Accountability Assessment Parents & Community Preparing College, Career, & Culturally Ready Graduates Standards Support 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
USING THE FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE TEACHER EVALUATION Mary Weck, Ed. D Danielson Group Member.
Advertisements

Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Pilot September 1, 2011 – September 30, 2012 NJ State Board of Education, July 13, 2011.
Overview of the Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System KY Council of Administrators of Special Education Summer Conference July 9th, 2013.
Teacher Evaluation System LSKD Site Administrator Training August 6, 2014.
STRATEGIC PLAN Community Unit School District 300 7/29/
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
Continuum of Teacher Development and Shared Accountability Leading to Increased Student Performance Teaching Quality Policy Center Education Commission.
April 6, 2011 DRAFT Educator Evaluation Project. Teacher Education and Licensure DRAFT The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be… TO IMPROVE.
A Systemic Approach February, Two important changes in the Perkins Act of 2006 A requirement for the establishment of Programs of Study A new approach.
Getting Organized for the Transition to the Common Core What You Need to Know.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER RENEWAL Overview of Proposed Renewal March 6, 2015 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES TO EDUCATORS’ EVALUATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH Compiled by the MOU Evaluation Subcommittee September, 2011 The DESE oversees the educators’
Alaska Educator Evaluation Overview Yukon Koyukuk School District.
 Reading School Committee January 23,
August 2014 The Oregon Matrix Model was submitted to USED on May 1, 2014 and is pending approval* as of 8/8/14 *Please note content may change Oregon’s.
Shelda Hale, Title III, ELL and Immigrant Education Kentucky Department of Education.
Minnesota Manual of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Training Guide
Title I Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation
ESEA FLEXIBILITY RENEWAL PROCESS: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS January29, 2015.
Minnesota Manual of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Training Guide
Differentiated Supervision
M EASURING T EACHER E FFECTIVENESS (MTE). H OW DID WE GET HERE ? Video from the Arizona School Administrators PUSD Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Committee.
American Diploma Project Network A coalition of states committed to aligning high school standards, assessments, graduation requirements and accountability.
Teacher Certification Next Steps……. How certification works within your current practice Student Growth Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning.
Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,
Student Learning Objectives 1 Implementing High Quality Student Learning Objectives: The Promise and the Challenge Maryland Association of Secondary School.
Today’s website:
Student Learning Objectives 1 Phase 3 Regional Training April 2013.
Accountability Assessment Parents & Community Preparing College, Career, & Culturally Ready Graduates Standards Support 1 for Districts & Schools for Educators.
Interim Joint Committee on Education June 11, 2012.
Learner-Ready Teachers  More specifically, learner-ready teachers have deep knowledge of their content and how to teach it;  they understand the differing.
Iowa’s Teacher Quality Program. Intent of the General Assembly To create a student achievement and teacher quality program that acknowledges that outstanding.
1 Orientation to Teacher Evaluation /15/2015.
PRESENTED BY THERESA RICHARDS OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AUGUST 2012 Overview of the Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
THE DANIELSON FRAMEWORK. LEARNING TARGET I will be be able to identify to others the value of the classroom teacher, the Domains of the Danielson framework.
Oregon’s New Diploma Requirements: Oregon’s New Diploma Requirements: What You’ll Need to Know 2008 Superintendent’s Summer Institute August 4-6, 2008.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents Annual Conference Patty.
Council for Exceptional Children/Division of Early Childhood Conference October 2010 Kim Carlson, Asst. Director/619 Coordinator Ohio Department of Education.
The Delaware Performance Appraisal System II (DPAS II) for Teachers Training Module I Introduction to DPAS II Training for Teachers.
PERSONNEL EVALUATION SYSTEMS How We Help Our Staff Become More Effective Margie Simineo – June, 2010.
The Delaware Performance Appraisal System II for Teachers Training Module 2 The Delaware Framework Review and Components 1-5 Training for Teachers.
The Danielson Framework Emmanuel Andre Owings Mills High School Fall 2013.
Using Teacher Evaluation as a Tool for Professional Growth and School Improvement Redmond School District
Educator Growth & Evaluation Marshall Public Schools.
Recommendations College Success Task Force. Ensure that by 2011 all districts have PreK-12 curricula and graduation requirements aligned to the Common.
PUSD Teacher Evaluation SY 14/15 Governing Board Presentation May 13, 2014 Dr. Heather Cruz, Deputy Superintendent.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Introduction to Teacher Evaluation in Washington 1 June 2015.
Illinois Community College BoardIllinois State Board of Education Programs of Study Self-Assessment: Starting the Journey on the Right Foot February 4,
 Development of a model evaluation instrument based on professional performance standards (Danielson Framework for Teaching)  Develop multiple measures.
Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers Virginia Department of Education Approved April 2011.
New Work January 28, 2015 Yukon Koyukuk School District.
Assessing Teacher Effectiveness Charlotte Danielson
ANNOOR ISLAMIC SCHOOL AdvancEd Survey PURPOSE AND DIRECTION.
Educator Evaluation and Support System Basics. Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems Alignment of State and Federal.
Educator Effectiveness Summit School District’s Recommendation for the School Year.
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education September 2010.
North Carolina Educator Evaluation System Jessica Garner
Teacher Evaluation University of New England - EDU 704 Dr. William Doughty Submitted By: Teri Gaston.
DANIELSON MODEL SAI 2016 Mentor Meeting. Danielson Model  Framework with rubrics  Define specific types of behaviors expected to be observed  A common.
UPDATE ON EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS IN MICHIGAN Directors and Representatives of Teacher Education Programs April 22, 2016.
Education 2018: Excellence for Every Student Presented to the Board of Education August 27,
1 Update on Teacher Effectiveness July 25, 2011 Dr. Rebecca Garland Chief Academic Officer.
Diane Mugford – Federal Accountability, ADAM Russ Keglovits – Measurement and Accountability, ADAM Renewing Nevada’s ESEA Waiver Flexibility Request.
KEEN Conference February 18, 2016 Bill Bagshaw, Assistant Director Teacher Licensure and Accreditation.
DECEMBER 7, 2015 Educator Effectiveness: Charter School Webinar.
Phyllis Lynch, PhD Director, Instruction, Assessment and Curriculum
Changes to the Educator Evaluation System
House Bill 22 Overview ESC PEIMS Coordinator Summer Training | August 1, 2017 Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting.
Introduction to Core Professionalism
Presentation transcript:

