Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Teacher Evaluation System Update 5/20/13. Why are we doing this? Race-to- The-Top (RTTT) Tenure Reform Common Core and PAARC Teacher Evaluation Systems.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Teacher Evaluation System Update 5/20/13. Why are we doing this? Race-to- The-Top (RTTT) Tenure Reform Common Core and PAARC Teacher Evaluation Systems."— Presentation transcript:

1 Teacher Evaluation System Update 5/20/13

2 Why are we doing this? Race-to- The-Top (RTTT) Tenure Reform Common Core and PAARC Teacher Evaluation Systems

3 Where are we?  Achieve NJ (Teach, Lead, Grow)-NJDOE directive to improve teacher evaluation and teacher practice.  TEACHNJ- Teacher Effectiveness and Accountability for the Children of NJ aka the Tenure Law.  District Evaluation Action Committee formed in Spring We met various times and reviewed the existing State Approved Evaluation models; McRel, Danielson, Stronge, Marzano and Marshall.  DEAC selected the Marshall Evaluation Model. It was “open source”- and Free. Training for DEAC members began (12 hours).  DEAC attended a full day Valley-wide Kim Marshall presentation (Oct 2012) in Closter.  Some initial concerns; was this a “gotcha” evaluation system, was it applicable for a high school setting.

4 Where are we - continued?  DEAC reviewed and added clarifications to the Marshall Rubrics. The updated rubrics were ed to staff and a sample mini observation instrument was included.  Committee met on four separate sessions with local sending school districts and Park Ridge.  Feb 2013-School Improvement Panel(ScIP) created at each school. (Principal, AP and a teacher representative)  DEAC Sub Committee created multiple mini observation instruments.

5

6 Where are we - continued?  March 2013-State Regs. revealed requirements for teachers and principals.  Pilot Evaluation Plan required and was initiated at both high schools. Testing out the 3 mini observation instruments until May 31,  Teachers volunteered to be evaluated using the Mini Observation instrument.  Observations are “double scored”- Two evaluators observe at the same time. Goal is to increase inter- rater reliability.  April 2013-Student Growth Objectives training session with Bob Price, break out sessions by departments. Dept. Meetings took place to discuss SGO’s.

7 School Improvement Panel (ScIP)  Teacher on ScIP becomes a resident expert on evaluation policies, supports other teachers, ensures open communication and opportunities for feedback.  ScIP members must: Ensure that the eval procedures are implemented. Ensure that procedures for Corrective Action Plans are implemented. Identify Professional Development opportunities for staff. Oversee the mentorship of new teachers at the building level.

8 Status of Required Pilot  Pilot will continue through end of May  Teachers are encouraged to complete a self- assessment using the rubrics  Supervisors have been asked to meet with individual teachers to review their self- assessment (non-evaluative this year)  Individual Professional Growth Plans must align with the rubrics after the school year  3 observation instruments are being tested as part of the pilot.  More training will take place for supervisors and administrators during the summer.

9 Future Direction  June Additional training for staff and administrators.  Staff workshops will work on their required two SGO’s.  Principals at each school will sign off on the SGO’s.  July Training for Administrators Goal is to improve inter-rater reliability and to address the Principal Eval Model.

10 What are the new regulation requirements ?  Minimum of 3 observations per year for all teachers, some announced  20 and 40 minute observations  Pre- and post- conference for announced observations  Some “Double-Scored” observations for non- tenured. ( Two observers – counts as one obs)  Highs schools are considered non-tested and will use Student Growth Objectives (SGO) for 15% of the final evaluation.  Other 85% of the final evaluation will be based on teacher practice (Marshall Rubrics)

