EDUCATOR EVALUATION August 25, 2014 Wilmington. OVERVIEW 5-Step Cycle.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Training for Teachers and Specialists
Advertisements

DPAS II Jessica Baker & Cheryl Cresci MED 7701 Dr. Joseph Massare.
Math Content Network Update The Power of Mistakes Student Engagement Culture of Learning Growth Mindset Congruent Tasks.
Gathering Evidence Educator Evaluation. Intended Outcomes At the end of this session, participants will be able to: Explain the three types of evidence.
Overview of the New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework Opening Day Presentation August 26, 2013.
The New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Natick Public Schools.
The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation Unpacking the Rubrics and Gathering Evidence September 2012 Melrose Public Schools 1.
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES TO EDUCATORS’ EVALUATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH Compiled by the MOU Evaluation Subcommittee September, 2011 The DESE oversees the educators’
 Reading School Committee January 23,
Connections to the TPGES Framework for Teaching Domains Student Growth Peer Observation Professional Growth Planning Reflection.
Educator Evaluation Regulations, Mandatory Elements & Implementation MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice August 2014.
Educator Evaluation System Salem Public Schools. All DESE Evaluation Information and Forms are on the SPS Webpage Forms may be downloaded Hard copies.
Collecting Artifacts: Showcasing Your Best Work!
The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation Training Module 5: Gathering Evidence August
North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Lee County Schools New Hire Training
The Massachusetts Framework for Educator Evaluation: An Orientation for Teachers and Staff October 2014 (updated) Facilitator Note: This presentation was.
Observation Process and Teacher Feedback
SMART Goals.
New Teacher Performance Evaluation Program
Collaboration and continuous learning are the focus.
SMART Goals and Educator Plan Development
Title IIA: Connecting Professional Development with Educator Evaluation June 1, 2015 Craig Waterman.
Arlington Effective Educator Development System. Philosophy Statement The new evaluation system should be centered on Educators and Evaluators learning.
The New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation System Natick Public Schools.
Educator Evaluation: The Model Process for Principal Evaluation July 26, 2012 Massachusetts Secondary School Administrators’ Association Summer Institute.
M EASURING T EACHER E FFECTIVENESS (MTE). H OW DID WE GET HERE ? Video from the Arizona School Administrators PUSD Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Committee.
NAPS Educator Evaluation Spring 2014 Update. Agenda Evaluation Cycle Review Goal Expectations and Rubric Review SUMMATIVE Evaluation Requirements FORMATIVE.
Educator Effectiveness and The Common Core State Standards October 20, 2013 Bend Oregon.
© 2013 ESD 112. All rights reserved. Putting Evidence Into Context, Trainer.
1-Hour Overview: The Massachusetts Framework for Educator Evaluation September
1 Orientation to Teacher Evaluation /15/2015.
CLASS Keys Orientation Douglas County School System August /17/20151.
DDMs for School Counselors RTTT Final Summit April 7, 2014 Craig Waterman & Kate Ducharme.
New Teacher Introduction to Evaluation 08/28/2012.
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
 Reading Public Schools Staff Presentations March 30, 2012.
Evaluation Team Progress Collaboration Grant 252.
EDUCATOR EVALUATION New Regulation adopted on June 28, 2011.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Making Evaluation Work at Your School Leadership Institute 2012.
The New Massachusetts Principal Evaluation
EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS FACILITATORS SESSION #2 JANUARY 2013 Unpacking Well-Structured Lessons.
NC Teacher Evaluation Process
Geelong High School Performance Development & Review Process in 2014.
Educator Evaluation Information Edward Everett School Laura Miceli, Principal September 24, 2014.
Educator Evaluation Regulations, Mandatory Elements & Next Steps Prepared by the MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice January 2012.
March Madness Professional Development Goals/Data Workshop.
From Mad River Schools Waiver Day Presentation May 15, 2013.
Education Unit The Practicum Experience Session Two.
The District Management Council 70 Franklin Street Boston MA, Tel: 877.DMC Springfield Public Schools Springfield Effective.
Monomoy Educator Evaluation System Training
Springfield Effective Educator Development System (SEEDS)
 Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence National Institute April 12 and 13, 2012.
 Teachers 21 June 8,  Wiki with Resources o
Goal Setting in Educator Evaluation Sept. 11 th,
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Creating & Implementing Your Plan October 2012.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Supporting Effective Teaching: An Introduction to Educator Performance Evaluation Introduction to Educator.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Supporting Effective Teaching: An Introduction to Educator Performance Evaluation.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Professional Growth Through Self-Assessment and Goal Writing September 2012.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EVALUATORS Monday, Oct 7 Leveraging Evaluation to Support School Priorities & Increase Effectiveness.
Rubrics Principal Evaluation Model Examples. Note… In the state examples given the Principal/Asst. Principal is evaluated by the “Superintendent” or “Designee”
Springfield Public Schools SEEDS: Collecting Evidence for Educators Winter 2013.
Lenoir County Public Schools New North Carolina Principal Evaluation Process 2008.
Springfield Public Schools Springfield Effective Educator Development System Overview for Educators.
Educator Supervision and Evaluation Clarke and Diamond MS September 2013.
Candidate Assessment of Performance (CAP): an Overview CAP Practicum Workshop for AIC Teacher Candidates Practicum Workshop Pt.2.
Monomoy Educator Evaluation System Training
The District Management Council 70 Franklin Street Boston, MA Tel: 877.DMC Springfield Public Schools Springfield Effective.
Educator Plans Overview
DESE Educator Evaluation System for Superintendents
Objectives for today If we have done our job today, you will:
Presentation transcript:

EDUCATOR EVALUATION August 25, 2014 Wilmington

OVERVIEW 5-Step Cycle

Continuous Learning Collaboration and Continuous Learning are the focus

STEP 1 – SELF- ASSESSMENT Analysis of Student Learning, Growth, and Achievement  Students’ strengths and areas of concerns  Using assessment data Assessment of Practice Against Performance Standards  Your strengths and areas for growth  using the standards on the performance rubric  specific standards, indicators, or elements

WHAT WILL I NEED TO DO MY SELF- ASSESSMENT? 1. Rubric *Teacher *SISP 2. Data *District-Determined Measures (DDM) *Other local data

RUBRIC: STANDARDS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE Teachers & SISPs  I. Curriculum, Planning, & Assessment  II. Teaching All Students  III. Family & Community Engagement  IV. Professional Culture

SELF-ASSESSMENT If you are a 1 st year educator, your evaluator will help you with the self-assessment and goal- setting PTS educators who just completed a 1-Year Educator Plan and Non-PTS educators complete the self-assessment and share with the evaluator by October 1, 2014 The Self-Assessment Form is located in Aspen.

Continuous Learning Collaboration and Continuous Learning are the focus

STEP 2A – GOAL-SETTING Two Types of Goals:  Professional Practice Goals  Student Learning Goals Your goals will be:  Outcome Oriented  SMART *PTS educators who just completed a 1- Year Educator Plan and Non-PTS educators complete proposed goals and share with the evaluator by October 1, 2014  The Goal-Setting Form is located in Aspen

SMART GOALS S pecific/Strategic: Targets student population M easurable: Identifies evidence/data A ction Oriented: Identifies outcomes, “who” is doing “what” R igorous, Realistic, and Results-Focused: students will increase scores by 10% T i med and Tracked: Timelines clearly defined

IS YOUR GOAL SMART? S Specific Strategic  What area of teaching?  What subject?  What indicator or element from the rubric?

IS YOUR GOAL SMART? M Measurable  What is the baseline?  What information will you use to measure progress?

IS YOUR GOAL SMART? A Attainable & Action-oriented  What will you do?

IS YOUR GOAL SMART? R Rigorous Realistic Results-oriented  What results do you expect?  How will this be measured?

IS YOUR GOAL SMART? T Timed Tracked  When will you start?  When will you end?  How will you monitor progress as you go?

STEP 2B: DEVELOP THE PLAN 4 Types of Educator Plans  Self-Directed Growth Plan  1-Year or 2-Year  Directed Growth Plan  1-Year  Improvement Plan  Less than 1 year  Developing Educator Plan  1-Year (for all Non-PST)

STEP 2B: DEVELOP THE PLAN The Educator Plan will include:  1 professional practice goal  1 student learning goal  Team goals must be considered and are recommended The plan should be drafted by the educator or in collaboration with the evaluator Evaluator meets with educator (or teams) to discuss the Educator Plan by October 16, 2014 Educator Plans must be completed by October 30, 2014

Continuous Learning Collaboration and Continuous Learning are the focus

STEP 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN Educators and their evaluator collect evidence (artifacts) and assess progress on goals Evaluators conduct announced and unannounced observations, and provide written feedback - Educators on a 1-Year plan will submit evidence on Standard 3 and 4 by January 5, It is recommended that all educators share evidence with evaluators by January 5, 2015

OBSERVATIONS Announced  Pre-conference  30 minute observation  Post-conference  Written feedback Unannounced  -At least 10 minutes  -Written feedback

ARTIFACTS What is an artifact? “Products of an educator’s work that demonstrate knowledge and skills of the educator.” Artifacts should never be documents manufactured for the evaluation.  This definition of artifact comes from state regulations, 603 CMR

IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGICALLY COLLECTING ARTIFACTS -Artifacts should be a sample that demonstrates educator performance and impact:  Evidence should be clearly tied to:  Goals  Standards/Indicators -Artifacts can provide evidence of more than one Standard or Indicator -Number of artifacts for each educator will vary **Focus your artifact gathering on Standard III and Standard IV and on indicators you identified as areas for growth in your Self-Assessment

ARTIFACT COVERSHEET Don’t forget to complete an Artifact Coversheet for each artifact.

RUNNING RECORD OF EVIDENCE FORM Using a running record helps you keep track of your evidence collection (optional)

Continuous Learning Collaboration and Continuous Learning are the focus

FORMATIVE REPORTS Every educator has a mid-cycle review 1-Year Educator Plans Formative Assessment Reports will be completed by February 3, 2015 Formative Assessment meetings (if requested) will be held by February 24, Year Educator Plans Formative Evaluation Reports and meetings (if requested) will be completed by June 1, 2015

FORMATIVE REPORTS Formative Assessment Report  Mid-cycle in a 1-Year Plan (February)  No ratings Formative Evaluation Report  Mid-cycle in a 2-Year Plan (June of Year 1)  Ratings on goals and standards

Continuous Learning Collaboration and Continuous Learning are the focus

REPORTS Summative Evaluation Report  End of cycle –both 1-Year and 2-Year Plans (April)  Ratings on goals and standards  Summative Evaluation Reports will be completed by April 29, 2015

RATINGS Every educator earns one of four ratings of performance every year Every educator earns one of three ratings of impact on student learning each year (after three years of DDM data are available)

PERFORMANCE RATINGS Performance Ratings  Exemplary  Proficient  Needs Improvement  Unsatisfactory - Performance ratings are part of the Formative Evaluation Report (end of Year 1 of a 2-Year Plan) and the Summative Evaluation Report -Given for performance in each standard and overall performance -Cannot receive an overall rating of Proficient or Exemplary if rating for Standard I or II is Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory

IMPACT RATINGS Impact Rating  High  Moderate  Low -Based on 3 years of DDM data (2 DDMs annually) -Low impact rating only influences the Educator Plan to be written