Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following:  A new model for teacher evaluation based on current research  The correlation.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following:  A new model for teacher evaluation based on current research  The correlation."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following:  A new model for teacher evaluation based on current research  The correlation of BEST in the observation and feedback  The structure of the new instructional appraisal system  The FEAPs as a framework for the observation process

3  Evaluation process requires a two-way dialogue between observer and observee  A teacher’s impact as a leader on the school should extend beyond the classroom  The primary purpose of an evaluation is to improve instruction, evidenced by student achievement

4  The development of the evaluation process for any one teacher is designed with the input of both teacher and administration  Evaluation for the teacher is an ongoing reflective process  It takes more than one observation to evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher

5  Teacher effectiveness is correlated to the level of student engagement and student performance

6 All teachers can increase their expertise and skill level from year to year which allows gains in student achievement from year to year.

7 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES 21 Points: 21 Points: Professional Practices 10 Points: 10 Points: Professional Growth Plan Development 8 Points: 8 Points: Plan Implementation 8 Points: 8 Points: Collaboration & Mutual Accountability PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES 21 Points: 21 Points: Professional Practices 10 Points: 10 Points: Professional Growth Plan Development 8 Points: 8 Points: Plan Implementation 8 Points: 8 Points: Collaboration & Mutual Accountability 50% Multi-Metric (47 pts) INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY BASED ON IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENTS 30 Points:Results 30 Points: Individual Results 5 Points: 5 Points: Regression 5 Points: 5 Points: Collaborative team student achievement closing the achievement gap results related to closing the achievement gap of the Lowest 25% in Reading and/or Math INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY BASED ON IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENTS 30 Points:Results 30 Points: Individual Results 5 Points: 5 Points: Regression 5 Points: 5 Points: Collaborative team student achievement closing the achievement gap results related to closing the achievement gap of the Lowest 25% in Reading and/or Math 40% Student Achievement (40 pts) DISTRICT OPTION: TEAM & SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 5 Points:School Improvement Plan 5 Points: Achievement of School Improvement Plan goals assigned for whole school results or team results 2 Points: Professional Growth Plan (PGP) target(s) 2 Points: Individual accountability for meeting individual Professional Growth Plan (PGP) target(s) DISTRICT OPTION: TEAM & SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 5 Points:School Improvement Plan 5 Points: Achievement of School Improvement Plan goals assigned for whole school results or team results 2 Points: Professional Growth Plan (PGP) target(s) 2 Points: Individual accountability for meeting individual Professional Growth Plan (PGP) target(s) 10% Student Achievement (7 pts) 3 pointsAlignment 3 points: Alignment of Professional Practices with Student Growth Measures 3 pointsAlignment 3 points: Alignment of Professional Practices with Student Growth Measures 3 points

8  Observations of the Dimensions 21 Pts  Professional Growth Plan Development 10 Pts  PGP Implementation 8 Pts  Collaboration and Mutual Accountability 8 Pts

9 BPS Instructional Dimensions BPS Instructional Performance Appraisal System Dimensions

10  Development of PGP Goal  Work Plan Strategies  Outcome Measures and Reflection

11  Working the Plan  In-Process Monitoring

12  Working together as a team to improve the achievement of a specific group of students.  Groups may be by grade level, department, cohorts, etc.

13  Orientation  Each year - all instructional personnel  During pre-planning or 30 days within first workday  All instruments provided  Assessment forms  Data collection forms  Supporting procedures

14  Observations  Reflective practice  Facilitator support: Singularly, or in combination  School administrator(s)  District level certificated personnel  Peer teachers  Resource teachers  Teacher leaders  Other qualified persons

15  Teachers with 3+ years experience with Brevard Public Schools  Meet or exceed standards of FEAPs  Three conferences annually  First by October 8  Highly effective rating may participate in observation process every other year  PGP planning  Implementation  Progress toward goals

16  Annual Contract Teachers  Meet standards of FEAPs  Three conferences annually  No later than October 8 for first  PGP planning  Implementation  Progress toward goals

17  Teachers new to Brevard  Probationary for one year  Two formal evaluations from administrator  Two evaluations by other qualified persons

18  Teachers not meeting standards of FEAPs  Interim evaluation  Notice  Four employee observations and conferences  Written PDAP  Specific strategies, suggestions, improvements  Specific teaching behaviors  Specific & reasonable timeline to correct deficient areas

19  PSC Teacher who receives “unsatisfactory” rating shall be placed on probation for 90 calendar days  Four observations and conferences  14 days after 90 days for administrator to assess performance and submit to superintendent

20  Summative evaluation form  Two parts  Formative observations  Peer and administrator involvement  Overall ratings  Multi-metric in fashion Summative 50% student growth 50% use of data, plan implementation, collaboration, and alignment with expectations and performance

21 Two rating scales for determining Highly Effective, Effective, Needs to Improve or Unsatisfactory Performance

22  Formative ratings:  Distinguished – performance consistently exceeds FEAPs  Proficient – performance meets FEAPs  Professional Support Needed – performance requires additional attention  Unsatisfactory – performance does not meet minimum requirements of the position

23  Summative --Multi-metric  100 point scale  0-50 – Student Growth  35 points --Value added student scores  5 points—collaborative team effort  5 points –School Improvement Plan  3 points—school regression data  2 points—target met PGP student growth

24  Professional Practice  0-21 – Observations  0-10 – Plan Development  0-8 – Plan Implementation  0-8 – Collaboration  0-3 – Alignment

25  – Highly Effective  – Effective  – Needs Improvement  63 and less – Unsatisfactory


Download ppt "By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following:  A new model for teacher evaluation based on current research  The correlation."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google