation rating, any single evaluation component, or for any reason. They do not have a direct impact on compensation. 14

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS THANK YOU 15 CONTACT US: CONTACT US: