Special Education Educator Evaluation and Professional Growth.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
USING THE FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE TEACHER EVALUATION Mary Weck, Ed. D Danielson Group Member.
Advertisements

Sue Sears Sally Spencer Nancy Burstein OSEP Directors’ Conference 2013
Competencies for beginning teachers
Lee County Human Resources Glenda Jones. School Speech-Language Pathologist Evaluation Process Intended Purpose of the Standards Guide professional development.
Annual Orientation. NC State Board Policy # TCP-004: “Within two weeks of a teacher’s first day of work in any school year, the principal will provide.
Gwinnett Teacher Effectiveness System Training
C OLLABORATIVE A SSESSMENT S YSTEM FOR T EACHERS CAST
1 Triangulated Standards-based Evaluation Framework Kathleen J. Skinner, Ed.D. Director, MTA Center for Education Policy & Practice Kansas Evaluation Committee.
Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems Alignment of State and Federal Requirements SB 290 ESEA Waiver Oregon Framework.
Thank you!. At the end of this session, participants will be able to:  Understand the big picture of our new evaluation system  Create evidence-based.
Overview of the New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework Opening Day Presentation August 26, 2013.
Alaska Educator Evaluation Overview Yukon Koyukuk School District.
 Reading School Committee January 23,
Intervention and Referral Services (I&RS)
August 2014 The Oregon Matrix Model was submitted to USED on May 1, 2014 and is pending approval* as of 8/8/14 *Please note content may change Oregon’s.
EDUCATOR EVALUATION August 25, 2014 Wilmington. OVERVIEW 5-Step Cycle.
Who’s on our Team? CLASS Phoenix Design Team Classroom educators, specialists, administrators, and classified from all grade levels Association groups.
Pause for Discussion Multiple pauses are included for discussion opportunities.
The Massachusetts Framework for Educator Evaluation: An Orientation for Teachers and Staff October 2014 (updated) Facilitator Note: This presentation was.
Virginia Teacher Performance Evaluation System
Evaluating Teacher Performance: Getting it Right CPRE Annual Conference November 21-23, 2002 Charlotte Danielson
1 SESSION 1 using The New Performance Standards and New VDOE Requirements
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
Teacher Evaluation Process Component 1: Training Before participating in the evaluation process, all teachers, principals and peer evaluators must complete.
Differentiated Supervision
Evaluation Toolkit. Strategies and Tools to Assist You.
Successful Practices Network Annual Professional Performance Review and CTE Carol Ann Zygo, Field Team Associate of Central And Northern.
ADEPT Framework
Teacher Keys Effectiveness System Forsyth County Schools Orientation May 2013 L.. Allison.
CLASS Keys Orientation Douglas County School System August /17/20151.
TCS Orientation. NC State Board Policy # TCP-004: “Within two weeks of a teacher’s first day of work in any school year, the principal will provide the.
An Effective Teacher Evaluation System – Our Journey to a Teaching Framework Corvallis School District.
Marco Ferro, Director of Public Policy Larry Nielsen, Field Consultant With Special Guest Stars: Tammy Pilcher, President Helena Education Association.
“We will lead the nation in improving student achievement.” CLASS Keys TM Module 7: Formal Observation Spring 2010 Teacher and Leader Quality Education.
BHS Administration “Back to Basics – This is Our time” Part I
OVERVIEW OF SB 290 SOESD’S IMPLEMENTATION STAFF EVALUATION: LICENSED ADMINSTRATOR WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU SOESD’s Teacher Evaluation & Support System.
The New Massachusetts Principal Evaluation
INCLUDED: Components for: Annual Contract (AC) Teachers Professional Service Contract (PSC) Teachers Professional Service Contract Teachers - with special.
NC Teacher Evaluation Process
Using Teacher Evaluation as a Tool for Professional Growth and School Improvement Redmond School District
Oregon City School District December GOAL: Implement a performance based evaluation system for all certified staff in fall 2011 Adopt standards.
EVALUATIONS Evaluations are regulated and required by KDE (KAR’s and KRS’s) All Certified staff are held accountable to job specific domains and standards.
Summary Rating Responses November 13, 2013 Adobe Connect Webinar Bill Bagshaw, Kayeri Akweks - KSDE.
Teacher Professional Growth & Effectiveness System Introduction to Peer Observations.
Ohio Department of Education March 2011 Ohio Educator Evaluation Systems.
Data Analysis Processes: Cause and Effect Linking Data Analysis Processes to Teacher Evaluation Name of School.
“We will lead the nation in improving student achievement.” CLASS Keys TM Module 4: Professional Growth Plan Spring 2010 Teacher and Leader Quality Education.
Tuning Indiana: Education. Originally focused on: Elementary education Math education Special education.
HARDING UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL TRANSFORMATION “RAM STYLE”
DANIELSON MODEL SAI 2016 Mentor Meeting. Danielson Model  Framework with rubrics  Define specific types of behaviors expected to be observed  A common.
An Overview of Revisions to the Rhode Island Model
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation and Observation Minnesota Teacher Evaluation Requirements Develop, improve and support qualified teachers and effective.
Focused Evaluation. Who?  Teachers who completed the Comprehensive cycle  Proficient or distinguished.
New Teacher Orientation 2009 Cheryl Dyer Assistant Superintendent Teacher Observation and Evaluation in BRRSD.
The North Carolina Teacher Evaluation Process November 1, 2012
Department of Specialized Instruction & Student Services Strategic Plan – Initiative 1.
Process for Evaluating Teachers. Principal’s Responsibility ManageKnowIdentifyEnsureSupervise.
Iredell-Statesville Schools Orientation to the North Carolina Teacher Evaluation Instrument & Process
Educator Supervision and Evaluation Clarke and Diamond MS September 2013.
DECEMBER 7, 2015 Educator Effectiveness: Charter School Webinar.
Oconee Keys Training September, Oconee Keys is designed to: Evaluate classroom teachers using qualitative rubrics to assess instructional practices.
MSBSD Educator Evaluation
SOESD’s Teacher Evaluation & Support System
Teacher Evaluation Process
Five Required Elements
State Board of Education Progress Update
Teacher Evaluation Process
Definitions of Levels of Performance
Competencies for beginning teachers
Presentation transcript:

Special Education Educator Evaluation and Professional Growth

Senate Bill 290  “The Road to Evaluation Begins With Collaboration”  b=

Framework for Professional Practice The domains, components, and levels of performance adopted by the Oregon City District  Define the expectations for performance for all educators.  Standards of professional practice and levels or performance are the key components of staff evaluation

Initial Supervision Cycle  One year cycle for probationary and temporary educators:  Self assessment  Written Professional Growth Plan:  At least two SMART goals based on assessed levels of performance on the components.  Mini-observations with feedback  Self Reflection  Summative Evaluation

Supported Supervision Cycle  One year cycle for educators with contract status but are not Proficient in all components and domains  Self assessment  Written PGP with one required SMART goal based on assessment level of performance on components and one SMART goal of choice  Mini-observations with feedback  Annual self reflection  Summative evaluation

Independent Supervision Cycle  Three year cycle for educators with contract status and are Proficient or Exemplary on all domains and components.  Self assessment  Written Professional Growth Plan with two  SMART goals of choice  Mini-observations with feedback  Self reflection  Summative Evaluation

Staff Evaluation  Complete with added domain for Learning Specialists and Speech Pathologists  Learning Specialists and Speech Pathologists work with school administrators  OSS Staff work with Special Services administrators

Domains 1. Planning and Preparation 2. Learning and Work Environment 3. Instruction or Delivery of Service 4. Professional Responsibility 1. Special Education Services

Exemplary  …demonstrate mastery and make contributions to the profession both in and outside their school.  They operate at a qualitatively different level, where educator and student become a community of learners,  with students highly motivated, engaged in learning, and assuming considerable responsibility for their own learning and a positive environment.

Proficient  Educator clearly understands the concepts underlying the components of the standards and implements them well.  Most experienced, capable educators will regard themselves, and be regarded by others, as performing at this level.

Basic  Educator appears to understand the concepts underlying the standards  Attempts to implement the elements.  Implementation is sporadic, intermittent, or otherwise not entirely successful.  The educator’s performance is inconsistent and improvement is likely to come with experience  Little or no actual harm is done to students.

Does Not Meet Standards  The educator does not demonstrate an understanding of the concepts underlying the standards.  Working on fundamental practices associated with the elements of the standards will enable the educator to grow and develop in this area.

Mini Observations  Unannounced observations of an educator's performance by an administrator  Does not require a pre-conference  Approximately minutes  Followed with timely feedback.  May be discussion, written or a post-observation conference.

5 th Domain  5a Licensure  5b Knowledge and Compliance  5c Written Consent  5d Team Meetings  5e Responding to iTeam Referrals  5f Written Reports  5g IEP Writing  5h Integrating IEP Goals  5i Assistive Technology  5j Consultation  5k Resources for Teachers

5g IEP Writing  Exemplary  Proficient  Basic  Does not meet Standards

Exemplary  IEP’s are thorough yet concise, well written and include appropriate and meaningful recommendations that uniquely address student needs.

Proficient  IEP’s are thorough and well written.  They include appropriate recommendations.

Basic  IEP’s are not always thorough, may be poorly written or unnecessarily long.  Recommendations are somewhat appropriate.

Does Not Meet Standards  IEP’s are not thorough or poorly written.  They may not include recommendations or recommendations are inappropriate.