Teachers 21 Presentation - RPSEducatorEvaluation

advertisement


Teachers 21
June 8, 2012
 Wiki
with Resources
o http://rpseducatorevaluation.wikispaces.com/
http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/model/
3


New DESE Regulations approved on June 28, 2011
Collaboratively Designed by
o Massachusetts Teachers Association
o Massachusetts Association of Secondary School Principals
o Massachusetts Elementary School Principals Association
o Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents
o Department of Elementary and Secondary Education


Requires evaluation of all educators on a license
Designed to promote leaders and teachers growth and
development





Our current system is comparable to new DESE model
Allowed us to give significant input into the process
Developed a network with other school districts
Attended professional development opportunities
Piloted
o Educator Plan with SMART Goals
o Superintendent’s Evaluation Process
o Principal Evaluation Process

Full Implementation of Educator Evaluation System in
September, 2012


Focuses on Educator Growth and not “Gotcha”
Five Step Evaluation Cycle
o
o
o
o
o

Rubric for Evaluation (Four Rubrics Developed)
o
o
o
o


Self-Assessment
Analysis, Goal Setting, Educator Plan Development
Implementation of Plan
Formative Assessment (Midyear or Mid-cycle)
Summative Evaluation (End of Year/Cycle Evaluation)
Superintendent
Administrator
Teacher
Specialized Instructional Support Personnel Rubric
Additional rubrics being developed for school nurses, school psychologists,
school counselors, and business administrators
Specificity of Rubric
o Standards
o Indicators
o Elements

Use of Artifacts for Evidence
o Lesson Plans, Professional Development Activities, Fliers
o Announced and Unannounced Observations

Differentiated Approach
o
o
o
o


Use of SMART Goals
Levels of Performance on Rubric
o
o
o
o


New Teachers
Non-PTS Teachers
PTS Teachers
PTS Teachers who need additional support
Exemplary
Proficient
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Multiple Measures of Student Performance (2013-14 School Year)
Use of student surveys (2014-15 School Year)
5 Step Evaluation Cycle
Continuous
Learning
 Every educator is an
active participant in an
evaluation
 Process promotes
collaboration and
continuous learning
 Foundation for the
Model
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 8
Every educator uses
a rubric to self-assess
against Performance
Standards
Rubric is used to
analyze
performance and
determine
ratings on each
Standard and
Overall
Rubric is used to
assess performance
and/or progress
toward goals
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Pages 4-5
Professional Practice
goals – team and/or
individual must be tied
to one or more
Performance Standards
Evidence is
collected for
Standards and
Indicators; rubric
9
should be used to
provide feedback
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 9
What does this look
like?
Counselor reviews data and identifies
three areas for improvement, grade 8
transition issues for special education
students, YRBS data for students
feeling emotionally safe at school, and
low participation levels for students in
Teen Screen program
Counselor receives a
rating on each standard
plus an overall rating
based on performance
against standards and
progress on the three
goals.
Midway through the cycle, the Director of
Guidance and counselor and
department/teams to review evidence and
assess progress on goals: makes adjustments
to action plan or benchmarks, if needed.
Continuous
Learning
Counselor works with
Director of Guidance
to develop a
department
professional practice
goal on Grade 8
Transition. Works
with health educators,
social workers, and
school psychologists
on a team student
learning goal to
improve emotional
safety of students,
and works with
Behavioral Health
Coordinator on a
team student learning
goal increasing
percentage of
students who
participate in Teen
Screen program.
Counselor gathers and synthesizes
evidence on progress on goals in
Educator Plan. Director of Guidance
focuses data collection on goal areas.
10




The Developing Educator Plan (Non-PTS Teachers and teachers new to a
position) is developed by the educator and the evaluator and is for one
school year or less.
The Self-Directed Growth Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated
Proficient or Exemplary and is developed by the educator. When the
Rating of Impact on Student Learning is implemented (beginning in
2013-14), educators with a Moderate or High Rating of Impact will be on
a two-year plan; educators with a Low Rating will be on a one-year plan.
The Directed Growth Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated
Needs Improvement and is a plan of one school year or less developed
by the educator and the evaluator.
The Improvement Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated
Unsatisfactory and is a plan of no less than 30 calendar days and no
longer than one school year, developed by the evaluator.
District Strategy
Superintendent Goals
School Improvement
Plans
Principal Goals
Classroom Practice
Teacher Goals
Student Achievement
School Committee

Standards (4)-Required in Regulations
o Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment (3 Indicators)
o Teaching All Students (4 Indicators)
o Family and Community Engagement (3 Indicators)
o Professional Culture (6 Indicators)



