1. Partnerships & Outreach
Field & Clinical
Partnerships & Outreach
Friday, October 21, 2016
2 hours?
Hendrix Center?
Handouts:
SC Teaching Standards Rubric (also share electronic version – with Professionalism standards)
ADEPT – SC Teaching Standards Rubric Alignment
Old Lesson Observation form – for comparison purposes
Old Professionalism indicators – for comparison purposes
Materials:
None
Friday, October 21, 2016

2. Agenda Overview of SC Teaching Standards Clemson’s implementation plan
Important dates to remember
2-3 minutes
Brief overview of the agenda.
QUESTION: Are we calling this the “SC Teaching Standards 4.0” or the “NIET rubric?” 2

3. South Carolina Teaching Standards
What do you already know?
We must use the full rubric for mid-term and final evaluations during student teaching
We can use the shortened form for lesson observations
Evaluators must attend training session
Evaluators must be certified
3-5 minutes
I’m not sure how appropriate this is but I always think it is a good idea to get a sense of what participants know prior to getting started.
QUESTION: Are we calling this the “SC Teaching Standards 4.0” or the “NIET rubric?” 3

4. South Carolina Teaching Standards
: State Guidelines for Implementation
: Readiness and Training for districts
: Implementation
5 minutes
As a reminder to our faculty, during our April Department Meeting, we discussed using the new South Carolina Teaching Standards rubric during the upcoming spring. At a minimum, we will use this rubric for all student teachers during their mid-term and final evaluations.
Talking Points:
IHE’s create their own timeline to prepare PSTs.
The Business Rules around the use of the SC Teaching Standards 4.0 rubric will be determined collaboratively with stakeholders this summer.
Districts will begin receiving training from the state in September/October of 2016.
All evaluators must attend the “three-day” training sessions (University Supervisors).
There is a “one-day” training session for others who use the rubric.
We will hold three evening sessions with student teachers this fall. Our purpose will be to familiarize them with the rubric.
We will also hold training sessions with Cooperating Teachers.
In , teachers in SC will be formally evaluated using this rubric.
Our current seniors will be formally evaluated for the first time in ; that’s why we’re starting to use this rubric in the spring, with this year’s seniors
ESSA Reauthorization and Expanded ADEPT (according to SCDoE):
Slow down – full implementation not until
Remove requirement for test-score based measures in teacher evaluation
Continue to use SLO’s and local measures
Engage stakeholders in feedback: focus groups, surveys 4

5. South Carolina Teaching Standards
SC plans to remove the requirement for test-based measures in teacher evaluation
Continue to use SLOs and other local measures
Once every five years, GBE teachers will engage in a more comprehensive evaluation process.
SLOs are now aligned to LRP ( ); less duplication.
5 minutes – do we want to include this slide? These points are from my notes and are things that, I think, will be of interest to the faculty. However, these notes are not included in the “1-day training” folder and ppt that we received.
As a reminder to our faculty, during our April Department Meeting, we discussed using the new South Carolina Teaching Standards rubric during the upcoming spring. At a minimum, we will use this rubric for all student teachers during their mid-term and final evaluations.
Talking Points:
IHE’s create their own timeline to prepare PSTs.
The Business Rules around the use of the SC Teaching Standards 4.0 rubric will be determined collaboratively with stakeholders this summer.
Districts will begin receiving training from the state in September/October of 2016.
All evaluators must attend the “three-day” training sessions (University Supervisors).
There is a “one-day” training session for others who use the rubric.
We will hold three evening sessions with student teachers this fall. Our purpose will be to familiarize them with the rubric.
We will also hold training sessions with Cooperating Teachers.
In , teachers in SC will be formally evaluated using this rubric.
Our current seniors will be formally evaluated for the first time in ; that’s why we’re starting to use this rubric in the spring, with this year’s seniors
ESSA Reauthorization and Expanded ADEPT (according to SCDoE):
Slow down – full implementation not until
Remove requirement for test-score based measures in teacher evaluation
Continue to use SLO’s and local measures
Engage stakeholders in feedback: focus groups, surveys
QUESTION:
Is this where we notify US that the faculty still has not yet determined when they will use NIET rubric? We know for sure that we will use this rubric for the student teacher mid-term and final evaluations, at the very least. Another option: use this rubric for all lesson observations during student teaching. Another option: use this rubric during fall and spring observations. (I’m pretty confident that no one will vote to use this rubric this fall; it’s too soon.) 5

