Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Garden City Evaluation Process PPT 10.10.12
Ähnlich wie Garden City Evaluation Process PPT 10.10.12 (20)
Garden City Evaluation Process PPT 10.10.12
- 1. Garden City Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Process
- 2. To provide QUALITY ASSURANCE for our students and their families… To provide PROFESSIONAL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES for staff which will increase student achievement…
- 3. Revised School Code 380.1249 Performance Evaluation System, July 2011 Revision of previous tool, 2011-2012 Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness Progress Report (MCEE), April 2012 MCEE Pilot & Danielson in 2012-2013
- 6. DANIELSON’S PERFORMANCE LEVELS MICHIGAN PERFORMANCE LEVELS Unsatisfactory………………………… Basic……………………………………… Proficient……………………………….. Distinguished…………………………. Ineffective Minimally Effective Effective Highly Effective
- 7. Teaching is a performance. Performances are measured using rubrics. Ineffective (drowning) Minimally Effective (dog paddling) Effective (You can swim!) Highly Effective (Olympics Qualifier)
- 8. Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Domain 3: Instruction Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Complexity of teaching clearly defined within the 22 components clustered within the 4 domains of teacher responsibility
- 9. Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy Demonstrating Knowledge of Students Selecting Instructional Goals Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources Designing Coherent Instruction Assessing Student Learning Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Reflecting on Teaching Maintaining Accurate Records Communicating with Families Contributing to the School and District Growing and Developing Professionally Showing Professionalism
- 10. Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport Establishing a Culture for Learning Managing Classroom Procedures Managing Student Behavior Organizing Physical Space Domain 3: Instruction Communicating Clearly and Accurately Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques Engaging Students in Learning Providing Feedback to Students Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
- 13. Student Growth Indicator 25% or 30/118 points District Approved Summative, Pre/Post Assessment
- 14. 1. Pre- Evaluation Meeting Oct. 17 2. Teacher will complete Performance Goal/IDP via Google Docs Oct. 24 3. Goals Reviewed and Approved (via email/Google Docs) Nov. 7 4. All observations and post observation meetings will be completed unless additional observations are required March 6 5. Secondary SGIs are due March 24 6. Elementary and Burger SGIs are due May 1 7. Final Evaluations with teachers are completed. A summary written evaluation/online data will be May 20 sent to the Personnel Department and entered into secure admin. site. Any Ineffective teacher has the right to appeal to the Superintendent. Superintendent has 20 days to respond.
- 16. Page 1
- 17. A LOOK AT THE TOOL
- 18. A LOOK AT THE TOOL
- 19. IDPs Non Tenured Teachers & Tenured Teachers (M.E..) Confirmation of review & acceptance of Performance Goals will be provided via email. Goal setting conference may occur if necessary. Observations Minimum of 2 observations , announced and unannounced-Lesson plans required in Formal. &2 SGIs. Post observation conversation Domains 1 & 4 (or complete document)
- 20. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MUTUALLY DEVELOPED BY -TH GRADE TEACHER- FARMINGTON ELEMENTARY & KEITH ANLEITNER-PRINCIPAL- FARMINGTON ELEMENTARY GOAL 1: To utilize STAR Reading and Math as a self-assessment tool for students and AYP tool for teacher planning. Purpose of goal: To realistically assess individual students for praise on growth in Reading and Math. Teacher Plan: Provide daily lessons that involve students in instruction so that they will achieve high outcomes. Take STAR tests with a higher frequency for incremental feedback. Elicit high student enthusiasm for each subject by moving the class along in an organized and lively fashion. Establish the use of STAR Reading, full usage of Houghton Mifflin as it aligns to State Benchmarks, D.E.A.R. (Drop Everything and Read) and increased use of Accelerated Reader. Administrative Support: Provide assistance as requested by teacher. Be available as sounding board to talk through concerns. Provide information available to meet goal. (Best Practices, and curriculum assistance, and professional development opportunities) Set-up substitute teachers as necessary to fulfill mentor teacher plan.
Hinweis der Redaktion
- The evaluation process is NOT a punitive process…everyone must see it as a way to grow professionally.
- In July of 2011, legislation passed regarding how all educators (Administrators and Teachers) will be evaluated. Some of the highlights include: annual evaluations, student growth became a significant , observations focus on lesson plans/standards/student engagement. This legislation mandated that any district who did not have a tool that could match the rigorous standards must adopt the state tool, which was to be released in summer 2012 by Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness. The State eventually gave the option of any of the 3 that were state approved and Danielson was one of them.
- The evaluation is broken up into TWO parts: Framework for Teaching and Student Growth. Therefore, 75% is the Framework and 25% is student growth.
- We will start with the Framework. The Danielson Framework for Teaching is research-based and is considered a highly valid tool for developing and enhancing classroom instruction. The District, in conjunction with the other 2 pilot districts (Montrose and Port Huron), have worked collaboratively to develop a tool and base 75% of the educator’s evaluation on this framework The Framework for Teaching “…identifies those aspects of a teacher’s responsibilities that have been documented through empirical studies and theoretical research as promoting improved student learning.” We all feel strongly that this Framework will help us all become better educators.