Accountability Assessment Parents & Community Preparing College, Career, & Culturally Ready Graduates Standards Support 1

Accountability 2 for Districts & Schools for Educators

Educator Accountability  Background  Purpose  System Requirements  District Reporting  System Revision  Educator Evaluation Toolkit 3

Background  Previous Evaluation Regulations, 1975  Evaluation Statutes, 1996  Significant changes to educator evaluations  Student learning data provides essential information  SFSF Assurances/ESEA Flexibility Waiver 4

 Help the educator grow professionally  Improve the effectiveness of instruction  Relate to the future employment of the educator 5 Purpose

System Requirements Information, Evaluation, & Actions 6

Educator Evaluation Requirements *Two to four valid, reliable measures of student growth including statewide assessments  Observations (district may select a nationally recognized framework approved by the department)  Information from parents, students, etc.  Other information (as determined by the district) Information Sources Evaluation Components Results & Actions Professional Learning Focus for district & teacher. ________ Annual Evaluation Alternative for the following school year (as determined by the district) District Support OR Plan of Professional Growth (optional) Plan of Improvement Proficient or higher on 7 standards and basic or higher on 1 standard. __________ Exceeds the districts performance standards (as determined by the district) Basic on 2 or more standards Unsatisfacto ry on 1 or more standard Student Learning Standard Professional Practice Family & Community Learning Environment Assessment Content Knowledge & Instruction Understanding Student Needs Differentiation Cultural Standards Performance Rating on each of the eight ( 8) standards.  Unsatisfactory  Basic  Proficient  Exemplary 7

Information Sources Districts: may select a nationally recognized observational framework approved by the department or continue to use the observation tools they have previously adopted. must have a procedure and a form to collect information concerning an educator’s performance from students, parents, and other stakeholders. may use other information like surveys, self-assessments, portfolios, etc. to gather information concerning an educator’s performance. Qualitative  Observations (district may select a nationally recognized framework approved by the department)  Information from parents, students, etc.  Other information (as determined by the district) 8

Information Sources Two to four valid, reliable measures of student growth including statewide assessments Districts must: Select appropriate measures of student growth with the input of the educators being evaluated. Establish standards and performance levels for student learning data. Develop procedures based on objective & measurable criteria to ensure that data used accurately reflects student growth based on the educator performance. Use statewide assessment data for teachers who provide instruction in the content areas assessed. Quantitative 9

