2011 – 2012 School Year. * Walk-Throughs * Observation(s) * Pre-/Post-Evaluation Form * Year-End Evaluation * Summative Score Report.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Grading and Reporting Grade PLUS 4 th and 5 th Grade.
Advertisements

... and what it means for teachers of non-tested subjects Johanna J. Siebert, Ph.D. NAfME Symposium on Assessment June 24-25, 2012.
Teacher Evaluation & APPR THE RUBRICS! A RTTT Conversation With the BTBOCES RTTT Team and local administrators July 20, 2011.
AchieveNJ: Teacher Evaluation Scoring Guide
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Research & Literature From Session 1 Homework Video Exercise Summative Conferences.
OCM BOCES APPR Regulations As of % Student Growth 20% Student Achievement 60% Multiple Measures APPR NOTE: All that is left for implementation.
OCM BOCES APPR Regulations As of % Student Growth 20% Student Achievement 60% Multiple Measures APPR.
RISE Principal Evaluation and Development System: Overview and Principal Effectiveness Rubric.
OCM BOCES Annual Professional Performance Review
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.
LCSD APPR Introduction: NYS Teaching Standards and the Framework for Teaching Rubric Welcome! Please be seated in the color-coded area (marked off by colored.
Ramapo Teachers’ Association APPR Contractual Changes.
The Delaware Performance Appraisal System II for Teachers Training Module 4 Component Five – Student Improvement.
TEACHER EVALUATIONS. REVIEW OF POLICY Classroom teaching must be observed using one of the four piloted observation tools: Charlotte Danielson’s.
March, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
HCPSS End-of-Year Teacher Evaluation Process April Leadership I.
NY Migration Planning Meeting APPR Requirements with Teachscape.
Ongoing Training Day 1. Welcome Back! [re]Orientation Lead Evaluator Training Agenda Review.
1 New York State Education Department Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation August 2012.
LCSD APPR: Overview Review and Focus on the 60 points December 3, 2012.
1 New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation 2011–12 July 2012 PRESENTATION as of 7/9/12.
* Provide clarity in the purpose and function of the Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) as a part of the APPR system * Describe procedures for using.
Teacher Effectiveness Day 5. Housekeeping Parking Breaks and lunch Emergencies.
Using Student Growth Percentiles in Educator Evaluations
Evaluation Team Progress Collaboration Grant 252.
The APPR Process And BOCES. Sections 3012-c and 3020 of Education Law (as amended)  Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) based on:  Student.
The New Massachusetts Principal Evaluation
Evidence-Based Observations Training for Observers of Teachers Module 5 Dr. Marijo Pearson Dr. Mike Doughty Mr. John Schiess Spring 2012.
New York State Scores 2011—2012 School Year. Growth Ratings and Score Ranges Growth RatingDescriptionGrowth Score Range (2011–12) Highly EffectiveWell.
Day 3. Here We Are: 9 Components 1.New York State Teaching Standards and Leadership Standards 2.Evidence-based observation 3.Application and.
FEH BOCES Student Learning Objectives 3012-c.
Student Growth Focus on… PROCESS NOT CONTENT.
TAPCo. Full Staff Mtg March 17 th Agenda ● ADVANCE ● Regents.
Student Learning Objectives SLOs April 3, NY State’s Regulations governing teacher evaluation call for a “State-determined District-wide growth.
March 23, NYSCSS Annual Conference Crossroads of Change: The Common Core in Social Studies.
APPR: Ready or Not Joan Townley & Andy Greene October 20 and 21, 2011.
Day 9. Agenda Research Update Evidence Collection SLO Summative Help Summative Evaluation Growth-Producing Feedback The Start of the Second.
Student Learning and Growth Goals Foundations 1. Outcomes Understand purpose and requirements of Student Learning and Growth (SLG) goals Review achievement.
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.
Worthington Teacher Evaluation System Dr. Trent Bowers.
Day 4. Here We Are: 9 Components 1.New York State Teaching Standards and Leadership Standards 2.Evidence-based observation 3.Application and.
Student Achievement Through Teacher Evaluation Presenters Dr. Jane Coughenour Dr. Karen Chapman Mr. Michael Matta.
Focused Evaluation. Who?  Teachers who completed the Comprehensive cycle  Proficient or distinguished.
APPR Annual Professional Performance Review Legislation: 3012-d Board of Education Work Session November 9, 2015.
Session Objectives Decode the Teacher Summative Evaluation form, including the Student Achievement Measures, so it can be used to give teachers feedback.
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.
1 New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation June 2012 PRESENTATION as of 6/14/12.
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.
APPR 2.0 (based on CR 3012-d) NSCSD Goals The NSCSD District Goals Can be evidenced in planning, classroom instruction, assessment and teacher’s.
New Teacher Induction.
Teacher Evaluation System
APPR Update School Year.
Lead Evaluator for Principals Part I, Series 1
AchieveNJ: Teacher Evaluation Scoring Guide
APPR Overview 3012c Draft Revision March 2012
Sachem Central School District Teacher Evaluation Training 2012
APPR Update School Year.
New York State Education Department Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation August 2012.
TDES: Polishing Practice
Valley Central School District
NEWARK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPR OVERVIEW
NEWARK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPR/EVALUATION OVERVIEW
Leader SLTs
Leader SLTs
Creating Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
Central Square School District and CSTA
Dixon Elementary # Dixonscholars
A student learning objective is an academic goal for a teacher’s students that is set at the start of a course. It represents the most important learning.
Annual Professional Performance Review APPR
Presentation transcript:

