Download
1 / 28
350 likes | 679 Vues
Teacher Evaluation Process. Teacher workshop June 21, 2013. Philosophy of TE& PD Is Unchanged. improve student learning as a shared goal; define a framework of professional skills, knowledge and competencies for all teachers;
E N D
Teacher Evaluation Process Teacher workshop June 21, 2013
Philosophy of TE& PD Is Unchanged • improve student learning as a shared goal; • define a framework of professional skills, knowledge and competencies for all teachers; • increase opportunities for teachers’ collaboration, self-reflection and personal growth related to individual and district objectives; • differentiate supervision for teachers requiring additional support and guidance; • provide effective programs of professional development to support high quality instruction and target professional growth opportunities for both new and experienced teachers.
Foundations for TE & PD Is Unchanged • Connecticut’s Common Core Standards that establish high expectations for student learning in Connecticut; • Connecticut’s Common Core of Teaching (2010) which defines effective teaching practice; • Common Core of Leading: Connecticut’s Leadership Standards (2010) which reflect national leadership standards; • National Pupil Personnel Standards documents which establish a critical link among effective teaching, professional learning and increased student achievement.
CSDE TE & PD Process Changed Evaluate practice and outcomes Link professional development to evaluations Link teacher evaluation to administrator evaluation CEA worked with the state to create this plan.
Teacher Evaluation Process November 15 January/February June Teacher self-assessment Scoring End of year conference Orientation on process Goal-setting conference Review goals Performance to date Mid year communication This process is similar to our current evaluation process except for the mid-year check-in for all staff.
Teacher Evaluation Components Two main components each with 2 sub-components for a total of 4 ratings.
Rating System Each of the 4 components receive a rating.
Orientation & Goal Setting • Revisit orientation to the revised TEPD process in the fall • Encourage teachers to collaborate in their PLCs to create goals: • Teacher Practice goal: similar to our student learning goal • Student Outcome goals: 1 goal with a standard measure, 1 with a non-standard measure (can use same goal for both) • Called SLO – student learning objective • Goal setting conference with administrator
Teacher Evaluation Components Two main components each with 2 sub-components for a total of 4 ratings.
Teacher Practice Rating Observation/Performance (40%) number and type of observations based on Teacher Category a teacher evaluation rubric ( like our Communication Framework) will guide determination of practice ratings Parent Feedback (10%) based on parent survey given to all parents about instruction and learning at each school
Ratings for Teacher Practice - Rubric Observations of practice will be rated by rubric Rubric contains Domains and sub categories Sub categories have descriptors for each matrix rating Domains and Sub-Categories are similar to our current Communication Framework Domains 1, 3 and 4 pertain to direct observations. Domains 2 and 5 relate to informal reviews of practice.
Sample Teacher Practice Goal • Goal (Elementary): As a result of my implementation of the Workshop Model in Reading, students will be able to select books at their “just right” level. • Goal (Secondary): As a result of my implementation of the science inquiry model, students will be able to independently design and conduct experiments and analyze the results.
Domain 1: Classroom Environment, Student Engagement and Commitment to Learning 1a: Creating a positive learning environment that is responsive to and respectful of the learning needs of students 1b: Promoting student engagement and shared responsibility for learning 1c: Promoting appropriate standards of behavior 1d: Maximizing instructional time by effectively managing routines and transition
Domain 2: Planning for Active Learning 2a: Planning of instructional content is aligned with standards, builds on students' prior knowledge and provides for appropriate level of challenge 2b: Planning instructional strategies to actively engage students in the content 2c: Selecting appropriate assessment strategies to monitor ongoing student progress
Domain 3: Instruction for Active Learning 3a: Implementing instructional content for learning 3b: Leading students to construct new learning through use of active learning strategies 3c: Monitoring student learning, providing feedback to students and adjusting instruction
Domain 4: Assessment for Learning 4a: Formative and summative assessment for learning 4b: Assessment criteria and feedback to improve student performance and responsibility for learning 4c: Comprehensive data analysis, interpretation and communication
Domain 5: Professional Responsibility and Teacher Leadership 5a: Engaging in continuous professional growth to impact instruction and student learning 5b: Collaborating to develop and sustain a professional learning environment to support student learning 5c: Communicating and collaborating with colleagues, students and families to develop and sustain a positive school climate and support student learning 5d: Conducting oneself as a professional
Sample From Teacher Practice Rubric DOMAIN 2: Planning for Active Learning
Parent Survey (10%) • Distributed and collected by district for the school. • Rating is included in all teacher and administrators evaluation calculations • Generic items on survey (examples): 1. I feel welcome at this school. 2. I have attended at least one meeting/event at school this year. 3. Teachers have high expectations for my child/ren. 4. Teachers talk to me about how my child/ren are doing in class.
Teacher Evaluation Components Two main components each with 2 sub-components for a total of 4 ratings.
Student Outcome Rating Student Growth and Development 45% 1 or more goals with Indicators of Academic Growth & Development 22.5% using standardized measures 22.5% using non-standardized measures Whole School Learning (5%) Each building will establish an aggregate rating for student performance
Whole School Learning (5%) Teacher and Administrators will be evaluated on student learning. It accounts for 5% of teacher rating and 45 % of an administrator’s rating. • This rating comes from the school performance index (SPI) in the state report • This rating comes from a school-based target for student learning All administrators and staff in a school will receive this rating as part of their evaluation.
