Sub-heading ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Athletic Program Leader Proposed Adaptations.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Understanding Student Learning Objectives (S.L.O.s)
Advertisements

Rhode Island Model for Educator Evaluation Systems August 2010.
Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)
1 DPAS II Process and Procedures for Teachers Developed by: Delaware Department of Education.
Session Objectives Begin to understand the goals, purpose and rationale for Program Reviews Learn about the components of implementing Program Reviews.
Goal #2- Continuous Improvement. Common Themes Shared leadership Clear direction & focus Everyone involved Alignment Goals and Measures Aim of the Organization.
Overview of the New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework October 2011.
The SCPS Professional Growth System
In August, the historic CORE district waiver was approved allowing these districts to pursue a new robust and holistic accountability model for schools.
LCAP Update Board of Education April 15, Tell the Story When identifying needs, goals, and related outcomes, it is important to think about what.
SEED – CT’s System for Educator and Evaluation and Development April 2013 Wethersfield Public Schools CONNECTICUT ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION Overview of.
Wethersfield Teacher Evaluation and Support Plan
Educator Evaluation Reform in New Jersey November 16, 2012.
Katonah-Lewisboro School District Annual Professional Performance Review Update 5/23/
THREE HANDBOOKS TEACHER PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEM EDUCATIONAL SPECIALISTS PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEM SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION.
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.
Compass: Module 3 Student Growth.
Sub-heading ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Leader Proposed Adaptations.
Update on Teacher and Principal Evaluation Implementation of ARS
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation August 20, 2014 Elizabeth M. Osga, Ph.D.
Support Professionals Evaluation Model Webinar Spring 2013.
Teacher Evaluation System LSKD Site Administrator Training August 6, 2014.
Sub-heading ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Adult Education Leader Proposed Adaptations.
PUSD Teacher Evaluation SY12/13 Governing Board Presentation May 10, 2012.
1 Literacy PERKS Standard 1: Aligned Curriculum. 2 PERKS Essential Elements Academic Performance 1. Aligned Curriculum 2. Multiple Assessments 3. Instruction.
Program Improvement Unit Collaborating to increase student achievement and fundamentally improve the interaction between the teacher and the students to.
Van Buren School District Principal Evaluation Pilot District July 2012.
Sub-heading ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Special Education Leader Proposed Adaptations.
Gathering Evidence Educator Evaluation. Intended Outcomes At the end of this session, participants will be able to: Explain the three types of evidence.
Overview of the New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework Opening Day Presentation August 26, 2013.
Central Office Administrator Development and Evaluation Adaptations for Central Office Administrators.
Alaska Educator Evaluation Overview Yukon Koyukuk School District.
 Reading School Committee January 23,
Sub-heading ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Personnel Leader Proposed Adaptations.
Educator Evaluation System Salem Public Schools. All DESE Evaluation Information and Forms are on the SPS Webpage Forms may be downloaded Hard copies.
The Massachusetts Framework for Educator Evaluation: An Orientation for Teachers and Staff October 2014 (updated) Facilitator Note: This presentation was.
Self-Evaluation Training for Better School Improvement Developed by The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Dr. Sherry Broome, Regional Lead.
Sub-heading ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Business and Operations Leader Proposed Adaptations.
Title I Needs Assessment/ Program Evaluation Title I Technical Assistance & Networking Session October 5, 2010.
Educator Evaluation: The Model Process for Principal Evaluation July 26, 2012 Massachusetts Secondary School Administrators’ Association Summer Institute.
Program Overview The College Community School District's Mentoring and Induction Program is designed to increase retention of promising beginning educators.
Administrative Evaluation Committee – Orientation Meeting Dr. Christine Carver, Associate Superintendent of Human Capital Development Mr. Stephen Foresi,
Today’s website:
Iowa’s Teacher Quality Program. Intent of the General Assembly To create a student achievement and teacher quality program that acknowledges that outstanding.
NCAA Division I Institutional Performance Program 2015 NCAA Regional Rules Seminar Supplement.
1 Orientation to Teacher Evaluation /15/2015.
FewSomeAll. Multi-Tiered System of Supports A Comprehensive Framework for Implementing the California Common Core State Standards Professional Learning.
PRESENTED BY THERESA RICHARDS OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AUGUST 2012 Overview of the Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and.
ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM DAY 4 Summer 2013 {Insert Trainer/Facilitator Name} July 2,
Delaware’s Performance Appraisal System for Administrators DPAS 2.5 Jacquelyn O. Wilson, Ed.D. University of Delaware Director Delaware Academy for School.
The New Massachusetts Principal Evaluation
Bridgeport Public Schools Administrator Evaluation and Support Plan
Delaware’s Performance Appraisal System for Administrators DPAS 2.5 Jacquelyn O. Wilson, Ed.D. University of Delaware Director Delaware Academy for School.
March Madness Professional Development Goals/Data Workshop.
April 29, 2011 Developing Effective Leaders: Principal Evaluation Systems CCSSO – National Summit on Educator Effectiveness.
A Mission of Restoration
Primary Purposes of the Evaluation System
Connecticut PEAC meeting Today’s meeting Discussion of draft principal evaluation guidelines (1 hour) Evaluation and support system document.
What you need to know about changes in state requirements for Teval plans.
Ohio Department of Education March 2011 Ohio Educator Evaluation Systems.
District Action Plan Strategic Planning for Student Success Board Meeting March 24, 2015 Dr. Rodney Thompson, Superintendent.
Student Achievement Teacher & Leader Effectiveness Overview of Stronge & MyLearningPlan/OASYS Interim Report #1 January 27,
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Linking ISLLC and your Principal Rubrics to a Case.
New Haven, A City of Great Schools MOVING FROM COMPLIANCE TO COHERENCE IN EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT: THE IMPACT OF THE E3 PROGRAM NEW HAVEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Update Kentucky Board of Education August 8,
Note: In 2009, this survey replaced the NCA/Baldrige Quality Standards Assessment that was administered from Also, 2010 was the first time.
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation
Principal Evaluation Update
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation
Administrator Evaluation Orientation
Presentation transcript:

Sub-heading ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Athletic Program Leader Proposed Adaptations

Common Titles for Athletic Program Leaders 1 Athletic Director Assistant Director of Athletics

Components Of Evaluation 2 ANNUAL SUMMATIVE RATING ANNUAL SUMMATIVE RATING OUTCOME RATING PRACTICE RATING Teacher Effectiveness Outcomes

Performance and Leadership Practice 3 GUIDELINES Leadership Practice comprises 40% of the summative rating Districts may generate ratings from evidence based on the CCL Leadership Standards Use of a rubric is not required for Athletic Program Administrators during Permissive Pilot

Performance and Practice: Weighting of Standards 4 The CCL includes six Performance Expectations (PEs). All six Performance Expectations receive equal weight for the component rating.

Focus Area Development 5 Proposed Adaptations Identify specific areas in which administrators want to improve Based on reflection on past performance and aligned with the CT Leadership Standards Includes action steps to move practice in support of the improvement of teaching and learning Support administrators in accomplishing their Student Learning Indicators and Stakeholder Feedback targets

Focus Area Example 6 P.E.3 (A) Welfare and Safety of Students, Faculty and Staff P.E.4 (A) Access Family and Community Resources In response to the need to implement the new state concussion guidelines, I will work with our district physician to develop a training program for school nurses, sport coaches, after-school activity sponsors, athletic trainers, and parents in the prevention and detection of head injuries.

Stakeholder Feedback 7 GUIDELINES Stakeholder Feedback comprises 10% of the Summative rating Feedback from relevant stakeholders May use surveys, interviews, focus groups, and other methods to gather stakeholder feedback Methods used to gather feedback must be valid and reliable Surveys must align with CT Leadership Standards Rating based on growth or status performance

Stakeholder Feedback Groups 8 Suggested Stakeholder Groups for Athletic Program Administrators –Student Athletes –Coaches

Sample Stakeholder Feedback Questions 9 Teachers/Coaches: 1.The Athletic Department fosters a culture of academic success. 2.The Athletic Department implements evaluation and goal improvement plans with staff. Parents: 1.The Athletic Department informs parents of eligibility requirements. 2.The Athletic Department plans for safety of athletes and athletic contests.

Recommendations for Student Learning Indicators 10 Guidelines Student Learning Outcomes comprises 45% of the summative rating (22.5%) shall be based on one locally determined Student Learning Indicator with a measurable target for a significant number of student-athletes (22.5%) shall be based on one locally-determined performance-based Student Learning Indicator with a measurable target

Sample Student Learning Indicators 11 Sample Indicators Indicator 1: 95% of athletic team members will remain academically eligible for the entire school year. Indicator 2: Involvement in athletic programs will increase from 50% of the total student body** to 60% of the total student body by spring season. **As determined by the October 1 enrollment

A Development Guide For Student Learning Indicators 12

Teacher Effectiveness Outcomes 13 GUIDELINES Teacher Effectiveness Outcomes comprises 5% of the summative rating Rating may include the attainment of student learning goals/objectives of physical education and/or health teachers if appropriate Proposed Adaptations Rating is based on the attainment of student learning goal/objectives of the athletic program coaches

Teacher Effectiveness Outcomes 14 ExemplaryProficientDevelopingBelow Standard >80% of athletic program teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the student learning objectives portion of their evaluation >60% of athletic program teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the student learning objectives portion of their evaluation >40% of athletic program teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the student learning objectives portion of their evaluation <40% of athletic program teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the student learning objectives portion of their evaluation In this example, if more than 60% of the athletic program teachers that the athletic program administrator evaluates are rated proficient or exemplary, then this administrator will have a rating of proficient for the teacher effectiveness outcomes component.

Final Note 15 Districts are encouraged to engage in a “Permissive Pilot” during the school year Districts will be required to include Athletic Program administrators in their evaluation and support plans for school year

16 Dr. Dianna Roberge-Wentzell Interim Commissioner, CT State Department of Education Dr. Everett Lyons CAS Associate Executive Director Shannon Marimón Division Director, CSDE Talent Office Dr. Sarah Barzee Chief Talent Officer Contact the CSDE Talent Office Hotline at: or Visit us online:

Non-Discrimination Statement 17 The Connecticut State Department of Education is committed to a policy of equal opportunity/ affirmative action for all qualified persons. The Department of Education does not discriminate in any employment practice, education program, or educational activity on the basis of race, color, religious creed, sex, age, national origin, ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability (including, but not limited to, mental retardation, past or present history of mental disability, physical disability or learning disability), genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by Connecticut state and/or federal nondiscrimination laws. The Department of Education does not unlawfully discriminate in employment and licensing against qualified persons with a prior criminal conviction. Inquiries regarding the Department of Education’s nondiscrimination policies should be directed to Levy Gillespie, Equal Employment Opportunity Director/American with Disabilities Act Coordinator, Title IX/ADA/Section 504 Coordinator, State of Connecticut Department of Education, 25 Industrial Park Road, Middletown, CT