11  Long: 40 minutes, with post-conference (Pending)  Short: 20 minutes, with post-conference (Pending) Teacher Categories Minimum # of Observations Required Multiple Observers Nontenured Years 1–2 3 (2 long, 1 short) Required Years 3–4 3 (1 long, 2 short) Tenured Effective Highly Effective 3 (0 long, 3 short) Recommended Corrective Action Plan +1 (length at district discretion) Required 11 Teacher Evaluation: Teacher Practice Protocols Notes: Corrective Action Plans: After the first year, teachers who receive an Ineffective or Partially Effective rating are required to have one additional observation, and multiple observers are required. Long observations for non-tenured teachers must have a pre-conference. Long observations, beyond the minimum requirements, do not require pre-conferences. Within the minimum requirements, all teachers must have at least one unannounced and one announced observation. Teacher Practice Student Growth Objective Sum. Rating N.J.A.C. 6A: (NJDOE, 2013)

12 NVRHS Proposed Supervisory Model 1 st and 2 nd Year Teachers  1 clinical observation conducted by the supervisor (announced)  1 video-taped observation (announced)  Minimum of 7 mini-observations, 4 by the supervisor, 3 by the principal and/or assistant principals (unannounced)  2 self-evaluations conducted by the teacher (midyear and end of year)  Midyear Summary conducted by the supervisor  End of Year Summary conducted by the supervisor

13 3 rd and 4 th Year Teachers  1 clinical observation conducted by the supervisor (announced)  minimum of 6 mini-observations, 4 by the supervisor, 2 by the principal and/or assistant principals (unannounced)  2 self-evaluations conducted by the teacher (midyear and end of year)  Midyear Summary conducted by the supervisor  End of Year Summary conducted by the supervisor

14 Tenured Teachers  Minimum of 4 mini-observations by the subject supervisor.  The Principals/Assistant Principals will observe tenured teachers once every three years. This observation will be conducted with the subject supervisor and will count as one of the 4 observations for that year.  Self Evaluation conducted by the teacher for the end of year summary  End of Year Summary conducted by the supervisor.  Ineffective or Partially Effective rating = a referral to the ScIP, support from the Curriculum & Instruction Dept., a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) will be implemented and full-length formal observation(s) will be in place.

15 Mini Observation –Instrument  Currently, we are evaluating 3 instruments  Form A- Rubric contains measurable indicators from the Marshall Rubric and a narrative. Form A  Form B-A form based on Marshall’s SOTEL, contains 5 narrative components. Form B  Form C- A web based “clickable” app that has a narrative component.

16 Overview of the Principal Eval Plan  We will be using the Marshall Evaluation Plan for principals.  6 Domains covering all aspects of the principal’s job Diagnosis and Planning Priority Management and Communication Curriculum and Data Supervision, Evaluation and Professional Development Discipline and Parent Involvement Management and External Relations

17 Principal Evaluation New principal evaluation systems will include the following components: Principal Practice Performance on a principal practice evaluation instrument School SGP State-calc. score that measures a principal’s ability to drive growth in ELA and math Average SGO Locally-calc. score that aggregates the perf. of all teachers in a school on SGOs Admin. Goals Locally-calc. score that measures a principal’s impact on stu. achievement Summative Rating Overall eval. score that combines the multiple measures of practice & outcomes Eval. Leadership Outputs that define how well a principal is leading imp. of the eval system N.J.A.C. 6A: InputsStudent/Teacher Outcomes

18 DEAC Committee  Special Thanks to members;  NVD members- Esther Cho, Alexandra Drazniowsky, Danielle Nix, Dr. Jeannie Ryan, Chuck Stevens.  NVOT members- Jen Dee, Keith Johnson, Jim McGuire, Jenn Mezzina, Ginny Senande, Brook Zelcer.  Administrators/Supervisors- Barbara Battaglia, Jim Buoye, Fred Hessler, Kerry Hubbard, Dr. Chris Nagy, Rich Orso, Javier Rabelo, Ron Romano, Dr. Bruce Sabatini, James Santana, Lola Szobota.  Board Member- David Chan  Parent Member- Sherry Moss

19 Resources  AchieveNJ hotline  _.PDF _.PDF  achNJGuide.pdf‎ achNJGuide.pdf‎  for info regarding Professional Development and mentoring requirements


Download ppt "Teacher Evaluation System Update 5/20/13. Why are we doing this? Race-to- The-Top (RTTT) Tenure Reform Common Core and PAARC Teacher Evaluation Systems."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google