Aligning Information Sources to Evaluation Components Information Sources Educator Evaluation Components Two to four valid, reliable measures of student growth including statewide assessments  Observations (district may select a nationally recognized framework approved by the department)  Information from parents, students, etc.  Other information (as determined by the district) Student Learning Standard Professional Practice Family & Community Learning Environment Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Understanding Student Needs Differentiation Cultural Standards Performance Rating on each of the eight (8) standards.  Unsatisfactory  Basic  Proficient  Exemplary 10

Levels of Performance Standards Performance Levels EPBU Understanding Student Needs Differentiation Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice Student Learning Performance Rating on each of the 8 standards.  Unsatisfactory (U)  Basic (B)  Proficient (P)  Exemplary (E) 11

Training & Inter-rater Reliability A district’s evaluation training must include training that provides for an assurance of inter ‐ rater reliability. 12

Linking Levels of Performance to Results & Actions Professional Learning Focus for district & teacher. _______________ Annual Evaluation Alternative for the following school year (as determined by the district) District Support OR Plan of Professional Growth (optional) Plan of Improvement Proficient or higher on 7 standards and basic or higher on 1 standard. ______________ Exceeds the districts performance standards (as determined by the district) Basic on 2 or more standards Unsatisfactory on 1 or more standard Standards Performance Levels EPBU Understanding Student Needs Differentiation Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice Student Learning 13

Plan of Improvement If, at the conclusion of a plan of improvement, the educator’s performance does not meet district standards the educator may be non- retained. Standards Performance Levels EPBU Understanding Student Needs Differentiation Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice Student Learning Results & Actions 14

District Support or A Plan of Professional Growth (optional) If, at the conclusion of a plan of professional growth, the educator’s performance is not proficient or exemplary, the district may place the educator on a plan of improvement. Standards Performance Levels EPBU Understanding Student Needs Differentiation Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice Student Learning Results & Actions 15

Results & Actions 16 Standards Performance Levels EPBU Understanding Student Needs Differentiation Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice Student Learning Professional Learning Focus for teachers & district

Evaluation Components Return to your partner. Discuss which of the following components will be the most challenging for your district to incorporate into your educator evaluation system: Cultural Standards Student Learning Data & Standard Four Performance Ratings Inter-rater reliability 17

District Reporting Calculating Educators’ Overall Ratings 18

Results vs. Reporting Evaluation Results District Reporting  Leads to professional learning, district support, and/or plan of improvement  Confidential— between administrator(s) and the individual being evaluated  Educator evaluations provide the information the district will use to calculate the overall rating  Number and percentage of educators at each overall ratings will be reported to the department by each school district beginning in July 2016  Information will only be made available to the public at levels that maintain individual confidentiality 19

Overall Rating & Student Learning Data  A district will evaluate whether an educator’s overall performance is exemplary, proficient, basic, or unsatisfactory.  A district shall include student learning data in teacher and administrator’s overall rating according to the following schedule: SY 2015 ‐ 16 & SY 2016 ‐ 17, at least 20% SY 2017 ‐ 18 at least 35% SY 2018 ‐ 19 and after, at least 50%  A district may not give an educator an overall performance rating of proficient or higher if the educator has been evaluated to be performing at a level of basic or lower on one or more of the content standards or other criteria for which evaluation is required. 20

Overall Rating District Reporting School Year & School Year Student Learning Standards Alaska Teacher Standards Student Learning Standard 20% Student Learning Standard  Exemplary  Proficient  Basic  Unsatisfactory Content Standard 80% Alaska Teacher Standards Student Learning Standards Exemplary Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Proficient or higher on all standards Basic or Unsatisfa ctory on any one standard Professional Practice Learning Environment Assessment Family & Community Understanding Student Needs Content Knowledge & Instruction Differentiation Cultural Standards Rating on each of the 7 Content Standards.  Exemplary  Proficient  Basic  Unsatisfactory 21

Results vs. Reporting Find your partner. Partner #1: How do evaluation results differ from the district reporting requirements? Partner #2: How are they similar? 22

System Revision Stakeholders & Next Steps 23

Stakeholders  District School Board  Administrators  Teachers  Special Service Providers  Students  Parents  Community members 24

Next Steps  Build awareness around new requirements with all stakeholders  Compare existing system to new requirements  Identify gaps  Identify decision points  Develop a transition plan 25

Alaska Educator Evaluation Toolkit 26

Exit Ticket Please answer the following questions on the half sheets of paper provided: What are the three most important things you learned about the new educator evaluation regulations today? What are the two most pressing questions you still have about the new evaluation requirements? (Provide your address if you would like a direct response.) 27

Contact Information Sondra Meredith Teacher Education & Certification Administrator (907)