NAPS Educator Evaluation Spring 2014 Update. Agenda Evaluation Cycle Review Goal Expectations and Rubric Review SUMMATIVE Evaluation Requirements FORMATIVE.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The SCPS Professional Growth System
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.
Gwinnett Teacher Effectiveness System Training
California Standards for the Teaching Profession
Gathering Evidence Educator Evaluation. Intended Outcomes At the end of this session, participants will be able to: Explain the three types of evidence.
The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation Implementation Guide for Teacher Evaluation
APS Teacher Evaluation Module 9 Part B: Summative Ratings.
Overview of the New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework Opening Day Presentation August 26, 2013.
The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation Unpacking the Rubrics and Gathering Evidence September 2012 Melrose Public Schools 1.
Educator Evaluation Workshop: Gathering Evidence, Conducting Observations & Providing Feedback MSSAA Summer Institute July 26, 2012 Massachusetts Department.
 Reading School Committee January 23,
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.
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.
The Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems April Regionals Multiple Measures: Gathering Evidence 1.
EDUCATOR EVALUATION August 25, 2014 Wilmington. OVERVIEW 5-Step Cycle.
The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation Training Module 5: Gathering Evidence August
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
Virginia Teacher Performance Evaluation System
What should be the basis of
performance INDICATORs performance APPRAISAL RUBRIC
Differentiated Supervision
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.
Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,
Interim Evaluation Documents evidence of meeting standards
1-Hour Overview: The Massachusetts Framework for Educator Evaluation September
Document Review STANDARDEVIDENCE Standard 1 - Professional KnowledgeDocumentation and Observation Standard 2 - Instructional PlanningDocumentation and.
“We will lead the nation in improving student achievement.” CLASS Keys TM Module 1: Content and Structure Spring 2010 Teacher and Leader Quality Education.
Domain 1: Preparation and Planning. ElementUnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished Knowledge of content and the structure of the discipline In planning.
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
APS Teacher Evaluation Module 9 Part B: Summative Ratings.
 Reading Public Schools Staff Presentations March 30, 2012.
“We will lead the nation in improving student achievement.” CLASS Keys TM Module 7: Formal Observation Spring 2010 Teacher and Leader Quality Education.
 In Cluster, all teachers will write a clear goal for their IGP (Reflective Journal) that is aligned to the cluster and school goal.
EDUCATOR EVALUATION New Regulation adopted on June 28, 2011.
Word Generation and Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation August 5, 2013 Presenter: Sophia Boyer Documents 1 and 2 adopted from Catherine.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Making Evaluation Work at Your School Leadership Institute 2012.
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.
EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS FACILITATORS SESSION #2 JANUARY 2013 Unpacking Well-Structured Lessons.
Educator Evaluation Regulations, Mandatory Elements & Next Steps Prepared by the MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice January 2012.
Expeditionary Learning Queens Middle School Meeting May 29,2013 Presenters: Maryanne Campagna & Antoinette DiPietro 1.
The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation S.M.A.R.T. Goals and Educator Plan Development August
Strengthening Student Outcomes in Small Schools There’s been enough research done to know what to do – now we have to start doing it! Douglas Reeves.
March Madness Professional Development Goals/Data Workshop.
Summary Rating Responses November 13, 2013 Adobe Connect Webinar Bill Bagshaw, Kayeri Akweks - KSDE.
Primary Purposes of the Evaluation System
PGES: The Final 10% i21: Navigating the 21 st Century Highway to Top Ten.
The District Management Council 70 Franklin Street Boston MA, Tel: 877.DMC Springfield Public Schools Springfield Effective.
Monomoy Educator Evaluation System Training
 Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence National Institute April 12 and 13, 2012.
Candidate Assessment of Performance CAP The Evidence Binder.
Candidate Assessment of Performance CAP The Evidence Binder.
 Teachers 21 June 8,  Wiki with Resources o
EVAAS for Teachers: Overview and Teacher Reports Every Student READY.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Supporting Effective Teaching: An Introduction to Educator Performance Evaluation Introduction to Educator.
DANIELSON MODEL SAI 2016 Mentor Meeting. Danielson Model  Framework with rubrics  Define specific types of behaviors expected to be observed  A common.
Math Study Group Meeting #1 November 3, 2014 Facilitator: Simi Minhas Math Achievement Coach, Network 204.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Professional Growth Through Self-Assessment and Goal Writing September 2012.
Springfield Public Schools SEEDS: Collecting Evidence for Educators Winter 2013.
Learning Goals, Scales, and Learning Activities Clarity and Purpose.
Springfield Public Schools SEEDS: Unpacking the Rubric for Educators Winter 2012.
Springfield Public Schools Springfield Effective Educator Development System Overview for Educators.
Instructional Leadership and Application of the Standards Aligned System Act 45 Program Requirements and ITQ Content Review October 14, 2010.
Domain 1: Preparation and Planning
Clinical Practice evaluations and Performance Review
DESE Educator Evaluation System for Superintendents
Objectives for today If we have done our job today, you will:
Leveraging Performance Management to Support School Priorities
Presentation transcript:

NAPS Educator Evaluation Spring 2014 Update

Agenda Evaluation Cycle Review Goal Expectations and Rubric Review SUMMATIVE Evaluation Requirements FORMATIVE Evaluation Requirements Preparing Artifacts Rating Guidelines for Evaluators Further Support Questions

Evaluation Cycles One year plans Non-PTS Teachers (in years 1 to 3), Long-term Sub, PTS Teachers on One-Year Directed Growth Plans Summative Evaluation 1 year of evidence Two year plans PTS Teachers on 2 year Self-Directed Growth Plans Summative Evaluation (2 years of evidence) Formative Evaluation (1 year of evidence)

Ratings Ratings on progress toward each SMART Goal Rating for each Standard I to IV Overall rating based on all of the above Reminder: Rubrics include 4 Standards 16 Indicators 33 Elements

I-A. Elements UnsatisfactoryNeeds Improvement Proficient Exemplary I-A-1. Subject Matter Knowledge Demonstrates limited knowledge of the subject matter and/or its pedagogy; relies heavily on textbooks or resources for development of the factual content. Rarely engages students in learning experiences focused on complex knowledge or skills in the subject. Demonstrates factual knowledge of subject matter and the pedagogy it requires by sometimes engaging students in learning experiences around complex knowledge and skills in the subject. Demonstrates sound knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and the pedagogy it requires by consistently engaging students in learning experiences that enable them to acquire complex knowledge and skills in the subject. Demonstrates expertise in subject matter and the pedagogy it requires by engaging all students in learning experiences that enable them to synthesize complex knowledge and skills in the subject. Is able to model this element. I-A-2. Child and Adolescent Development Demonstrates little or no knowledge of developmental levels of students this age or differences in how students learn. Typically develops one learning experience for all students that does not enable most students to meet the intended outcomes. Demonstrates knowledge of developmental levels of students this age but does not identify developmental levels and ways of learning among the students in the class and/or develops learning experiences that enable some, but not all, students to move toward meeting intended outcomes. Demonstrates knowledge of the developmental levels of students in the classroom and the different ways these students learn by providing differentiated learning experiences that enable all students to progress toward meeting intended outcomes. Demonstrates expert knowledge of the developmental levels of the teacher’s own students and students in this grade or subject more generally and uses this knowledge to differentiate and expand learning experiences that enable all students to make significant progress toward meeting stated outcomes. Is able to model this element. Standard I: Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment. The teacher promotes the learning and growth of all students by providing high-quality and coherent instruction, designing and administering authentic and meaningful student assessments, analyzing student performance and growth data, using this data to improve instruction, providing students with constructive feedback on an ongoing basis, and continuously refining learning objectives. Indicator I-A.Curriculum and Planning: Knows the subject matter well, has a good grasp of child development and how students learn, and designs effective and rigorous standards-based units of instruction consisting of well-structured lessons with measurable outcomes.

Goal Expectations Possible Ratings: No progress Some progress Significant Progress Met Goal Exceeded Goal A good faith effort = at least “some progress” No evidence of reasonable effort = “no progress”

Rubric Review Unsatisfactory Inappropriate, inadequate, none, little, few, rare Needs Improvement Limited, occasional, some, inconsistent Proficient Consistent, appropriate, thorough, effective, regular Exemplary Successful, established, all or always, engaging others (students or colleagues), modeling for others

Summative Evaluation (Teachers in Y1 to Y3, PTS teachers on Directed Growth Plans, PTS Teacher who received a Formative Evaluation last year) Artifacts must be submitted between May 1 st and May 15 th An Artifact Cover Sheet for each artifact Maximum of 18 artifacts to cover your SMART goals and the 16 indicators ONE Educator Collection of Evidence form

Formative Evaluation – What’s Different? Check in regarding progress toward summative evaluation Low stakes Less paperwork

Formative Evaluation (PTS Teachers in Year 1 of 2 year plan) Artifacts due between May 15 th and May 22 nd ALL artifacts must be labeled at the top of the first page indicating the Standard(s) & Indicator(s) to which it aligns Maximum of 14 artifacts Optional Artifact Cover Sheet Optional Formative Evaluation Evidence Log ONE Educator Collection of Evidence form

Preparing Artifacts Examples of Artifacts summary sheet Samples on our website DESE training on gathering evidence achers/

Rating Guidelines To be eligible for proficient or higher rating… For Formative Evaluation Evidence of at least “some progress” toward each goal Evidence for at least one indicator under each standard Evidence for at least 8 indicators overall For Summative Evaluation Evidence of at least “some progress” toward each goal Evidence for each indicator

Further Supports Work time today and on 4/15 during district faculty meeting time Individual consultation with your evaluator Exemplars on the district website This Powerpoint with facilitator notes on district website

Questions?