Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.


Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS 2013-14 HOLD HARMLESS YEAR."— Presentation transcript:


2 WHERE ARE WE AS A DISTRICT  Evaluation Committee is still in place and will continue to meet on monthly basis- Will need 1 new teacher member from SSMS, and SCE due to personnel changes. We are also adding one counselor. There have been other changes in membership which you will see in a moment.  Teacher and Principal rubric for professional practices from CDE has been adopted.

3 CURRENT STATUS (CONTINUED)  Last year all teachers engaged in self-reflection and saved that document- document is used for goal setting for this year. Will need to bring with you to initial goal setting session with evaluator.  CDE did change the rubric but not the standards or elements. You do not have to redo your self-evaluation rubric.  2013-14 is a hold harmless year. Overall ratings of Effective or Highly Effective help you in moving towards, or keeping, non-probationary status. Ratings of Partially Effective or Ineffective will not be counted against you.

4 2013-14 EVALUATION COMMITTEE Evaluation Committee members 2013-2014 Meghan Alexander Heidi Chapman-Hoy Lisa Derning Babette Dickson Katie Jacobs Marty Lamansky Kristi Lear Niki Struble Tracy Stoddard Eliza Yarbrough MS Teacher TBD Soda Creek Teacher TBD Counselor TBD- Middle or High School

5 HOW FINAL RATINGS OF EFFECTIVENESS SCORES ARE DETERMINED Reminder that you have a 50-50 split in your score based on professional practices (CDE rubric) and Student Learning Outcomes (scores) 50% Professional Practice 50% Student Learner Outcomes

6 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES SECTION  Student Learning Outcome is the section that deals with test scores, both internal (district and classroom) and external (State and National)  Overall ratings are based on a 50-50 split. 50% on professional practices (rubric) and 50% on test scores/student achievement.  There will be an SLO element for both teachers and principals  It is divided based upon job description  It is important to remember that this is a hold harmless year and that a large part of this will be to see if the matrix provides an accurate picture of teacher and principal effectiveness.

7 WHO DOES THIS IMPACT?  Applies to both Principals and Teachers  Probationary teachers are evaluated on this system but are still probationary regardless of final rating. Probationary status overrides hold harmless. Teachers new to the district still have a three year probationary period.  Principals will probably be largely based on the SPF. Final decision by committee will take place no later than end of October.  Counselors and Special Service Providers are a year behind and will be working on their professional practices rubric this year.

8 SLO TEACHER SYSTEM Fundamental requirements of CDE, The SLO portion of the evaluation system must include:  One or more measures of individually attributed student learning outcomes  One or more measures of collectively attributed student learning outcomes  When available, statewide summative assessment results  When statewide summative assessments occur in consecutive years, Colorado Growth Model  These requirements are not mutually exclusive (satisfying one requirement might satisfy another).

9 HOW WERE FORMULAS DECIDED?  Committee went to a full day CDE training that was specific to the SLO formula.  Committee spent several meetings discussing what we needed to consider.  Committee spent one full day in district workshop reviewing and developing.  Committee spent another 4 hours this summer reviewing both matrix and training for this session.

10 PHILOSOPHY OF THE COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT  All students in all sub-populations are part of the responsibility of every educator in the school.  There should be significant provision for teachers to show achievement and growth of students in their classroom and dealing with the delivery of their unique curriculum.  We should be able to compare students in same grade levels and same subject regardless of teacher. This is part of our goal of establishing a guaranteed and viable curriculum for all students in all courses at all grades levels.  Our work over the past year and a half on vertical alignment between grades and school levels is part of this so that we can better insure students moving forward in their academic progress for all content areas.

11 COMMONALITIES IN THE FORMULAS  Everyone has a piece of the SPF (School Performance Framework)  Everyone has a piece of TCAP/ACCESS scores  All but one has piece of “Approved Common Assessments”

12 “APPROVED COMMON ASSESSMENTS” Defined:  A common assessment in one that every student who takes a particular course will complete regardless of which teacher they may have as an instructor.  It has been jointly developed by all teachers in the department and/or grade level that the course resides in and has common, agreed upon, standards for grading (rubric, anchor papers, etc.).  At a minimum there is a grounding of grading criteria for the student work. This may include everyone who teaches the course or in the academic department grading all student work together.

