Presentation on theme: "By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following: A model for teacher evaluation based on current research The FEAPs as a."— Presentation transcript:
By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following: A model for teacher evaluation based on current research The FEAPs as a framework for the observation process The correlation of BEST in the observation rubrics The revised structure of the instructional appraisal system
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
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
Teacher effectiveness is correlated to the level of student engagement and student performance Fundamental to all we do is the underlying purpose: Improving student achievement through growth in reflection, collaboration, and professional practice.
All teachers will increase their expertise and skill level from year to year which allows gains in student achievement from year to year.
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES 30 Points: 30 Points: Professional Practices 6 Points: 6 Points: Professional Growth Plan Development 10 Points: 10 Points: Plan Implementation 4 Points: 4 Points: Collaboration & Mutual Accountability PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES 30 Points: 30 Points: Professional Practices 6 Points: 6 Points: Professional Growth Plan Development 10 Points: 10 Points: Plan Implementation 4 Points: 4 Points: Collaboration & Mutual Accountability 50%Multi-Metric (50 pts) INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY BASED ON IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENTS 45 Points:Results 45 Points: Individual Results 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 45 Points:Results 45 Points: Individual Results 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 50% Student Achievement (50 pts)
Annual Evaluation of Professional Practices 30 Pts ◦ reflects evidence collected during formal and informal observations Professional Growth Plan Development 6 Pts PGP Implementation 10 Pts Collaboration and Mutual Accountability 4 Pts
BPS Instructional Dimensions BPS Instructional Performance Appraisal System Dimensions
Development of PGP Goal Work Plan Strategies Outcome Measures and Reflection
* Individual pre-conference meetings with administrator * Teachers may collaborate with others in development but no plan should be identical * PGP goal may continue into second year if student data indicates a need for continued professional growth in a particular area * Strategies and outcome indicators would be differentiated in year two
For teachers returning to BPS, reflect on last year’s annual evaluation and student achievement results to develop your “stretch goal.” Wednesday, August 27, is an early release day designated for PGP development activity. You may submit a draft plan to your administrator for review prior to scoring by August 29, 2014. Final due date for PGP’s: Friday, September 26
For teachers new to BPS, reflect on your first semester observations and midterm evaluation to develop your “stretch goal.” You may submit a draft plan to your administrator for review prior to scoring by January 9, 2015. Final due date for PGP’s: Friday, January 23, 2015
Working the Plan Peer observations are required for a “Distinguished” rating In-Process Monitoring Evidence to support implementation may include training records, peer observations, student work samples, lesson plans, parent communication, other artifacts illustrating efforts to implement the strategies and use feedback from colleagues to improve instructional practice. Evidence not required for indicators or dimensions observed by the administrator.
Teams have two purposes: working together to improve each other’s instructional practice, and working with at-risk students to improve their achievement and close the achievement gap. Groups may be by grade level, department, cohorts, within or outside the school. All teacher teams must have at least 8 students and specify learning targets and measures. Deadline to identify teacher teams, students, achievement measures, and targeted outcomes: October 3, 2014
Formative Time frame provided to teacher Pre-conference required Full lesson segment Use classroom observation instrument (COI) ◦ Post-conference with scored feedback within 10 days ◦ Scored feedback = evidence for evaluations
Formative Minimum of two for all teachers by administrator Scored feedback provided within 5 days electronically or face to face Scored feedback = evidence for evaluations
Teachers new to Brevard ◦ Probationary for one year ◦ Minimum of two informal observations by administrator ◦ Two formal observations, midterm evaluation, and annual evaluation conducted by administrator ◦ Two additional informal observations by administrator, mentor teacher, or other qualified persons
◦ Teachers not meeting effective standards of instructional practice Interim evaluation Written PDAP for dimensions scoring 2.9 or lower Specific strategies, suggestions, improvements Specific & reasonable timeline to correct deficient areas
Administrators may conduct additional formal or informal observations and may videotape instructional practice. If evidence from an observation or video will be used in the evaluation, written feedback must be provided to the teacher prior to the evaluation meeting. Administrators may also conduct walk-throughs or instructional rounds. These events are for data collection and are not used in a teacher’s evaluation. Teachers are encouraged to observe one another and provide feedback to one another. These observations are not used in a teacher’s evaluation but may be provided to administrator as PGP implementation evidence.
PSC Teacher who receives a second “unsatisfactory” rating or three needs improvement ratings in a three year period shall be placed on probation for 90 calendar days Four formal observations will be conducted Administrator will assess performance again no more than 14 days after the end of the 90-day probationary period and submit a recommendation regarding future employment status to the Superintendent
Summative evaluation, Part I 50 points Formal evaluation of professional practices from formal and informal observations (30 points) PGP Development (6 points) PGP Implementation (10 points) Collaborative/Mutual Accountability Score (4 points) Signed in the spring by teacher and administrator Use results to guide reflection for next year’s PGP goal
Summative Evaluation Part II ◦ Totals 100 points ◦ Includes Summative Part I and Student Achievement Scores ◦ Signed by Teacher and Administrator in the fall
Scores added together from Summative Part I and Summative Part II determine final rating: Highly Effective, Effective, Needs to Improve or Unsatisfactory Performance
Summative Part I 50-42– Highly Effective 41-30– Effective 29-15– Needs Improvement 14-0 – Unsatisfactory Proficient scores = Effective Performance (used to determine score ranges)