Mississippi Student Services Coordinators Appraisal Rubric (M-SSAR)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)
Advertisements

The Delaware Performance Appraisal System II for Specialists August 2013 Training Module I Introduction to DPAS II Training for Specialists.
Training for Teachers and Specialists
The SCPS Professional Growth System
Utah Effective Teaching Standards-based Jordan Performance Appraisal System Orientation (UETS-based JPAS)
Mississippi Principal Evaluation System (MPES) Summative Assessment and Professional Growth Goals Conferences June 2014 Webinar.
Freehold Borough Teacher Evaluation System Freehold Intermediate School Friday – February 15, 2013 Rich Pepe Director of Curriculum & Instruction.
Teacher Evaluation Model
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,
Round Table Discussion- Evaluating Arts Teachers William Kohut, Principal- Denver School of the Arts Dr. Mark Hudson- Director of Arts- Denver Public Schools.
PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER EVALUATION OVERVIEW What’s Next for Counselors? Lois Kappler Project Manager.
Overview of the New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework Opening Day Presentation August 26, 2013.
Alaska Educator Evaluation Overview Yukon Koyukuk School District.
PRIDE Professional Rubrics Investing & Developing Educator Excellence
RESA Standards 2015 Revised Standards for District and School Effectiveness.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY RENEWAL PROCESS: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS January29, 2015.
Alternate Assessment on Alternate Achievement Standards Aligned to Common Core State Standards 1.
Designing and Implementing An Effective Schoolwide Program
Data Mondays: ACRP 2014 Virtual Conference
1 Michigan Department of Education Office of School Improvement ISD/RESA Workshop February 26, 2008.
Accountability Assessment Parents & Community Preparing College, Career, & Culturally Ready Graduates Standards Support 1.
Today’s website:
2012 Secondary Curriculum Teacher In-Service
MONITORING INDISTAR® STATE-DETERMINED IMPROVEMENT PLANNING TOOL.
LCSD APPR: Overview Review and Focus on the 60 points December 3, 2012.
CLASS Keys Orientation Douglas County School System August /17/20151.
Mississippi Teacher Evaluation System (MTES) Updates
INSTRUCTIONAL EXCELLENCE INVENTORIES: A PROCESS OF MONITORING FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Dr. Maria Pitre-Martin Superintendent of Schools.
PRESENTED BY THERESA RICHARDS OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AUGUST 2012 Overview of the Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and.
Compass: Module 2 Compass Requirements: Teachers’ Overall Evaluation Rating Student Growth Student Learning Targets (SLTs) Value-added Score (VAM) where.
Every Student READY. North Carolina Educator Evaluation A process for professional growth.
Idaho Principal Evaluation Process & Principal Observation Lisa Colón, Idaho State Department of Education Matt Clifford, Ph.D., American Institutes for.
Teacher Effectiveness Pilot II Presented by PDE. Project Development - Goal  To develop a teacher effectiveness model that will reform the way we evaluate.
STUDENT GROWTH MEASURES Condensed from ODE Teacher Training.
REVIEW PROCESS District Capacity Determination:. Review Team Selection Teams will contain geographically balanced representation. Each review team will.
The Delaware Performance Appraisal System II (DPAS II) for Teachers Training Module I Introduction to DPAS II Training for Teachers.
The Delaware Performance Appraisal System II for Teachers Training Module 3 The DPAS II Process Training for Teachers.
Factoring Growth Models Into Administrator and Teacher Performance Evaluations -- a presentation for -- Henderson, Mercer, and Warren Counties Regional.
The Delaware Performance Appraisal System II for Teachers Training Module 2 The Delaware Framework Review and Components 1-5 Training for Teachers.
Field Test of Counselor System July 2000 Alabama Professional Education Personnel Evaluation Program.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update 11/29/12.
Standards IV and VI. Possible Artifacts:  School Improvement Plan  School Improvement Team  North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey  Student.
Educator Effectiveness Evaluation MERA Fall 2013 Conference November 25-26, 2013 Frankenmuth, Michigan.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Program Introduction to Principal Evaluation in Washington 1 June 2015.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Introduction to Teacher Evaluation in Washington 1 June 2015.
TPEP Teacher & Principal Evaluation System Prepared from resources from WEA & AWSP & ESD 112.
What you need to know about changes in state requirements for Teval plans.
Idaho Principal Evaluation Process Tyson Carter Educator Effectiveness Coordinator Idaho State Department of Education
Barren County Schools CERTIFIED EVALUATION PLAN
“Step” “Step” n2 M-STAR! Strategic Tools for Educator Preparation  This training was designed to support the training effort of all Mississippi educators.
The Comprehensive School Counseling Program and Career Clusters/Pathways August 2008 Judith Kuse, School Counseling Consultant Barbara Bitters, Assistant.
Student Growth within the Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (TPGES) Overview 1.
Inclusive Practice in Massachusetts Teacher preparation program overview of evidence-based best practices.
Adapted from guidance presented on August 2013 by Alexandra Pressley, Associate in Education Improvement Services NYSED Local Assistance Plan Schools:
North Carolina Educator Evaluation System Jessica Garner
Educator Effectiveness Process Introduction to the Grant and Guide to the Unit Meeting.
An Overview of Revisions to the Rhode Island Model
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation and Observation Minnesota Teacher Evaluation Requirements Develop, improve and support qualified teachers and effective.
Using Student Assessment Data in Your Teacher Observation and Feedback Process Renee Ringold & Eileen Weber Minnesota Assessment Conference August 5, 2015.
Springfield Public Schools SEEDS: Collecting Evidence for Educators Winter 2013.
Education.state.mn.us Principal Evaluation Components in Legislation Work Plan for Meeting Rose Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education.
Pre-Evaluation Conference Conducted August 18, 2015 STING Schedule.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation
Wethersfield Teacher Evaluation and Support Plan
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation
McREL TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM
Leveraging Performance Management to Support School Priorities
Transition Outcomes Project Report Out Meeting
McREL TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM
Presentation transcript:

Mississippi Student Services Coordinators Appraisal Rubric (M-SSAR) Reaching Professional Excellence Subtitle

Office of Student Assessment Winter 2012 DTC Training Goals of this Session General introduction through Power Point and Process Manual. M-SSAR aligned with the SSC Technical Assistance Grid and Performance Assessment Tool. To provide orientation and framework for feedback To provide an overview of M-SSAR Process Manual Review the goals of this session. This is a brief overview; you will see that this evaluation tool mirrors the M-STAR process. 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE – Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Insert Program Name Here

Office of Student Assessment Core Reason for the Change in ALL Evaluation Systems Winter 2012 DTC Training Under previous systems of evaluating educators, the scores received have become separated from the key output – student learning and successful completion To put into place effective tools for evaluation for ALL educational professionals This focus is a result of our ESEA Flexibility Waiver Read and discuss the reason for a change in All Mississippi educator evaluations. A new evaluation system was needed because historically there has been a misalignment between our evaluation ratings and student learning. 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE– Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Insert Program Name Here

Office of Student Assessment Federal and State Theory of Action Winter 2012 DTC Training Improved Evaluation System Improved Educator Quality Improved Student Outcomes The research and data are clear - educator quality is the single most important variable impacting student achievement. It is imperative that evaluations be held with a high degree of integrity to support this theory of action and support all students in Mississippi. 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Insert Program Name Here

Office of Student Assessment Implementation Timeline Winter 2012 DTC Training M-SSAR Developed with Student Services Input and feedback from Student Services Coordinators and Directors and CTE Contact Persons……… 2013-2014 Statewide Field test …...… August 2014-2015 Statewide Full Implementation .……August 2015-2016 Review the implementation timeline with participants. 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Insert Program Name Here

©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services How is M-SSAR Different? 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services

©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services M-SSAR Flow Chart 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services

Office of Student Assessment M-SSAR Overview Winter 2012 DTC Training Five domains (weighted equally) Planning Assessment Instruction Learning Environment Professional Responsibilities 20 Standards Four levels of effectiveness: Unsatisfactory Emerging Effective Distinguished These Domains were already defined in the M-STAR and for the M-SSAR were aligned with the Student Services Program of Work. 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Insert Program Name Here

©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Levels of Performance Performance ratings DISTINGUISHED Level 4 is the most effective level of performance. Rating at this level indicates that the performance is exemplary; consistently exceeding expectations. Level 3 is the expectation for all educators. Rating at this level indicates the performance consistently meets expectations. Those who receive this rating should receive professional development and support designed to address the identified area(s) for growth. Level 2 indicates either a beginning educator or one who needs focused professional development. Rating at this level indicates the counselor is sometimes meeting expectations, but not doing so consistently. Those who receive this rating should receive professional development and support designed to address the identified area(s) of challenge Level 1 is the least effective level of performance. Rating at this level indicates the performance is not acceptable. Those who receive this rating rarely meet expectations. Those who receive this rating should receive immediate and comprehensive professional development and support designed to address the identified area(s) for growth. EFFECTIVE EMERGING UNSATISFACTORY 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services

©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Examples of Evidence Daily Planners and schedulers Scripting of Student Services Coordinator comments Descriptions of Student Services Coordinator and student actions Documentation that supports activities and planning Data on student performance from district and school based information Data and information based on surveys and inventories Observations about the environment created by the Student Services Coordinator Evidence could include: assessments, program and activity evaluation, contact information, referrals, outcome data, pre- and post- tests, needs assessments, opinion surveys, achievement data, attendance and behavior reports/data, graduation rates, grades, skills attainment. Winter 2012 DTC Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services

©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Forms are very similar to M-STAR Pre-Observation forms Post-Observation forms Walk Through *As with M-STAR, the forms are optional if you prefer others, but for each SSC a score for each domain will be reported to MDE. Winter 2012 DTC Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services

Office of Student Assessment Pre-Observation Form Winter 2012 DTC Training This is completed by the SSC prior to the observation. Talk about the observation possiblities. Winter 2012 DTC Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Insert Program Name Here

Office of Student Assessment Post Observation Form Winter 2012 DTC Training In the post observation form, the SSC completes the first 5 elements and the elements on the second page are completed by the administrator. Winter 2012 DTC Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Insert Program Name Here

Office of Student Assessment Walk Through Winter 2012 DTC Training The forms are not the focus; they were designed to begin the process but if evaluators develop forms that work better for them, that is alright with MDE. The focus is on the final scores. Those will be submitted to MDE in the spring after the process is completed. 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Insert Program Name Here

©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Scoring The M-SSAR Scoring the M-SSAR is easy Each Standard get a rating from 1-4 based on the criteria above Domain ratings are calculated by added the scores for each Standard and dividing by the number of Standards in a Domain The Total Score is obtained by adding the averaged score for each Domain and dividing by 5. This is the score that is reportable at the end of the academic year. 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services

©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services Scoring – Scoring is very easy; each Domain score is the average of the Standards score. The Total Score is the average of each domain score Example: DOMAIN TOTAL is the sum of the scores of each standard divided by the number of standards. Domain I Standard 1 = 3 Standard 2 = 2 Standard 3 = 4 Domain I score is the Sum of the Standards divided by 3 9/3 = Score of 3 TOTAL FOR THE YEAR - Sum of all Domains divided by the number of Domains Domain I = 3 Domain II = 2 Domain III = 2 Domain IV= 4 Domain V = 4 TOTAL FOR THE YEAR 15/5 = Total Score of 3 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services

Contact Information Gail Simmons, Office Director Mississippi Department of Education Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services 601-359-3987 gsimmons@mde.k12.ms.us Keshia Washington, Program Supervisor Mississippi Department of Education Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services 601-359-1316 klwashington@mde.k12.ms.us 2014 M-SSAR Training ©MDE - Office of Career, Counseling and Support Services