13 COMMON APPROVED ASSESSMENTS (CONT.) Definition-(Continued)  Common assessments are summative in nature and tied to state and/or national standards, enduring understandings, essential questions, skills and knowledge for the course.  Common assessments use uniform administration procedures including, but not limited to, same testing environment, same amount of time to complete the task, and uniform scoring.  A common assessment is not changeable by an individual teacher.

14 DEVELOPMENT AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF COMMON ASSESSMENTS  Will need to be developed and/or identified this year. Expectation is at least one common assessment per course per term.  Much of district PD time and/or internal PD time at schools will be spent on this during the year.  Administrative team, Staff Development Council, and Evaluation Committee will all be working on finding solutions to creating time for this work to occur.


16 SLO MATRIX FOR SSSD- HANDOUT DRA Dibels Next NWEA Maps-Reading NWEA Maps-Math NWEA-Science NWEA-Lang Useage COACT TCAP-Reading TCAP-Writing TCAP-Math ACCESS TCAP-Science CO State Social Studies ECAW * after 1st year Colorado Growth Model Common Approved Assessments High School AP SPF DPF K 15 5 x 10-Math 5 1 15 x 10-Math 5 2 10 x 10-Math 5 3 15 5x 10 5 4 5x 5 5 5x 5 PE 5 530 10 Fine Arts 5 530 10 World Language 5 530 10 Media 10 520 15 Business Career Tech 5 530 10 Health 5 530 10 Social Studies -Secondary 5 15 High School choose 1 + ACT Middle School choose 1 or 2 25 10 if applicable combine with end of SEM 5 Science -Secondary 5 255 Math -Secondary 5 10155 Language Arts -Secondary 5 5 10 5 ELL 15 Choose 2 510 5 5 Gifted Talented 15 Choose 2 5 15 Special Education 15 Choose 2 10 5 Interventionist 15 Choose 2 5 20 10 KEY Individual Collective Variance Each teacher has 50 points in the Matrix

17 PROCESS  Collectively Attributed measures-(Orange) will have common benchmarks. Those benchmarks will be decided upon based on a collaborative effort between evaluation committee and administrative team.  Individually attributed measures (Purple and blue) will be a goal setting with principal and start of the year evaluation process conversations.

18 SCENARIOS  1 st Grade  SPED  Secondary Math  PE

19 EVALUATION TIMELINE FOR 2013-14  Training/Orientation on SLO section of system August 23 Site based, Delivered by Evaluation Committee Members  Goal Setting meeting with building admin. Completed by October 1Individual teacher meetings Includes Self-evaluation, Goal setting form, Professional Growth Plan

20 EVALUATION TIMELINE (CONT.) Mid-year Review: Check on status, Completed by Jan. 17 Individual Teacher and Bldg. Admin. Non-renewalDecided and notified by May 15 (Probationary Teachers) End of Year ReviewCompleted by June 12 th Individual Teacher and Bldg. Admin.

21 EVALUATION TIMELINE (CONT.) Goal Setting and Performance Planning for 2014-15: Completed by end of school year Individual teacher with Bldg. Admin. Can be combined with End of Year Review

22 APPEALS PROCESS- DOES NOT START UNTIL 15-16  Teachers lose non-probationary status if they have two consecutive ratings of ineffective or partially effective.  Only applies to teachers who will appeal a second consecutive evaluation of ineffective or partially effective.  Appeal only deals with determination of performance evaluation and not determining employment/termination.  Appeals start in 2015-16 (first year that it is possible for a teacher to have two consecutive years)  Remember that 13-14 is a “Hold Harmless” year- You can only be helped and not hurt as far as consecutive ratings of effectiveness.

23 THE GREAT UNKNOWNS Timing of Data: Data for state assessments will be one year behind which means if you are new to the district those data points will not apply (TCAP, COACT, CGM) Cluster Grouping: Taken into account during individual conversations with your building administrators Publication of Scores: Will not happen and currently there are no plans at state level for this. Scores are reported to CDE. By statute individual scores are to remain confidential

24 REMEMBER Work in process: Committee will be evaluating accuracy as year goes on. Feedback should go to committee members Hold Harmless year If we did not have time to get to a question please put it on a notecard and it will be answered via the district educator effectiveness website.


Similar presentations

Ads by Google