 Reading Public Schools Staff Presentations March 30, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Overview of the New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework October 2011.
Advertisements

Performance Evaluation
California Standards for the Teaching Profession
1 Triangulated Standards-based Evaluation Framework Kathleen J. Skinner, Ed.D. Director, MTA Center for Education Policy & Practice Kansas Evaluation Committee.
April 6, 2011 DRAFT Educator Evaluation Project. Teacher Education and Licensure DRAFT The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be… TO IMPROVE.
Gathering Evidence Educator Evaluation. Intended Outcomes At the end of this session, participants will be able to: Explain the three types of evidence.
The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation Implementation Guide for Teacher Evaluation
Overview of the New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework Opening Day Presentation August 26, 2013.
“SMARTer” Goals Winter A ESE-MASS Workshop for superintendents and representatives from their leadership teams.
 NEC and SEEM Workshop May 4,  9:00 AM - 10:00 AM: An overview of the process for Board members and union representatives  10:15 AM - 12:00 noon:
The New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Natick Public Schools.
The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation Unpacking the Rubrics and Gathering Evidence September 2012 Melrose Public Schools 1.
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES TO EDUCATORS’ EVALUATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH Compiled by the MOU Evaluation Subcommittee September, 2011 The DESE oversees the educators’
 Reading School Committee January 23,
Educator Evaluation Regulations, Mandatory Elements & Implementation MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice August 2014.
Educator Evaluation System Salem Public Schools. All DESE Evaluation Information and Forms are on the SPS Webpage Forms may be downloaded Hard copies.
EDUCATOR EVALUATION August 25, 2014 Wilmington. OVERVIEW 5-Step Cycle.
The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation Training Module 5: Gathering Evidence August
The Massachusetts Framework for Educator Evaluation: An Orientation for Teachers and Staff October 2014 (updated) Facilitator Note: This presentation was.
SMART Goals.
Differentiated Supervision
The New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation System Natick Public Schools.
Educator Evaluation: The Model Process for Principal Evaluation July 26, 2012 Massachusetts Secondary School Administrators’ Association Summer Institute.
 Peabody Public Schools June 21,  Wiki with Resources o
NAPS Educator Evaluation Spring 2014 Update. Agenda Evaluation Cycle Review Goal Expectations and Rubric Review SUMMATIVE Evaluation Requirements FORMATIVE.
Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,
1-Hour Overview: The Massachusetts Framework for Educator Evaluation September
Leveraging Educator Evaluation to Support Improvement Planning Reading Public Schools Craig Martin
Educator Evaluation System
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education July, 2011
CLASS Keys Orientation Douglas County School System August /17/20151.
New Teacher Introduction to Evaluation 08/28/2012.
Introduction: District-Determined Measures and Assessment Literacy Webinar Series Part 1.
Evaluation Team Progress Collaboration Grant 252.
EDUCATOR EVALUATION New Regulation adopted on June 28, 2011.
Word Generation and Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation August 5, 2013 Presenter: Sophia Boyer Documents 1 and 2 adopted from Catherine.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Making Evaluation Work at Your School Leadership Institute 2012.
The New Massachusetts Principal Evaluation
Using Teacher Evaluation as a Tool for Professional Growth and School Improvement Redmond School District
DVC Essay #2. The Essay  Read the following six California Standards for Teachers.  Discuss each standard and the elements that follow them  Choose.
Educator Evaluation Regulations, Mandatory Elements & Next Steps Prepared by the MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice January 2012.
Educator Evaluation 101: A Special Overview Session for Educator Preparation Programs May 2013.
March Madness Professional Development Goals/Data Workshop.
TPEP Teacher & Principal Evaluation System Prepared from resources from WEA & AWSP & ESD 112.
 Development of a model evaluation instrument based on professional performance standards (Danielson Framework for Teaching)  Develop multiple measures.
PGES: The Final 10% i21: Navigating the 21 st Century Highway to Top Ten.
The District Management Council 70 Franklin Street Boston MA, Tel: 877.DMC Springfield Public Schools Springfield Effective.
Monomoy Educator Evaluation System Training
BISD Update Teacher & Principal Evaluation Update Board of Directors October 27,
 Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence National Institute April 12 and 13, 2012.
 Andover Public Schools September 27,  Wiki with Resources o
Candidate Assessment of Performance CAP The Evidence Binder.
Candidate Assessment of Performance CAP The Evidence Binder.
 Teachers 21 June 8,  Wiki with Resources o
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EVALUATORS DAY 1: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2012 Leveraging Performance Management to Support School Priorities.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Supporting Effective Teaching: An Introduction to Educator Performance Evaluation Introduction to Educator.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Supporting Effective Teaching: An Introduction to Educator Performance Evaluation.
July 11, 2013 DDM Technical Assistance and Networking Session.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Professional Growth Through Self-Assessment and Goal Writing September 2012.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EVALUATORS Monday, Oct 7 Leveraging Evaluation to Support School Priorities & Increase Effectiveness.
East Longmeadow Public Schools SMART Goals Presented by ELPS Leadership Team.
Springfield Public Schools SEEDS: Collecting Evidence for Educators Winter 2013.
Springfield Public Schools SEEDS: Unpacking the Rubric for Educators Winter 2012.
Springfield Public Schools Springfield Effective Educator Development System Overview for Educators.
Education.state.mn.us Principal Evaluation Components in Legislation Work Plan for Meeting Rose Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education.
Connecting the Model Curriculum Project to Educator Evaluation
DESE Educator Evaluation System for Superintendents
Objectives for today If we have done our job today, you will:
Discussion and Vote to Amend the Regulations
Leveraging Performance Management to Support School Priorities
Presentation transcript:

 Reading Public Schools Staff Presentations March 30, 2012

 Discussion of New Teacher Evaluation Regulations  Comparison to Our TAP o What is the same o What is new  How does this effect me as a teacher?  Next steps in the process  Questions

3

 New DESE Regulations approved on June 28, 2011  Collaboratively Designed by o Massachusetts Teachers Association o Massachusetts Association of Secondary School Principals o Massachusetts Elementary School Principals Association o Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents o Department of Elementary and Secondary Education  Requires evaluation of all educators on a license  Designed to promote leaders and teachers growth and development

 Our current system is comparable to new DESE model  Allowed us to give significant input into the process  Developed a network with other school districts  Attended professional development opportunities  Piloted o Educator Plan with SMART Goals o Superintendent’s Evaluation Process o Principal Evaluation Process

 Representation from every school  Compared current rubric with model rubric system  Reviewed model contract language  Will be involved in development of forms for September, 2012

 Focuses on Educator Growth and not “Gotcha”  Five Step Evaluation Cycle o Self-Assessment o Analysis, Goal Setting, Educator Plan Development o Implementation of Plan o Formative Assessment (Midyear or Mid-cycle) o Summative Evaluation (End of Year/Cycle Evaluation)  Rubric for Evaluation  Use of Artifacts for Evidence o Lesson Plans, Professional Development Activities, Fliers o Walkthroughs  Differentiated Approach o New Teachers o Non-PTS Teachers o PTS Teachers o PTS Teachers who need additional support  Use of SMART Goals

 Levels of Performance on Rubric o Exemplary (Exceeding the Standard) o Proficient (Meeting the Standard) o Needs Improvement (Progressing Toward the Standard) o Unsatisfactory (Does not meet standard)  Specificity of Rubric o Standards o Indicators o Elements  Four Standards instead of Six  Multiple Measures of Student Performance ( School Year)  Use of student surveys ( School Year)

9 5 Step Evaluation Cycle Continuous Learning  Every educator is an active participant in an evaluation  Process promotes collaboration and continuous learning  Foundation for the Model Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

10 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Pages 4-5 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Pages 4-5 Rubric is used to assess performance and/or progress toward goals Rubric is used to analyze performance and determine ratings on each Standard and Overall Every educator uses a rubric to self-assess against Performance Standards Professional Practice goals – team and/or individual must be tied to one or more Performance Standards Evidence is collected for Standards and Indicators; rubric should be used to provide feedback

 The Developing Educator Plan (Non-PTS Teachers and teachers new to a position) is developed by the educator and the evaluator and is for one school year or less.  The Self-Directed Growth Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated Proficient or Exemplary and is developed by the educator. When the Rating of Impact on Student Learning is implemented (beginning in ), educators with a Moderate or High Rating of Impact will be on a two-year plan; educators with a Low Rating will be on a one-year plan.  The Directed Growth Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated Needs Improvement and is a plan of one school year or less developed by the educator and the evaluator.  The Improvement Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated Unsatisfactory and is a plan of no less than 30 calendar days and no longer than one school year, developed by the evaluator.

 Standards (4)-Required in Regulations o Instructional Leadership (5 Indicators) o Management and Operations (5 Indicators) o Family and Community Engagement (4 Indicators) o Professional Culture (6 Indicators)  Indicators (20)-Required in Regulations  Elements (32)-May be modified, but most keep rigor  Rubrics o A tool for making explicit and specific the behaviors and actions present at each level of performance.

