M.D.G. Scholars Program -Capstone Presentation-

-A Comparative Analysis- Teacher Evaluation in Higher Education

Evaluation for N.C. K-12 Professionals -A Brief Synopsis-

Source: Columbus County Schools,

A Closer Look… ILT 1 Evaluated annually Must develop a PDP Mid-Year PDP Review Observed (5) times in the first year Observed (2) twice annually after first year. End-Year Summative Evaluation. ILT 2 Evaluated annually Must develop a PDP Mid-Year PDP Review Observed (2) twice a annually Observed (5) times during certification year (every 5 years) End-Year Summative Evaluation

Serve as a measurement of performance for individual teachers. Serve as a guide for teachers as they re fl ect upon and improve their effectiveness. Serve as the basis for instructional improvement. Focus the goals and objectives of schools and districts as they support, monitor, and evaluate their teachers. Guide professional development programs for teachers. Serve as a tool in developing coaching and mentoring programs for teachers. Enhance the implementation of the approved curriculum. Inform higher education institutions as they develop the content and requirements for teacher training programs. Source: N.C. Teacher Evaluation Manual, State Board of Education/Dept. of Public Instruction Common Ground for Professionals

Professional Teaching Standards I. Demonstrate Leadership II. Establish a Respectful Environment III. Knowledge of Content IV. Facilitate Student Learning V. Reflect on Practice VI. Contribute to Academic Success (Data) Source: N.C. Teacher Evaluation Manual, State Board of Education/Dept. of Public Instruction

Ratings Distinguished AccomplishedProficientDeveloping Not Demonstrated Distinguished: consistently and significantly exceeds basic competence Accomplished: exceeds basic competence Proficient: demonstrated basic competence Developing: demonstrated adequate growth but not basic competence Not Demonstrated: did not demonstrate adequate growth or basic competence Source: N.C. Teacher Evaluation Manual, State Board of Education/Dept. of Public Instruction

Standard VI: Data Exceeds Expected Growth Meets Expected Growth Does Not Meet Expected Growth Exceeds expected growth: Student growth value exceeds statewide growth model Meets expected growth: Student growth value is what is expected per statewide growth model Does not meet expected growth: student growth value is lower than statewide growth model Source: N.C. Teacher Evaluation Manual, State Board of Education/Dept. of Public Instruction

Status Highly Effective: receives a rating of at least “accomplished” on standards (1-5) and receives a rating of “exceeds expected growth” on standard (6) Effective: receives a rating of at least “proficient” on standards (1-5) and a rating of “meets expected growth” on standard (6) In Need of Improvement: fails to receive a rating of at least “proficient” on standards (1-5) and a rating of “does not meet expected growth” on standard (6) Highly Effective Effective In Need of Improvement Source: N.C. Teacher Evaluation Manual, State Board of Education/Dept. of Public Instruction

-A Brief Synopsis- Evaluation for Higher Education Professionals

Pillars of Teaching Evaluation Institutional Values and Policies Expectations, Criteria & Procedures Adequate Evaluation Data Assess Effectiveness & Student Learning Procedure Guide Professional Growth Source: Statement of Teaching Evaluation, American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

Typical Career Progression Hired as an Assistant Professor and given a renewable probationary term of (4) years. Reviewed to determine if faculty member should be offered a second probationary term of (3) years. Receives a tenure review (1) year before expiration of second probationary term to consider promotion to Associate Professor with tenure. Receives Post-Tenure Review every (5) years. After promotion to Associate Professor, may be promoted to Full Professor (usually within 5-10 years). Source: Dr. Ron Strauss, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Post-Tenure Review Review is conducted at the departmental level (policies and procedures regarding faculty expectations are reviewed). Faculty peers serve on a review committee. Must be conducted every (5) years. Review Committee provides faculty member and chair with summary of conclusions and recommendations for improvement (Development Plan). Faculty member is given opportunity to address committee report or appeal its findings to dean. Dismissal or disciplinary action for faculty member may be considered if substantial deficiencies are found. Source: Dr. Ron Strauss, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Factors for Promotion I.Research II.Publication III.Student Evaluations IV.Contributions V.Pedagogical Practice and Effectiveness in Teaching Student Evaluations PublicationResearchPedagogyContributions

Source: Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Endowment for the Advancement of Teaching.

Student Sub-Groups For Evaluation For Benefit For Retribution I.Students who complete evaluations only for personal benefit (i.e. to receive final grades early). II.Students who complete evaluations in order to get back at or slander a faculty member. III.Students who complete evaluations for the sake of truly evaluating a faculty members performance.

Observations and Conclusions I.Student-as-Consumer Model II.Effect on Faculty Performance and Pedagogical Practice III.Timing of Evaluations IV.Structure of Evaluations -Diane Auer Jones- Vice President of External and Regulatory Affairs, Career Education Corporation Source: Teacher Evaluations, The Chronicle of Higher Education

Substantive Evaluation ResultsImplementationPlanning Source: Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education

Source: Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education Ex. 1

Source: Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education Ex. 2

Source: Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education Ex. 3

Source: Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education Ex. 4

In Summary… Be Strategic Involve Key Individuals Make Progress Source: Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education