2011 – 2012 School Year

* Walk-Throughs * Observation(s) * Pre-/Post-Evaluation Form * Year-End Evaluation * Summative Score Report

* All classroom teachers will receive a Year-End Evaluation Form * All evidence collected throughout the school year will be considered when the evaluator completes the Year-End Evaluation Form * All components in all four domains on the Danielson Rubric will be rated on the Year-End Evaluation Form * The rating for each component is based upon all of the evidence collected throughout the year – this is not a numerical average

* Each component will receive one of the following scores: * Highly Effective = 4 * Effective = 3 * Developing = 2 * Ineffective = 1

* Components within each of the four domains will be averaged together to determine a Domain Average Score. * Example: Domain 1 has 6 components that average to a Domain Average Score of 3.2 Domain 2 has 5 components that average to a Domain Average Score of 2.8 Domain 3 has 5 components that average to a Domain Average Score of 3.4 Domain 4 has 6 components that average to a Domain Average Score of 3.0

The four Domain Average Scores will be averaged together to get the Overall Rubric Average Score. Example: Domain Average Scores: = / 4 = 3.1 Overall Rubric Average Score

* The Overall Rubric Average Score will be converted to a Composite Score out of a possible 60 points using the conversion chart developed by NYSUT and NYSED officials. * NYSED set the scoring bands for each of the categories. * NYSED requires that all scores from 0 – 60 be attainable.

HEDI Category Overall Rubric Average Score 60-point Distribution for Composite Score Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective

The Overall Rubric Average Score is converted to a Composite Score out of a possible 60 points using the conversion chart. Example: 3.1 Overall Rubric Average Score on the conversion chart = 58.2 Using rounding rules, this score becomes a Composite Score of 58 points 58 points = Effective

2011 – 2012 School Year Teachers of ELA and/or Math in Grades 4 – 8 will receive a 100-point Composite Score as follows: 60 points: Year-End Evaluation Score 20 points: State Assessment Score (comes from NYSED) 20 points: Local Assessment Score (STAR Reading/STAR Math) STAR conversion score of 0 – 20 will be based upon the Median Student Growth Percentile Score (as recommended by Renaissance Learning – developers of STAR Enterprise)

2011 – 2012 School Year All other classroom teachers will receive a 60 -point Composite Score from the Year-End Evaluation and an overall rating (Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective) 2012 – 2013 School Year All teachers will receive a 100-point Composite Score composed of the Year-End Evaluation Score, State Score and Local Score

* By June 22 nd, each teacher will electronically receive: * Year-End Evaluation Form and * Summative Score Report (100 points) or * Summative Score Report (60 points)

* Questions?