Teacher Evaluation Model

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Performance Assessment
Advertisements

School Based Assessment and Reporting Unit Curriculum Directorate
Goals-Based Evaluation (GBE)
Educational Specialists Performance Evaluation System
PD Plan Agenda August 26, 2008 PBTE Indicators Track
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.
Utah Effective Teaching Standards-based Jordan Performance Appraisal System Orientation (UETS-based JPAS)
New Mexico Public School Department Guidelines for Annual Teacher Performance Evaluation School Year PDP Revision Committee: Dr. Janaan Diemer,
Understanding the IEP Process
1.  Why and How Did We Get Here? o A New Instructional Model And Evaluation System o Timelines And Milestones o Our Work (Admin and Faculty, DET, DEAC,
August 15, 2012 Fontana Unified School District Superintendent, Cali Olsen-Binks Associate Superintendent, Oscar Dueñas Director, Human Resources, Mark.
Professional Development and Appraisal System
Professional Development and Appraisal System
Stronge Leader Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
What should be the basis of
performance INDICATORs performance APPRAISAL RUBRIC
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
Differentiated Supervision
Mathematics Assessment Standards The Mathematics Standard-Assessment should reflect the mathematics that all students need to know and be able to do. The.
M EASURING T EACHER E FFECTIVENESS (MTE). H OW DID WE GET HERE ? Video from the Arizona School Administrators PUSD Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Committee.
Tennessee Department of Education Compliance Training February 2012 Department of Exceptional Children.
Teacher Certification Next Steps……. How certification works within your current practice Student Growth Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning.
Governor’s Office of Early Childhood Teacher-Child Interactions in Early Childhood Settings CLASS is in session:
Aligning Academic Review and Performance Evaluation (AARPE)
ADEPT Framework
Iowa’s Teacher Quality Program. Intent of the General Assembly To create a student achievement and teacher quality program that acknowledges that outstanding.
Alabama Professional Education Personnel Evaluation Program Teacher
1 Orientation to Teacher Evaluation /15/2015.
Teacher Keys Effectiveness System Forsyth County Schools Orientation May 2013 L.. Allison.
GTEP Resource Manual Training 2 The Education Trust Study (1998) Katie Haycock “However important demographic variables may appear in their association.
For Staff Who Are NOT Administrators & For Whom TPGES/OPGES Does NOT Apply Certified Evaluation Orientation For Staff Who Are NOT Administrators & For.
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
C.O.R.E Creating Opportunities that Result in Excellence.
Classroom Assessment A Practical Guide for Educators by Craig A. Mertler Chapter 7 Portfolio Assessments.
ADEPT 1 SAFE-T Judgments. SAFE-T 2 What are the stages of SAFE-T? Stage I: Preparation  Stage I: Preparation  Stage II: Collection.
The Jordan Performance Appraisal System (JPAS) is designed to help educators in their continuing efforts to provide high quality instruction to all students.
Resident Educator 16 “What do I need to know and do?”
THE DANIELSON FRAMEWORK. LEARNING TARGET I will be be able to identify to others the value of the classroom teacher, the Domains of the Danielson framework.
PERSONNEL EVALUATION SYSTEMS How We Help Our Staff Become More Effective Margie Simineo – June, 2010.
NC Teacher Evaluation Process
Teacher Performance Evaluation System Data Sources.
“A Truthful Evaluation Of Yourself Gives Feedback For Growth and Success” Brenda Johnson Padgett Brenda Johnson Padgett.
TPEP Teacher & Principal Evaluation System Prepared from resources from WEA & AWSP & ESD 112.
TEAM Coordinating Committee Training (TCC).  Introductions  Mission of the TEAM Program  Design of the TEAM Program  Overview of the Module Process.
Summary Rating Responses November 13, 2013 Adobe Connect Webinar Bill Bagshaw, Kayeri Akweks - KSDE.
BY COURTNEY N. SPEER TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL SPRING Professional Growth & Self- Reflection.
BEGINNING EDUCATOR INDUCTION PROGRAM MEETING CCSD Professional Development Mrs. Jackie Miller Dr. Shannon Carroll August 6, 2014.
Writing Policy for SBDM Councils. Goals of this Session provide an overview of Senate Bill 1 requirements related to writing provide guidance in reviewing.
Aligning Academic Review and Performance Evaluation AARPE Session 5 Virginia Department of Education Office of School Improvement.
Certified Evaluation Orientation August 19, 2011.
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Teacher Appraisal and Development System Update Training HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.
HARDING UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL TRANSFORMATION “RAM STYLE”
Educator Effectiveness Process Introduction to the Grant and Guide to the Unit Meeting.
An Overview of Revisions to the Rhode Island Model
UPDATE ON EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS IN MICHIGAN Directors and Representatives of Teacher Education Programs April 22, 2016.
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation and Observation Minnesota Teacher Evaluation Requirements Develop, improve and support qualified teachers and effective.
Supplemental Text Project Kenn Ward EDL 678 Dr. Pfennig June 2013.
New Teacher Orientation 2009 Cheryl Dyer Assistant Superintendent Teacher Observation and Evaluation in BRRSD.
The North Carolina Teacher Evaluation Process November 1, 2012
Specific Learning Disability: Accurate, Defensible, & Compliant Identification Mississippi Department of Education.
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Appraisal Training for Central Office and Campus-Based Non-Teacher Employees September 2013 HOUSTON INDEPENDENT.
Summative Evaluation Shasta Davis. Dimension: Preparation (Score- 4) Plans for instructional strategies that encourage the development of critical thinking,
Educator Recruitment and Development Office of Professional Development The NC Teacher Evaluation Process 1.
District Mentoring Plan
Rockingham County Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Process
FEAPs (Florida Educator Accomplished Practices)
Overview of Implementation and Local Decisions
Introduction to Core Professionalism
Aligning Academic Review and Performance Evaluation (AARPE)
Presentation transcript:

Teacher Evaluation Model An Orientation to the Jordan Performance Appraisal System JPAS

JPAS JPAS was developed by the Jordan School District, the Jordan Education Association, and the Utah State Department of Education. JPAS is based on Effective Schools Research. Jordan School district continually checks the research to ensure that the indicators are still validated by research.

JPAS The focus is on the improvement of high quality instruction and improved student achievement. It is expected that educators will use the Idaho Core Teacher Standards to improve practice

JPAS is: A valid and reliable measure of teacher effectiveness (competency). Designed to promote professional growth of teachers. A tool that identifies behaviors contributing to student growth.

A tool designed to handle cause issues. JPAS is not: A tool designed to handle cause issues. Cause issues are typically violations of the Code of Ethics.

JPAS Strengths: Reasonably objective Provides goals Provides structure for promoting effective teaching Brings principals and teachers together to discuss effective teaching

The Purposes of the JPAS: Ensure the valid and reliable monitoring of teacher performance. Facilitate reflection and professional development. Address the needs of educators whose performance is inadequate or in need of improvement.

JPAS Timeline Orientation – Educators overview of the evaluation process Pre-Observation Notification – Administrators will notify educators of evaluation at least 15 working days prior to their first observation First Unscheduled Observation – Data collected and recorded for Domains I - III

JPAS Timeline Second Unscheduled Observation – Data collected and recorded for Domains I-III (First & Second Observations to be completed within 15 working days, but not on the same day) Interview – Data recorded for Domains IV – V (within five (5) working days of the second observation) Note: Teachers will no longer have 24 hours after the interview to provide data

JPAS Timeline Data on Domains I – V is scored and a JPAS Feedback Report is produced Professional Development Meeting – Feedback report interpreted and discussed within 15 working days of receiving the report Professional Growth Plan – Goals and the plan for achieving them are developed If Total Score is in the minimally effective, effective, or highly effective range, the evaluation is complete

The JPAS and You This Is Your Orientation and Notification of Evaluation this School Year JPAS will be the summative evaluation tool used to measure educator professional performance.

The JPAS and You You will have an opportunity to discuss the results of your evaluation (JPAS Feedback Report) within 15 work days of the completion of the evaluation process. A copy of the evaluation shall be filed in your personnel file. A copy of the evaluation will also be given to you. You will be allowed to make a written response to all or any part of the evaluation and have that response attached to the evaluation. You will have 15 work days after receiving the evaluation results to request a review of the evaluation.

