EDUCATOR EVALUATION New Regulation adopted on June 28, 2011.

Slides:



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

A Guide to Implementation
1 Triangulated Standards-based Evaluation Framework Kathleen J. Skinner, Ed.D. Director, MTA Center for Education Policy & Practice Kansas Evaluation Committee.
Getting Organized for the Transition to the Common Core What You Need to Know.
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.
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 Framework for Educator Evaluation: An Orientation for Teachers and Staff October 2014 (updated) Facilitator Note: This presentation was.
Observation Process and Teacher Feedback
SMART Goals.
 Teacher and administrator evaluations are governed by Florida Statute and State Board Rule 6A  The Florida Department of Education and.
performance INDICATORs performance APPRAISAL RUBRIC
Module 1: PERA Illinois Administrative Code Part 50
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.
M EASURING T EACHER E FFECTIVENESS (MTE). H OW DID WE GET HERE ? Video from the Arizona School Administrators PUSD Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Committee.
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,
Meeting SB 290 District Evaluation Requirements
NEW TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS CONNECTING TEACHER PERFORMANCE to ACADEMIC PROGRESS.
1-Hour Overview: The Massachusetts Framework for Educator Evaluation September
1 Orientation to Teacher Evaluation /15/2015.
Leading Change Through Differentiated PD Approaches and Structures University-District partnerships for Strengthening Instructional Leadership In Mathematics.
New Teacher Introduction to Evaluation 08/28/2012.
An Effective Teacher Evaluation System – Our Journey to a Teaching Framework Corvallis School District.
 Reading Public Schools Staff Presentations March 30, 2012.
Educator Evaluation Spring Convening Connecting Policy, Practice and Practitioners May 28-29, 2014 Marlborough, Massachusetts.
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.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
The New Massachusetts Principal Evaluation
EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS FACILITATORS SESSION #2 JANUARY 2013 Unpacking Well-Structured Lessons.
Intro to TPEP. A new evaluation system should be a model for professional growth, supporting collaboration between teachers and principals in pursuit.
Teacher Quality Standards Beginning of The Year Self-Assessment.
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION1. 2 When teachers succeed, students succeed. Research has proven that no school-level factor matters more to.
Educator Evaluation Information Edward Everett School Laura Miceli, Principal September 24, 2014.
Educator Evaluation Regulations, Mandatory Elements & Next Steps Prepared by the MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice January 2012.
Expeditionary Learning Queens Middle School Meeting May 29,2013 Presenters: Maryanne Campagna & Antoinette DiPietro 1.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update 11/29/12.
March Madness Professional Development Goals/Data Workshop.
TPEP Teacher & Principal Evaluation System Prepared from resources from WEA & AWSP & ESD 112.
What you need to know about changes in state requirements for Teval plans.
Monomoy Educator Evaluation System Training
 Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence National Institute April 12 and 13, 2012.
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.
DANIELSON MODEL SAI 2016 Mentor Meeting. Danielson Model  Framework with rubrics  Define specific types of behaviors expected to be observed  A common.
Type Date Here Type Presenter Name/Contact Here Professional Growth Through Self-Assessment and Goal Writing September 2012.
Superintendent Formative Evaluation April 26, 2015.
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.
FLORIDA EDUCATORS ACCOMPLISHED PRACTICES Newly revised.
Instructional Leadership and Application of the Standards Aligned System Act 45 Program Requirements and ITQ Content Review October 14, 2010.
School Leadership Evaluation System Orientation SY12-13 Evaluation Systems Office, HR Dr. Michael Shanahan, CHRO.
DESE Educator Evaluation System for Superintendents
Objectives for today If we have done our job today, you will:
State Board of Education Progress Update
Administrator Evaluation Orientation
Leveraging Performance Management to Support School Priorities
Colorado Department of Education
Welcoming a New Integrated Professional Learning System
Welcoming a New Integrated Professional Learning System
Presentation transcript:

EDUCATOR EVALUATION New Regulation adopted on June 28, 2011

N EW E VALUATION S YSTEM FOR T EACHERS In August, 2010, a task force was convened with the goal of recommending a new model to evaluate Massachusetts teachers and administrators. Task force members included NEA, MTA, Teachers, Administrators, Superintendents, and other professionals. The task force consisted of 40 members, and they delivered a recommendation in March, The Board of Education met over the next several months, held a public hearing and voted on new educator regulations.

