Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers Virginia Department of Education Approved April 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Goals-Based Evaluation (GBE)
Advertisements

Connecting Teacher Evaluation to Student Academic Progress Implementing Standard 7 0 August 2012.
How Do We Know We Are Making Progress? Virginia Department of Education Office of School Improvement
Gwinnett Teacher Effectiveness System Training
Sub-heading ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Leader Proposed Adaptations.
Virginia Teacher Performance Evaluation System 0 August 2012.
C OLLABORATIVE A SSESSMENT S YSTEM FOR T EACHERS CAST
Kansas Educator Evaluation Bill Bagshaw Asst. Director Kansas State Department of Education February 13, 2015.
August 15, 2012 Fontana Unified School District Superintendent, Cali Olsen-Binks Associate Superintendent, Oscar Dueñas Director, Human Resources, Mark.
 Reading School Committee January 23,
Educator Evaluation System Salem Public Schools. All DESE Evaluation Information and Forms are on the SPS Webpage Forms may be downloaded Hard copies.
ComprehensiveFocused  Evidence needs to be collected for all 27 components found in all 8 Criteria  Evidence needs to be collected in one of the 8 Criteria.
Background: Code of Virginia
Virginia Teacher Performance Evaluation System
What should be the basis of
1 SESSION 1 using The New Performance Standards and New VDOE Requirements
performance INDICATORs performance APPRAISAL RUBRIC
Teacher Effectiveness for Language Learning Lisa A. Harris, Ed.D. Virginia Department of Education Specialist for Foreign Languages Jennifer Carson, M.Ed.
Accountability Assessment Parents & Community Preparing College, Career, & Culturally Ready Graduates Standards Support 1.
Preparing for an oepa audit
NEW TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS CONNECTING TEACHER PERFORMANCE to ACADEMIC PROGRESS.
Today’s website:
1 Connecting Principal Performance to Student Academic Progress February 2013.
Prince William County Schools Professional Performance Process
Aligning Academic Review and Performance Evaluation (AARPE)
1 Orientation to Teacher Evaluation /15/2015.
LCSD APPR: Overview Review and Focus on the 60 points December 3, 2012.
Teacher Keys Effectiveness System Forsyth County Schools Orientation May 2013 L.. Allison.
BEST Standards in Teaching Rubric.  Overview  State Legislation  District Policy  Key Components and Rating Percentiles  Outline the Evaluation Process,
APS Teacher Evaluation
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
Update on Virginia’s Growth Measure Deborah L. Jonas, Ph.D. Executive Director for Research and Strategic Planning Virginia Department of Education July-August.
Evaluation Team Progress Collaboration Grant 252.
WW Why Evaluation?. Evaluation formalizes the shared responsibility of state and LEAs to improve student achievement and close the achievement gap in.
Professional Performance Process Presented at March 2012 Articulation Meetings.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents Annual Conference Patty.
Teacher and Principal Evaluation A new frontier….
Factoring Growth Models Into Administrator and Teacher Performance Evaluations -- a presentation for -- Henderson, Mercer, and Warren Counties Regional.
NC Teacher Evaluation Process
Materials for today’s session  Shared website – Wiki   Wireless.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update 11/29/12.
Making Plans for the Future April 29, 2013 Brenda M. Tanner, Ed.D.
Summary Rating Responses November 13, 2013 Adobe Connect Webinar Bill Bagshaw, Kayeri Akweks - KSDE.
Primary Purposes of the Evaluation System
Student Achievement Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Stronge and Associates Educational Consulting, LLC  Uniform evaluation system for teachers, educational.
What you need to know about changes in state requirements for Teval plans.
Summative Jeopardy Summing Up Summative Decision- Making.
Ohio Department of Education March 2011 Ohio Educator Evaluation Systems.
Kansas Educator Evaluation Bill Bagshaw Asst. Director Kansas State Department of Education February 25, 2015.
Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers Virginia Department of Education Approved April 2011.
West Virginia Educator Effectiveness and Evaluation Systems Regional Principal Institute October 7 th and 8 th RESA 6.
Principal Evaluation Code of Virginia states that: Principal evaluations be consistent with the 7 Standards set forth by the state.
DANIELSON MODEL SAI 2016 Mentor Meeting. Danielson Model  Framework with rubrics  Define specific types of behaviors expected to be observed  A common.
Virginia Department of Education November 5, 2015.
Student Achievement Teacher & Leader Effectiveness Overview of Stronge & MyLearningPlan/OASYS Interim Report #1 January 27,
Ohio Principal Evaluation System Pike County Joint Vocational School March 7,
Identifying and Using Multiple Measures Bill Bagshaw.
Pre-Evaluation Conference Conducted August 18, 2015 STING Schedule.
APS Teacher Evaluation System Preparing for Implementation May 2012.
Speech/Language Pathologist Evaluation System Orientation SY Evaluation Systems Office, HR Dr. Doreen Griffeth, Director.
Rockingham County Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Process
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
Kansas Educator Evaluation
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
Speech/Language Pathologist Evaluation System Orientation SY
State Board of Education Progress Update
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
Aligning Academic Review and Performance Evaluation (AARPE)
Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System
Presentation transcript:

Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers Virginia Department of Education Approved April 2011

Code of Virginia requires: 1.That teacher evaluations be consistent with the performance objectives (standards) included in the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards (by 7/1/12) 2.That school boards shall develop procedures in evaluating instructional personnel that address student academic progress (how this requirement is met is the responsibility of the local school board) (by 7/1/12) 3.Continuing contract teachers shall be evaluated not less than once every three years (those not on continuing contract or those receiving an unsatisfactory rating shall be evaluated each year) 1.That teacher evaluations be consistent with the performance objectives (standards) included in the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards (by 7/1/12) 2.That school boards shall develop procedures in evaluating instructional personnel that address student academic progress (how this requirement is met is the responsibility of the local school board) (by 7/1/12) 3.Continuing contract teachers shall be evaluated not less than once every three years (those not on continuing contract or those receiving an unsatisfactory rating shall be evaluated each year)

Performance Standards: 1.Professional Knowledge 2.Instructional Planning 3.Instructional Delivery 4.Assessment of and for Student Learning 5.Learning Environment 6.Professionalism 7.Student Academic Progress (the work of the teacher results in acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student academic progress) 1.Professional Knowledge 2.Instructional Planning 3.Instructional Delivery 4.Assessment of and for Student Learning 5.Learning Environment 6.Professionalism 7.Student Academic Progress (the work of the teacher results in acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student academic progress)

The Board recommends (but does not require):  That each teacher receive a summative evaluation rating  That the rating be determined by weighting the first 6 standards equally at 10%, and the 7th standard (student academic progress), account for 40% of the summative evaluation  That each teacher receive a summative evaluation rating  That the rating be determined by weighting the first 6 standards equally at 10%, and the 7th standard (student academic progress), account for 40% of the summative evaluation

Key points for student learning  Student learning should be determined by multiple measures of student academic progress.  At least 20% of the teacher evaluation (half of the student academic progress measure) is comprised of student growth percentiles as provided by VDOE (NOTE: less than 30% of VA teachers will have this).  Another 20% of the teacher evaluation should be measured using one or more alternative measures with evidence that the alternative measure is valid.  Student learning should be determined by multiple measures of student academic progress.  At least 20% of the teacher evaluation (half of the student academic progress measure) is comprised of student growth percentiles as provided by VDOE (NOTE: less than 30% of VA teachers will have this).  Another 20% of the teacher evaluation should be measured using one or more alternative measures with evidence that the alternative measure is valid.

Henrico Response  PQRs are our Performance Standards  Our summative evaluation rating is meets or does not meet standards.  We consider student academic progress in our system through the PGEP planning document.  MAPs is used to determined student growth measures.  PQRs are our Performance Standards  Our summative evaluation rating is meets or does not meet standards.  We consider student academic progress in our system through the PGEP planning document.  MAPs is used to determined student growth measures.

Reporting to the State Annual Report providing:  A description of the evaluation process  Number of teachers by school at each rating level  Number of principals at each rating level Annual Report providing:  A description of the evaluation process  Number of teachers by school at each rating level  Number of principals at each rating level

Learning Leaders Grant Schools  Four levels of Teacher Evaluation: Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, Distinguished.  Incentives based on ratings from classroom observations and student growth measures.  Four levels of Teacher Evaluation: Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, Distinguished.  Incentives based on ratings from classroom observations and student growth measures.

Learn More about Learning Leaders

Henrico PGEP Classroom Observations 1.Pre-conferences are required prior to each observation. 2.All observations must be scheduled ahead of time. 3.All observations must be 30 to 45 minutes long. 1.Pre-conferences are required prior to each observation. 2.All observations must be scheduled ahead of time. 3.All observations must be 30 to 45 minutes long.