EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS: 1 An Orientation for Teachers.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Training for Teachers and Specialists
Advertisements

 Teacher Evaluation and Effectiveness laws are now in place  Legislature has passed a law that student performance can now be a part of teacher evaluation.
C OLLABORATIVE A SSESSMENT S YSTEM FOR T EACHERS CAST
Update: January 24, 2012 SIS Meeting.  Effective Teacher: An effective teacher consistently uses educational practices that foster the intellectual,
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,
Student Growth Measures in Teacher Evaluation
Teacher Evaluation Update
The Assistant Principal Pool Process 2014
September 2013 The Teacher Evaluation and Professional Growth Program Module 2: Student Learning Objectives.
1 Principal Practice and School Learning Objectives July 29, 2013 Joe Schroeder, AWSA Associate Executive Director Patty Polczynski, Templeton Middle School.
EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS: 1 An Orientation for Principals and Assistant Principals.
NY Migration Planning Meeting APPR Requirements with Teachscape.
Full District Pilot EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS.
Teachscape Overview John Monahan, Instructional Supervisor
Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) Evaluation Process for Teachers.
CLASS Keys Orientation Douglas County School System August /17/20151.
Compass: Module 2 Compass Requirements: Teachers’ Overall Evaluation Rating Student Growth Student Learning Targets (SLTs) Value-added Score (VAM) where.
CESA #4 EEL Meeting Thursday, December 4, o Evaluator Step 4 Deep Dive for Evaluators Evaluator Step 4 Deep Dive for Evaluators.
TEACHER DEVELOPMENT, EVALUATION, AND PEER SUPPORT Overview Session for MPS Staff March 10, 2014.
Evaluation Team Progress Collaboration Grant 252.
EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS: 1 An Orientation for Teachers August 2015.
The Delaware Performance Appraisal System II (DPAS II) for Teachers Training Module I Introduction to DPAS II Training for Teachers.
NC Teacher Evaluation Process
2014 NOVEMBER 13 Principal Meeting #2. Welcome Today’s Agenda  Implementation check in  Mid-Interval Review  Step 4.2 Mid-Interval Module  Artifacts.
Teacher Evaluations Swartz Creek Community Schools.
Rhode Island Model Teacher Evaluation & Support System Preparing for your End-of-Year Conference.
EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS: 1 An Orientation for Teachers.
March Madness Professional Development Goals/Data Workshop.
South Dakota’s Teacher Effectiveness Model February 20, 2015 Presented by Dr. Sally Crowser and John Swanson, TIE.
In-Service September 19, 2012 Teacher Evaluation System.
EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS IN WISCONSIN: FEEDBACK FROM RURAL SCHOOLS 1.
Secaucus Reflect Live Observation Process Observer Guide.
The Professional Development Plan for License Renewal in Wisconsin Goal Writing Workshop.
Jeffrey Freund. Jeff Freund: Education and Work History Class of 2000 Class of 2004 Elementary Education Middle Level Mathematics.
Educator Effectiveness System Overview Training
STANDARD V AND WRAP-UP: NC TEACHER CANDIDATE EVALUATION TRAINING GWU TRAINING SESSION.
EVAL Introduction RIG 2 – Cohort 1 October 29, 2012 Cathey Frederick ESD 189 eVAL Specialist.
Student Learning Objectives 1 SCEE Summit Student Learning Objectives District Professional Development is the Key 2.
Documenting Completion of your PDP
Teachscape Reflect User Guide Teacher Observation and Evaluation Howard County Public School System.
Holland Central School District Opening Day September 3, 2013.
Mid-Year EE Coach Update Billie Finco ~ Kaye Henrickson ~ Sherri Torkelson.
EE Principal Update February 2015 ~Brought to you by Sherri Torkelson and Billie Finco~
May Education in the Budget Evaluation; Tenure; Tenured teacher disciplinary hearings; Teacher preparation and certification; and Intervention in.
Forum on Evaluating Educator Effectiveness: Critical Considerations for Including Students with Disabilities Lynn Holdheide Vanderbilt University, National.
Springfield Public Schools SEEDS: Collecting Evidence for Educators Winter 2013.
What Does it Mean to Observe Only Observable Elements? Defining Observation for Your District for
Implementing the Professional Growth Process Session 3 Observing Teaching and Professional Conversations American International School-Riyadh Saturday,
EISD Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System T-TESS
EVALUATIONS Evaluations are regulated and required by KDE (KAR’s and KRS’s) All Certified staff are held accountable to job specific domains and standards.
Last Updated: 5/12/2016 Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System (T-TESS) Teacher Overview.
Educator Recruitment and Development Office of Professional Development The NC Teacher Evaluation Process 1.
In-Service September 19, 2012 Teacher Evaluation System.
Differentiated Teacher Supervision and Evaluation Models
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation
Teacher Evaluation Process
Educator effectiveness:
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
What component is the greatest barrier for you as an evaluator?
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
Teacher Evaluation Process
Georgia Department of Education
Administrator Evaluation Orientation
Teacher Evaluation Process Training
McREL TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
McREL TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
Presentation transcript:

EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS: 1 An Orientation for Teachers

The purpose of the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System is to help educators grow as professionals in order to increase student learning. 2

The Educator Effectiveness System in Wisconsin DPI has established minimum expectations for educator evaluation. Districts have the authority to add to the system requirements but cannot do less (i.e. A district could require 2 SLOs each year) There are aspects of the EE System that are left to local discretion (Which educators fit the definition of teacher?) 3

Who is in Which Year of the Cycle? 4 Supporting Year 1? Supporting Year2? Summary Year? Educators not in the system?

Continuous Improvement Using Multiple Measures Practice Outcomes

TRADITIONAL EVALUATION If you are good at something, it isn’t hard You set goals to “demonstrate” your strengths and abilities Struggles or challenges demonstrate weakness WI EE The path to mastery is hard Educators set goals to focus their improvement efforts From the most novice to the most expert, everyone can improve some aspect of their practice 6 Changing Our Thinking…

THE EFFECTIVENESS CYCLE 7

First year, and every third year after

MULTIPLE MEASURES 9

Balancing Multiple Measures One Summary based on evidence of Educator Practice One Summary based on evidence of Student Outcomes

Educator Practice The Educator Practice Summary is comprised of scores for each of the components in the Danielson Framework for Teaching.

12

Teacher Observations The Announced Observation and 2 minis must occur in the Summary Year

Collecting Evidence of Practice Observations Typically Domains 2 & 3 Evidence acquired during announced and mini- observations Evaluator documents and uploads evidence of practice from the announced and unannounced observations Artifacts Typically Domains 1 & 4 Some are mandated (forms that must be completed in Teachscape such as the EEP, Self-Review, Pre and Post Observation Forms (etc.) Others can be uploaded by educator or evaluator 14

What is an Artifact? A source of evidence, especially to document effectiveness of components in Domains 1 and 4 Some artifacts will provide evidence for multiple components Evaluators will use the rubric to identify the performance level that best matches the evidence of practice within the artifact that has been uploaded 15

A Few Considerations… Is there value in aligning some of your artifacts (Unit plan and/or lesson plan that lead to the lesson you teach when you are observed) and a self-reflection of the lesson afterward). When does an artifact become evidence? If I upload a certificate from a workshop…what does it prove? Consider the value of a short reflection to give meaning to an artifact. 16

. Outcomes

Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) 1 SLO Educator self-approves and scores in all years. The SLO is part of the Educator Effectiveness Plan

Creating the SLO Score Educators self-scores his/her SLO annually using the Revised SLO Scoring Rubric. The rubric contains 2 criteria: one related to results (Did students meet the goals you set?) and one related to process (Did you engage fully in the SLO process?).

Page 64

Page 86

Using the Revised SLO Scoring Rubric, the evaluator will assign a holistic score (based on a 1-4 scale) after considering all SLOs. Score is based on the preponderance of evidence from documentation.

In the typical, 3 year Effectiveness Cycle, the educator will have three SLO processes that inform the final holistic score:

Educators in the Summary Year (our first official year of implementation) will only have one SLO process that informs the final holistic score at the end of the year:

Turn and Talk What have you heard that’s new? What questions do you still have? 25

SUMMARIZING THE EFFECTIVENESS CYCLE 26

Final Effectiveness Summary At the conclusion of the Summary Year, the evaluator determines a score for each Danielson component and also determines one holistic SLO score.

Reporting Scores The component scores (practice) and the holistic SLO score (outcome) are uploaded by Teachscape to DPI’s WISEdash secure, where only the educator and his or her administrators will be able to view the results.

Final Effectiveness Summary The scores for the components are combined to result in a final Educator Practices Summary. The holistic SLO score and the Reading/Graduation Rate score are combined to result in a final Student Outcomes Summary. These scores will be visible to the educator and his/her evaluator in WISEdash secure.

Practice Summary Teachers: Component scores averaged = Domain Summary Domain Summaries averaged = Practice Summary

Student Outcomes Summary Individual measure scores weighted proportionally Weighted scores added together Summary rounded to nearest decimal on scale of 1-4 Example: TEACHER SLO = 3.0 x.95 = 2.85 Value-Added = NA until sometime after School-wide Reading = 3.0 x.05 =.15 OUTCOME SUMMARY = = 3.0

Effectiveness Summary Graph

Summary Year Overview and Timeline 33

Turn and Talk What are the similarities and differences between the Supporting Years and the Summary Year? 34

Introducing…. Our Educator Effectiveness Coaches!! 35

Local Talking Points Has your district discussed: setting parameters for the number of artifacts an educator may upload or whether certain artifacts will be mandatory? the number of mini-observations (mandated range is 3- 5) and whether or not one or more will happen in the Supporting Years? whether teachers will be directed to write Student Learning Objectives that align to school or district goals? Whether teachers will be asked to align their artifacts (that complete lesson plans be uploaded for the lesson in the Formal Observation)? what the peer review process for those in years 1 & 2 will look like? 36

What is Next? View the first Module for Step 4 Attend additional Teachscape training opportunities Complete “Beginning of the Year” activities 37

CESA #4 Educator Effectiveness Support Billie Finco Want to get all the latest information and updates or just ask a question? Join the CESA #4 Educator Effectiveness Google+ Community: Sherri Torkelson

For more information and resources related to the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System, please visit the WIEE website at: ee.dpi.wi.gov ee.dpi.wi.gov 39