W HAT D OES T HIS M EAN FOR Y OU ? All teacher evaluations in Massachusetts must be revised to meet new regulations. Administration and teacher associations must collaboratively develop teacher evaluation changes. Our choices are: 1. Adapt model DESE plan 2. Adopt model DESE plan 3. Revise current teacher evaluation pursuant to regulations.

5 Step Evaluation Cycle Continuous Learning

All Phase I evaluations are based on a 5-step cycle 1.Self-Assessment - Educators reflect on and assess their professional practice. 2.Analysis, Goal Setting, and Plan Development - Educators meet with their evaluators to review self-assessments, develop goals and a plan. 3.Implementation of the Plan - Educators implement the action steps outlined in their plan and engage in professional development and support needed to be successful. 4.Formative Assessment/Evaluation - Evaluator and educator review educator’s progress toward goals by observations (at least one unannounced). Evaluator issues formative performance ratings. 5.Summative Evaluation - Evaluator assesses the educator’s performance against the standards and progress on professional practice goals. Evaluator determines overall summative ratings using the performance ratings.

P ERFORMANCES S TANDARDS OLD Principles of Effective TeachingNEW Principles of Effective Teaching Currency in the Curriculum Effective Planning & Assessment of Curriculum & Instruction Effective Management of Classroom Environment Effective Instruction. Promotion of High Standards & Expectations for Students Achievement. Promotion of Equity & Appreciation of Diversity Fulfillment of Professional Responsibilities Curriculum, Planning & Assessment Teaching All Students Family & Community Engagement Professional Culture

PERFORMANCE RATINGS Exemplary: shall mean that the educator’s performance consistently & significantly exceeds the requirements of a standard or overall. Proficient: shall mean that the educator’s performance fully & consistently meets the requirements of a standard or overall. Needs Improvement: shall mean that the educator’s performance on a standard or overall is below the requirements of a standard or overall, but is not considered to be unsatisfactory at this time. Improvement is necessary & expected. Unsatisfactory: shall mean that the educator’s performance on a standard or overall has not significantly improved following a rating of needs improvement, or the educator’s performance is consistently below the requirements of a standard or overall and is considered inadequate or both.

Rubrics For Each Standard Have Been Created I-A. Elements UnsatisfactoryNeeds Improvement Proficient Exemplary I-A-1. Subject Matter Knowledge Demonstrates limited knowledge of the subject matter and/or its pedagogy; relies heavily on textbooks or resources for development of the factual content. Rarely engages students in learning experiences focused on complex knowledge or skills in the subject. Demonstrates factual knowledge of subject matter and the pedagogy it requires by sometimes engaging students in learning experiences around complex knowledge and skills in the subject. 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. Demonstrates expertise in subject matter and the pedagogy it requires by engaging all students in learning experiences that enable them to synthesize complex knowledge and skills in the subject. Is able to model this element. 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.

A Plan For Everyone…  All educators in their first three years: Development Plan (one year)  Performance rated as proficient or exemplary: Self-directed Growth Plan (one or two years)  Performance rated as in need of improvement: Directed Growth Plan (up to one year)  Performance rated as unsatisfactory: Improvement Plan (up to one year)

Where Are We Now? Where Are We Now? The evaluation committee has been formed. The members are: AdministrationTeachers 1.Sheila Muir – Assistant Superintendent 2.Cindy Fensin – Human Resources Manager 3.Sue Musnicki – Principal 4.Trisha Worthington – Principal 5.Jason Gilmartin – Assistant Principal 1.Chris Carlson – ElementaryTeacher 2.Dot Verheyen-Cudjoe – Social Studies Teacher 3.Matt Shorten – Special Needs Teacher 4.Anne Skrzypczak – Speech & Language Pathologist 5.Danielle Stankaitis – Math Teacher

And… The committee is receiving professional development through: a)DESE b)Consult with MTA c)Gathering information through other districts & professionals. The committee is meeting once a month and our first meeting was held on Wednesday, January 25, 2012.

Where Are We Going? PHASE I Fully developed by DESE and piloted in various districts, which is the new performance standards, ratings and rubrics. Must be in place by September PHASE II Use of student achievement data (2 year trends only). Guidelines and expectations are under development. PHASE III Use of student feedback. (Feasibility of parent feedback still being studied by DESE).

What do we do next? Teacher survey MTA presentation planned in the near future Monthly meeting of the evaluation committee Regular updates for the faculty

How do I learn more? Visit the DESE educator evaluation website:

And Finally… The sentiment of the committee is to: Carefully examine what we currently have. Keep as much as possible that is working. Change what is not working. Meet mandated regulations.