- As we begin to look at and explore the Framework for Teaching, keep in mind that the Performance Levels indicated in Danielson’s work translate to the Michigan effectiveness ratings/performance levels. Teachers and administrators will become accustomed to using these terms as we have discussions related to observations and evaluations.
- To use a swimming analogy, consider this… Obviously, those drowning and in the dog paddle phase will get a lifeline in this evaluation process!
- The Framework is broken into 4 domains listed here. The rubric is broken into the 22 components within each domain.
- Domains and Components of 1 and 4…they are demonstrated by the teacher both in and out of the classroom. They are mostly things that we can’t see when we come into the classroom to observe and it is the teacher’s responsibility to provide the evidence in these components. Teachers will need to support their outside the class activities by submitted lesson plans for the Formal Observation. Domains 1 & 4 worksheet in the Garden City Teacher Evaluation Handbook is to be submitted or prepared with discussion like a job interview in the Post Observation meeting.
- Domains and Components of 2 and 3 are where we see the action. The evaluator/ observer in your classroom will be able to collect evidence of performance during at least 2 observations in your classroom.
- This is a summary of the Domains, Components, and more specifically the Elements in the Framework. You have this document via email and with the evaluation packet you received. You also have distributed the Garden City Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Handbook.
- This evaluation process, using the Framework for Teaching, is based on Danielson’s PLAN, TEACH, REFLECT, APPLY cycle. Solid preparation and planning; engaging instruction; reflection on your instruction with your evaluator and sometimes by yourself; and then application of any changes needed in your instruction will IMPROVE THE NEXT CYCLE OF INSTRUCTION.
- Student Growth Indicators are worth 25% or 30 out of the Total Possible Points of 118 on the Teacher Performance Evaluation. The next couple slides will describe Pre/Post Assessments, and Annual Year End Evaluation scoring.
- To create a Pre/Post Test a teacher gives their students a diagnostic test to benchmark student skills. This is a skills test that accompanies the curriculum, a department or grade level wide assessment, or any other task that will provide students the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge or skills. The diagnostic identifies specific content expectations or core standards that will be covered over the course of the year or marking period. After giving the pre test, the teacher selects a reasonable, significant growth goal (30% or more). The mutually agreed upon goal (administrator has the final say) shows student growth at what is estimated to be at an effective estimation. At or near the completion of the year or marking period, students complete a similar assessment. The difference between student performances on the diagnostic and the assessment is calculated. The above rubric demonstrates the levels of effectiveness based on student growth.
- We will now take a look at the reported Teacher Evaluation Tool. Page 1 &2: This is the beginning of the Danielson portion of the Annual Year End Performance Evaluation. Note the point values, 1-4, Ineffective to Highly Effective .The total points on page 2 is 88 possible points (if a teacher received a 4 in every component). This is weighted as 75% of the evaluation. The actual tool is recorded by the administrator in a Google Docs document.
- On page 3 of the Annual Year-End Performance Evaluation, 25% of the SGI score or whole building score will be based upon a collective building aggregate of a building assessment. This score takes 25% of the 25% in the SGI to create an overall school score based on MEAP, ACT, MLPP, MMLA & DRA II. Only Burger and Cambridge do not have building wide scores. The multipliers for the All School or without All School are slightly different and are to be multiplied, accordingly. The Pre/Post SGI has been simplified to reflect only 2 individual Student Growth pieces of data. HB 4637, Section 1249,© states,..”student growth shall be measured by national, state, or local assessments and other objective criteria.” To reiterate, to create a Pre/Post Test a teacher gives their students a diagnostic test to benchmark student skills. This is a skills test that accompanies the curriculum, a department or grade level wide assessment, or any other task that will provide students the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge or skills. The diagnostic identifies specific content expectations or core standards that will be covered over the course of the year or trimester. At or near the completion of the year or trimester, students complete a similar assessment. The difference between student performances on the diagnostic and the assessment is calculated. The simple calculation sheet worth a maximum total of 30 points is then added to the maximum total of the 88 possible points from the Danielson Framework to equal the TOTAL COMPOSITE SCORE.
- Page 4: Final sum of points and Rating Scale. Please note, a teachers signature doesn’t indicate AGREEMENT, but it only indicates the evaluation process is complete. Teachers may still write comments to be attached to their evaluations. The range is equated to a 100 point scale is presently less demanding than the tradition scale of 90-100 for H.E. and son on.
- Some other misc. details that should be addressed before we conclude are IDPs, Observations, Timelines. IDPs are for non-tenured and tenured teachers and entail goal setting, a plan to attain the goal(s), and a final assessment of progress toward the goal(s). Mid Year Progress Reports for at least the first year for a non-tenured and for tenured teachers while rated minimally or ineffective on the previous year’s evaluation. This progress report must have data, revised goals (if applicable) and any recommended training that hasn’t already taken place. At least 2 observations will be conducted this year. One will be announced and the others may or may not be announced. We will have some 1:1 discussion surrounding Domain 1 (Planning and Preparation) and Domain 4 (Professional Responsibilities) throughout the year, pre and post assessment. We will provide you timely feedback on what we’ve observed while in your classroom. The purpose of this evaluation process and the feedback provided throughout the year is to improve instruction and grow professionally.