. This video is the fifth in a series of five videos created to support the understanding of SLOs. The Teacher Expectations/Elective Rating video addresses.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Informal Reading Inventory
Advertisements

Statistics Part II Math 416. Game Plan Creating Quintile Creating Quintile Decipher Quintile Decipher Quintile Per Centile Creation Per Centile Creation.
Student Growth Objectives for Career and technical education
AYP Plan Performance Reporting Division Texas Education Agency TETN Accountability Update November 14, 2006.
Measures of Central Tendency
The SCPS Professional Growth System
A-F Report Card Update Tommi Leach and Kelly Arrington, ODCTE.
Scoring Terminology Used in Assessment in Special Education
Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System (PVAAS) High Growth, High Achieving Schools: Is It Possible? Fall, 2011 PVAAS Webinar.
Evaluation Orientation Meeting Teacher Evaluation System
Implementation of new secondary grading scales in Infinite Campus Current U-46 Scales A 89-80B 79-70C 69-60D 59-0E ‘13-’14: Scale A.
. This video is the first in a series of five videos created to support the understanding of SLOs. The Overview video will outline the following: An.
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
DPAS II Jessica Baker & Cheryl Cresci MED 7701 Dr. Joseph Massare.
Connecting Teacher Evaluation to Student Academic Progress Implementing Standard 7 0 August 2012.
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
Student Learning Objectives: Information for Teachers
Before Between After.
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.
Subtraction: Adding UP
Moving Forward!. Let’s C.H.A.T. (Children, High Expectations, Academic Achievement, Teacher Growth) Missouri School Boards’ Association Annual Conference.
Number bonds to 10,
FINAL WRAP-UP Phil 109 All about final grades. THE FINAL EXAM + the quiz : A : A 92-90: A : B : B 82-80: B : C 72-70: C-
Student Growth Measures in Teacher Evaluation Module 3: Using Data to Inform Growth Targets and Submitting Your SLO 1.
Static Equilibrium; Elasticity and Fracture
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.
Annual UMES Summer Institute “Making the Adjustment” Student Learning Objectives :
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.
Teacher Evaluation New Teacher Orientation August 15, 2013.
McRel’s Evaluation System Training Session 1 May 14, 2013 Herbert Hoover Middle School.
Teacher Practice in  In 2012, the New Jersey Legislature unanimously passed the TEACHNJ Act, which mandates implementation of a new teacher.
Student Growth Measures in Teacher Evaluation
Student Learning Objectives (SLO)
Student Learning Objectives Overview. Defining SLOS A vital component of the Teacher Keys and Leader Keys Effectiveness System is Student Growth and Academic.
Educare Colorado and Colorado Children’s Campaign First-Ever Statewide K-1 Teacher Survey on School Readiness February 20, 2002.
New York State District-wide Growth Goal Setting Process: Student Learning Objectives Webinar 2 (REVISED FEBRUARY 2012)
 1. This video is the second in a series of five videos created to support the understanding of SLOs. The Goal Statement – PA Standards - Rationale video.
. This video is the third in a series of five videos created to support the understanding of SLOs. The Identifying Performance Measures video will outline.
STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES (SLOs) 1 Orientation Module.
Student Learning Objectives (SLO) Essential Questions: 1. How does an SLO factor into teacher evaluation? 2. How will the SLO process be organized at Lower.
SLO Process A process to document a measure of educator effectiveness based on student achievement of content standards.
New York State District-wide Growth Goal Setting Process: Student Learning Objectives Webinar 2 (REVISED FEBRUARY 2012)
Annual Professional performance review (APPR overview) Wappingers CSD.
STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES (SLOs) Orientation Module © Pennsylvania Department of Education.
The Good The Bad & The Ugly Real-Life Examples of the SLO Assessment Report Form With Tips on How to Complete It August 21, 2012.
Creating a Student Learning Objective (SLO). Training Objectives Understand how Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) fit into the APPR System Understand.
Compass: Module 2 Compass Requirements: Teachers’ Overall Evaluation Rating Student Growth Student Learning Targets (SLTs) Value-added Score (VAM) where.
* Provide clarity in the purpose and function of the Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) as a part of the APPR system * Describe procedures for using.
OCM BOCES Day 7 Lead Evaluator Training 1. 2 Day Seven Agenda.
Student Learning Objectives (SLO)
Teacher Evaluation System Part II: Student Learning Data May 5, 2015.
. This video is the fourth in a series of five videos created to support the understanding of SLOs. The Developing Performance Indicators video refers.
STUDENT GROWTH MEASURES Condensed from ODE Teacher Training.
OCM BOCES SLOs Workshop. Race To The Top: Standards Data Professional Practice Culture APPR.
Student Learning Objectives SLOs April 3, NY State’s Regulations governing teacher evaluation call for a “State-determined District-wide growth.
End-of-Year Review Self Assessment Process May 2014.
March 23, NYSCSS Annual Conference Crossroads of Change: The Common Core in Social Studies.
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Carolyn C. Dumaresq, Acting Secretary of Educationwww.education.state.pa.us Measuring Educator Effectiveness Educator Effectiveness:
Creating a Student Learning Objective (SLO). Training Objectives Understand how Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) fit into the APPR System Understand.
. This video is the first in a series of five videos created to support the understanding of SLOs. The Overview video will outline the following: An.
The Evaluator's Role in the SLO Process Module Three Summative Conference Presented by the SCDE Office of Educator Effectiveness.
1 Overview of Teacher Evaluation 60% Multiple Measures of Teacher Performance At least 31 points based on “at least 2” observations At least one observation.
SLO Scoring and Updates
The Good The Bad & The Ugly Real-Life Examples of the SLO Assessment Report Form With Tips on How to Complete It August 21, 2012.
Making Sense of SLOs Overview
Teacher Evaluation “SLO 101”
Lead Evaluator for Principals Part I, Series 1
Teacher Evaluation Process
Presentation transcript:

This video is the fifth in a series of five videos created to support the understanding of SLOs. The Teacher Expectations/Elective Rating video addresses Section 5 of the SLO template and will outline the following… Establishing Levels of Projected Teacher Performance Factors to Consider/Helpful Hints Determining the Elective Rating The documents that support this video are located on the WPAIUCC SLO Moodle ( 2

3

The SLO Process allows for a great deal of flexibility and control. The four Teacher Expectation levels are established by educators prior to the evaluation period. Each performance level is populated with a percentage ranging from 0% to 100% distributed among all four levels. The principal and teacher need to have a conversation about how the ranges were established. 4

How do you define proficiency? Are you satisfied with the % of students meeting proficiency? What data and decisions did you consider in determining your levels of scores? Regardless, it is a local decision! Helpful Hints: Use historical data, if available, in determining the percentage ranges. Start with the range for the Proficient level. 5

This element is not completed until after performance data is collected, reviewed and evaluated against each indicator, and in the aggregate, against 5a criteria. The evaluator then uses the summary of the actual performance data and the percentages specified in 5a to determine the teacher’s resulting performance level. 5b Notes/Explanation Element provides an opportunity for teachers to offer information. 6

1.Teacher Expectations 5a. Level Failing 0% to 59% of students will meet the PI targets. Needs Improvement 60% to 79% of students will meet the PI targets. Proficient 80% to 89% of students will meet the PI targets. Distinguished 90% to 100% of students will meet the PI targets. IndicatorsPI #1 Jumping PI #2 Hopping PI #3 Sprinting Number of Students who Meet Expectations (i.e., meet the Performance Indicator in 3a) Total Number of Students Assessed100 Individual Performance Indicators: How well did the students do?: SLO is based on 100 students in each indicator. Indicator #1: 75 of your 100 students met the expectation Indicator #2: 80 of your 100 students met the expectation Indicator #3: 85 of your 100 students met the expectation =240 students met the expectations240 divided by 300 (total number of students) =.80 or 80% 80%PROFICIENT 7

1.Teacher Expectations 5a. Level Failing 0% to 70% of students will meet the PI targets. Needs Improvement 71% to 79% of students will meet the PI targets. Proficient 80% to 91% of students will meet the PI targets. Distinguished 92% to 100% of students will meet the PI targets. IndicatorsPI #1 : 80%/+ on “5 th Grade Common Social Studies Assessment - 3 rd Quarter” PI #2: 3/+ on “Social Studies Research Project Rubric” PI #3: 80%/+ on “Final Exam” Post-test or at least 30% growth from Pre- to Post-test Number of Students who Meet Expectations (i.e., meet the Performance Indicator in 3a) 1518 Total Number of Students Assessed20 Individual Performance Indicators: How well did the students do?: SLO is based on 20 students in each indicator. Indicator #1: 15 of your 20 students met the expectation Indicator #2: 18 of your 20 students met the expectation Indicator #3: 18 of your 20 students met the expectation = 51 students met the expectations 51 divided by 60 (total number of students) =.85 or 85% 85%PROFICIENT 8

If you need more information regarding SLOs, please contact your IU representative listed below. IU 1: JoBeth McKee IU 3: Paul Cindric IU 4: Cathleen Cubelic, Anthony Conti IU 5: Kirk Shimshock, Linda Lorei, and Jim Gallagher IU 7: Natalie Smith IU 27: Lori Ceremuga, Marsha Hughes and Cristine Wagner-Deitch IU 28: Lynne Snyder 9