13 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 6 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 6

14  Example: Teacher Rubric o Standard I “Standard I. Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment” o Indicator B “Indicator I-B. Assessment” o Elements 1 & 2 I-B-1: Variety of Assessment Methods I-B-2: Adjustments to Practice Part III: Guide to Rubrics Appendix C, pages 2-4 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Appendix C, pages 2-4 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

15 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 6 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 6

16 “The educator’s performance significantly exceeds Proficient and could serve as a model for leaders districtwide or even statewide. Few educators—principals and superintendents included—are expected to demonstrate Exemplary performance on more than a small number of Indicators or Standards.” Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 14 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 14

17 “Proficient is the expected, rigorous level of performance for educators. It is the demanding but attainable level of performance for most educators.” Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 9 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 9

 Educators whose performance on a Standard is rated as Needs Improvement may demonstrate inconsistencies in practice or weaknesses in a few key areas. They may not yet fully integrate and/or apply their knowledge and skills in an effective way. They may be new to the field or to this assignment and are developing their craft.

 Educators whose performance on a Standard is rated as Unsatisfactory are significantly underperforming as compared to the expectations. Unsatisfactory performance requires urgent attention.

Standard I: Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment Standard II: Teaching All Students Standard III: Family and Community Engagement Standard IV: Professional Culture A. Curriculum and Planning Indicator 1. Subject Matter Knowledge 2. Child and Adolescent Development 3. Rigorous Standards-Based Unit Design 4. Well-Structured Lessons A. Instruction Indicator 1. Quality of Effort and Work 2. Student Engagement 3. Meeting Diverse Needs A. Engagement Indicator 1. Parent/Family Engagement A. Reflection Indicator 1. Reflective Practice 2. Goal Setting B. Assessment Indicator 1. Variety of Assessment Methods 2. Adjustments to Practice B. Learning Environment Indicator 1. Safe Learning Environment 2. Collaborative Learning Environment 3. Student Motivation B. Collaboration Indicator 1. Learning Expectations 2. Curriculum Support B. Professional Growth Indicator 1. Professional Learning and Growth C. Analysis Indicator 1. Analysis and Conclusions 2. Sharing Conclusions With Colleagues 3. Sharing Conclusions With Students C. Cultural Proficiency Indicator 1. Respects Differences 2. Maintains Respectful Environment C. Communication Indicator 1. Two-Way Communication 2. Culturally Proficient Communication C. Collaboration Indicator 1. Professional Collaboration D. Expectations Indicator 1. Clear Expectations 2. High Expectations 3. Access to Knowledge D. Decision-Making Indicator 1. Decision-making E. Shared Responsibility Indicator 1. Shared Responsibility F. Professional Responsibilities Indicator 1. Judgment 2. Reliability and Responsibility

 Standard I: Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment. The teacher promotes the learning and growth of all students by providing high-quality and coherent instruction, designing and administering authentic and meaningful student assessments, analyzing student performance and growth data, using this data to improve instruction, providing students with constructive feedback on an ongoing basis, and continuously refining learning objectives.

 Indicator I-A.Curriculum and Planning: Knows the subject matter well, has a good grasp of child development and how students learn, and designs effective and rigorous standards- based units of instruction consisting of well-structured lessons with measurable outcomes.

 Element A-1. Subject Matter Knowledge o Proficient-Demonstrates sound knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and the pedagogy it requires by consistently engaging students in learning experiences that enable them to acquire complex knowledge and skills in the subject.

Educators earn two separate ratings 24 Summative Rating Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF- DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN 2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Proficient Needs Improvement DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Unsatisfactory IMPROVEMENT PLAN LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning (multiple measures of performance, including MCAS Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Summative Rating Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF- DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN 2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Proficient Needs Improvement DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Unsatisfactory IMPROVEMENT PLAN LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning (multiple measures of performance, including MCAS Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available)

Educators earn two separate ratings 25 Summative Rating Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF- DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN 2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Proficient Needs Improvement DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Unsatisfactory IMPROVEMENT PLAN LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning (multiple measures of performance, including MCAS Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Summative Rating Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF- DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN 2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Proficient Needs Improvement DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Unsatisfactory IMPROVEMENT PLAN LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning (multiple measures of performance, including MCAS Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available)

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 26 Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative performance rating

 Phase 1-Summative ratings based on attainment of goals and performance against the four Standards defined in the educator evaluation requirements (September, 2012)  Phase 2-Rating of educator impact on student learning gains based on trends and patterns of multiple measures of student learning gains (September, 2013)  Phase 3-Using feedback from students (for teachers) and teachers (for administrators)-(September, 2014)

 Collective Bargaining Process for Areas Not in Regulations  Meeting with individual schools to discuss process further  Training for Primary and Secondary Supervisors on Process and Calibration of Rubric  TAP Committee Summer Work o New Forms o Planning professional development opportunities  September Inservice o SMART Goal Development

29 or “ The ” organizing initiative? Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

 Adopting the new MA Curriculum Frameworks  21 st Century/Global Skills  Anti-Bullying  Professional learning communities  Examining student work  Data Teams  Project Based Learning  Common course/grade level assessments  Elementary Report Cards  Social Emotional Health  BYOD 30Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education