The Four Components: Observations Interviews Feedback Reports Professional Development Materials

The First Component Observations Built around 49 indicators covering a wide variety of skills and techniques.

The First Component Observations Indicators grouped into 3 domains: Managing the classroom Delivering instruction Interacting with students

The First Component Observations Two unscheduled classroom observations At least 30 minutes of observable time. Teachers may request that an evaluator come back at another time to complete an observation once during an evaluation cycle.

The Second Component Interviews The purpose of the interview is to evaluate teaching skills not easily observed during a classroom observation. Interview covers 15 indicators. Decision rules can be found on pages 50-64 of the Domains document.

Domains IV & V The Interview portion of the JPAS has been updated. There are no longer “yes” and “no” responses Three indicators have been added Educators will be evaluated as Not effective Minimally Effective Effective Highly Effective

The Second Component Interviews Domain IV - Planning Rules and Consequences Learning Goals Student Assessments Acknowledging Learning Efforts Etc. Domain V - Professional Growth and Responsibilities Reflection and Continuous Growth Communication Collaboration Administrative Requests Compliance

The Second Component Interviews The evaluator and teacher discuss indicators. Teacher presents work samples to support the educator’s effectiveness on each indicator. JPAS Evaluation Folder will be used as Educator’s Portfolio as required by IDAPA 08.02.02.120 The work samples are specific. They are things teachers have and use regularly like a roll book, grades, plan book. This is NOT a portfolio or a scrapbooking contest!

The Third Component Feedback Report Reports the results of two observations and one interview Reports are individualized Feedback is domain specific Report is linked to professional development materials

Scores will be reported on the Feedback Report as occurring in one of four ranges: INEFFECTIVE: Indicates a performance which has not met the standard for successful teaching in the Bonneville School District. MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE: indicates a performance which has met the standard and identifies strengths and weaknesses to be considered in developing plans to improve performance. EFFECTIVE: indicates a performance which has met the standard and identifies strengths and weaknesses to be considered in developing plans to enhance performance. HIGHLY EFFECTIVE: indicates a performance which has met the standard and identifies areas in which you excelled.

JPAS Feedback Forms

The Fourth Component Professional Development Materials Contain activities educators can use to improve teaching skills Organized by domains, subcategories, and indicators Reference activities, books, videos, and inservice classes

You will get help JPAS Concerns What happens if your total score from an evaluation is in the INEFFECTIVE Range? You will get help

The Fourth Component Professional Development Materials Resources available for teachers with total scores in the “INEFFECTIVE” include: Professional development materials Assistance from a consulting educator Assistance from the principal Assistance from a school mentor

Professional Development Classes Available Assist teachers in better understanding the JPAS process. Help teachers integrate effective teaching practices. Have proven to be effective in helping teachers be more successful.

Certification of Evaluators Initial Certification Requires: Passing a written test on the content of the Domains Document.

Certification of Evaluators Participates in training by professional JPAS Instructors. Meets the criteria for accuracy in recording observations. Meets the criteria for accuracy in recording data for an interview. Completes four practice observations. Each evaluator must attend a recertification training once every three years.

Monitoring the System The JPAS monitoring system includes: An annual review of all evaluations completed by random sampling of administrators in the district. An annual review of the performance of educators to identify potential changes needed in the norms of the instrument.

Monitoring the System Continuous review of best practices on classroom teaching techniques. An inter-rater reliability check will be completed on each administrator. This means some educators will have an independent evaluator complete two observations in their classroom. The results of these observations will not be reported to the teacher.

JPAS The JPAS system continues to function extremely well in providing timely feedback to teachers and administrators on important dimensions of instruction. The mean on the evaluations have remained remarkably stable over the last ten years, demonstrating the effectiveness of efforts aimed at maintaining the JPAS reliability.

Idaho Education Evaluation Code This law requires educators be evaluated annually. Idaho Code 33-514 (4) Educators’ Evaluation will include Student Achievement. IDAPA 08.02.02.120

JPAS The Jordan Performance Appraisal System used by the District is more than evaluation procedures:

JPAS The feedback you receive will recognize you for effective skills and offer professional development/reflection in order to provide high quality instruction to all students.