Indicators (16)-Required in Regulations
Elements (34)-May be modified, but most keep rigor
Rubrics
o A tool for making explicit and specific the behaviors and actions
present at each level of performance.
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 6
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education14

Example: Specialized Instructional Support Personnel Rubric
o Standard II
• “Teaching All Students”
o Indicator B
• Learning Environment
o Elements 1 & 2
• 2-B-1: Safe Learning Environment
• 2-B-2: Collaborative Learning Environment
• 2-B-3: Student Motivation
15
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 6
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education16
“The educator’s performance significantly
exceeds Proficient and could serve as a model
for leaders districtwide or even statewide. Few
educators—principals and superintendents
included—are expected to demonstrate
Exemplary performance on more than a small
number of Indicators or Standards.”
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 14
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 17
“Proficient is the expected, rigorous
level of performance for educators. It
is the demanding but attainable level
of performance for most educators.”
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 9
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education18

Educators whose performance on a Standard is rated as
Needs Improvement may demonstrate inconsistencies in
practice or weaknesses in a few key areas. They may not yet
fully integrate and/or apply their knowledge and skills in an
effective way. They may be new to the field or to this
assignment and are developing their craft.

Educators whose performance on a Standard is rated as
Unsatisfactory are significantly underperforming as compared to
the expectations. Unsatisfactory performance requires urgent
attention.

Standard II: Teaching All Students. Promotes the learning and
growth of all students through instructional practices that
establish high expectations, create a safe and effective
classroom environment, and demonstrate cultural proficiency.

Indicator II-A.
Learning Environment: Creates and maintains a
safe and collaborative learning environment that motivates
students to take academic risks, challenge themselves, and claim
ownership of their learning.

Element IIB-1. Safe Learning Environment
o Proficient-Uses rituals, routines, and appropriate responses that create and
maintain a safe physical and intellectual environment where students take
academic risks and most behaviors interfere with learning are prevented.
Summative Rating
Rating System
Until Impact on Student Learning is Implemented in 2013-14/2014-15
Exemplary
Proficient
1-YEAR SELF2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
DIRECTED
PLAN
GROWTHGROWTH
PLAN
GROWTH PLAN
Needs
Improvement
DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN
Unsatisfactory
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
Low
Moderate
High
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education24
Summative Rating
Rating System for Educator Plan
Once Multiple Measures are Implemented
Exemplary
Proficient
1-YEAR SELFDIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
Needs
Improvement
DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN
Unsatisfactory
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Low
Moderate
High
Rating of Impact on Student Learning
(multiple measures of performance, including MCAS Student
Growth Percentile and MEPA where available)
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education25
Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative performance rating
Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education
27
 Phase
1-Summative ratings based on attainment of
goals and performance against the four Standards
defined in the educator evaluation requirements
(September, 2012)
 Phase 2-Rating of educator impact on student
learning gains based on trends and patterns of
multiple measures of student learning gains
(September, 2013)
 Phase 3-Using feedback from students (for teachers)
and teachers (for administrators)-(September, 2014)

Opportunity to change teaching and learning
o Focused Conversations
o Creating Opportunity for Educator Growth
o Leads to Student Growth
o Tie in initiatives to educator evaluation

Build trust with educators
o Committee Work on Teacher Evaluation Process

Educate the Community
o School Committee Meetings
o Community Forums











Social Emotional Health
Adopting the new MA Curriculum Frameworks
21st Century/Global Skills
Anti-Bullying
Professional learning communities
Examining student work
Data Teams
Project Based Learning
Common course/grade level assessments
Elementary Report Cards
BYOD
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education30




This may be the most important initiative that you undertake in
your district
Look at this as an opportunity to improve teaching and learning
and educator growth in your district
Plan your strategy and process
Train staff on how to write and implement SMART goals
o Use the Train the Trainer Model
o Use Special Education Teachers as Experts



Collaboration is critical to the success of this implementation
Link this system to the common core and assessment
development
Integrate the behavioral health framework into the system






Transparent and ongoing open honest communication is critical
Train all supervisors in the process to create inter-rater reliability
Use the DESE materials
Adopt the model rubrics
Develop a logic model on how you will implement this process
Involve your staff, school committee, and community early and
often in the communication process
John F. Doherty, Ed.D
Superintendent of Schools, Reading Public Schools
[email protected]
Reading Public School Educator Evaluation Wiki
http://rpseducatorevaluation.wikispaces.com/


Download
Related flashcards

Management

42 cards

Corporate governance

23 cards

Management

61 cards

Corporate governance

32 cards

Create Flashcards