TEACHER EVALUATION
TRAINING
November 1st, 2012
General Admin Meeting
BY GLENN MALEYKO, Ph.D
Director of Human
Resources
John McKelvey– Teachscape
Some of the Slides are also based on the Danielson iobservation training (Pam Rosa) from WCRESA on
April 3rd and 4th.
MCLSection 380.1249 3. C (i)
1.
If the school administrator conducts
teacher performance evaluations, the
school administrator's training and
proficiency in using the evaluation tool for
teachers described in subsection (2)(d),
including a random sampling of his or her
teacher performance evaluations to assess
the quality of the school administrator's
input in the teacher performance
evaluation system.
Michigan Training Grant MCL
388.1695.
 Sec.
95.
 (1) From the funds appropriated in section 11,
there is allocated an amount not to exceed
$1,750,000.00 for 2012-2013 for grants to
districts to support professional development for
principals and assistant principals in a departmentapproved training program for implementing
educator evaluations as required under section
1249 of the revised school code, MCL 380.1249.
Grant Stipulations
 Districts
Can apply for $350 per building
administrator
 Must
be an approved MDE training module.
 Contain instructional content on methods of evaluating
teachers consistently across multiple grades and
subjects.
 (b)
Include training on evaluation observation that is
focused on reliability and bias awareness and that
instills skills needed for consistent, evidence-based
observations.
Grant Stipulations
 (c)
Incorporate the use of videos of actual lessons for
applying rubrics and consistent scoring.
 (d)
Align with recommendations of the governor's
council on educator effectiveness.
 (e)
Provide ongoing support to maintain inter-rater
reliability. As used in this subdivision, "inter-rater
reliability" means a consistency of measurement from
different evaluators independently applying the same
evaluation criteria to the same classroom observation.
The Danielson Teachscape
Model
Highest
Validity and Reliability based on
state study of current evaluation models.
State is currently piloting four different
models
Link:http://www.teachscape.com/produc
ts/danielson-proficiency-system
We
Plan
had a review committee
Brainstorm ideas
We will be able to receive training via
the following methods
Gen Admin large group discussion
Secondary Admin or Elementary
Forum
Small Group example, instructional
rounds
Plan
As
individuals on-line from any
location
All individuals will take an exam at
the end to receive certification
Increase Rater-Reliability and
Credibility
Working on letter of agreement with
ADSA for comp day.
Framework
Dearborn
Standards
1.
:
Classroom
Environment
2. Preparation and
Planning
3. Instruction
4. Assessment
5. Communication
and Professional
Responsibilities
Danielson:
1.
Domains
Planning and
Preparation
2. Classroom
Environment
3. Instruction
4. Professional
Responsibilities
Danielson I-observation
technique
1.
Verbatim, scripting of teacher or
student comments
2. non-evaluative statements of observed
teacher and student behavior.
3. Quantitative Data, time on task,
assessment etc.
4. Environmental observations
Other Dearborn to Danielson
Framework correlations
Dearborn
4 Levels: ineffective,
minimally effective, effective, highly
effective
Danielson, unsatisfactory, basic,
proficient, distinguished
Elements in both models, but
Danielson has attributes
Observations
What
are the strengths?
What are the weaknesses?
What do you still wonder after
viewing a snapshot of the lesson?
What questions?
What recommendations might you
have?