6. South Carolina Teaching Standards
There is a defined a set of professional indicators, known as the Instructional Rubrics, to measure teaching skills, knowledge, and responsibilities of the teachers in a school.
Instruction
Exemplary (4)
Proficient (3)
Needs Improvement (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
Standards and Objectives
All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated.
Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.
Expectations for each student’s performance are clear, demanding, and high.
State standards are displayed, referenced throughout the lesson with explanations.
There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.
Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding and high.
State standards are displayed and referenced in the lesson.
Some learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.
Sub-objectives are sometimes aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are not clearly connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are clear.
State standards are appropriately displayed
There is evidence that some of the students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
Learning objectives and state content standards are not communicated.
Sub-objectives are rarely aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are vague.
State standards are not appropriately displayed.
There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
5 minutes
Pass out copies of the rubric here.
The next slides will walk participants through key parts of the rubric: Domains, Standards, Indicators, and Performance Levels.
Talking Points for this slide:
The state has adopted this rubric be used for teachers beginning This means that this year’s seniors will be formally evaluated (during their second year of teaching) using this rubric.
Whole number ratings only.
This is NOT a checklist.
Student may score a 3 and not “meet” every bullet in 3.
More holistic – about overall performance.

7. Parts of the Rubric * Domains Instruction Exemplary (4) Proficient (3)
Needs Improvement (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
Standards and Objectives
All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated.
Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.
Expectations for each student’s performance are clear, demanding, and high.
State standards are displayed, referenced throughout the lesson with explanations.
There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.
Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding and high.
State standards are displayed and referenced in the lesson.
Some learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.
Sub-objectives are sometimes aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are not clearly connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are clear.
State standards are appropriately displayed
There is evidence that some of the students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
Learning objectives and state content standards are not communicated.
Sub-objectives are rarely aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are vague.
State standards are not appropriately displayed.
There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
1-2 minutes

8. Parts of the Rubric * Domains *Indicators Instruction Exemplary (4)
Proficient (3)
Needs Improvements (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
Standards and Objectives
All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated.
Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.
Expectations for each student’s performance are clear, demanding, and high.
State standards are displayed, referenced throughout the lesson with explanations.
There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.
Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding and high.
State standards are displayed and referenced in the lesson.
Some learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.
Sub-objectives are sometimes aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are not clearly connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are clear.
State standards are appropriately displayed
There is evidence that some of the students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
Learning objectives and state content standards are not communicated.
Sub-objectives are rarely aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are vague.
State standards are not appropriately displayed.
There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
1-2 minutes

9. Parts of the Rubric Domains *Indicators *Descriptors Instruction
Exemplary (4)
Proficient (3)
Needs Improvement (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
Standards and Objectives
All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated.
Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.
Expectations for each student’s performance are clear, demanding, and high.
State standards are displayed, referenced throughout the lesson with explanations.
There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.
Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding and high.
State standards are displayed and referenced in the lesson.
Some learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.
Sub-objectives are sometimes aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are not clearly connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are clear.
State standards are appropriately displayed
There is evidence that some of the students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
Learning objectives and state content standards are not communicated.
Sub-objectives are rarely aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are vague.
State standards are not appropriately displayed.
There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
1-2 minutes

10. Parts of the Rubric
* Domains *Indicators *Descriptors *Performance Levels
Instruction
Exemplary (4)
Proficient (3)
Needs Improvement (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
Standards and Objectives
All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated.
Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines.
Expectations for each student’s performance are clear, demanding, and high.
State standards are displayed, referenced throughout the lesson with explanations.
There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.
Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding and high.
State standards are displayed and referenced in the lesson.
Some learning objectives and state content standards are communicated.
Sub-objectives are sometimes aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are not clearly connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are clear.
State standards are appropriately displayed
There is evidence that some of the students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
Learning objectives and state content standards are not communicated.
Sub-objectives are rarely aligned to the lesson’s major objective.
Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned.
Expectations for student performance are vague.
State standards are not appropriately displayed.
There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective.
1-2 minutes

11. South Carolina Teaching Standards
Planning
Environment
Instruction
Managing Student Behavior
Expectations
Environment
Respectful Culture
Instructional Plans
Student Work
Assessment
Standards & Objectives
Motivating Students
Presenting Instructional Content
Lesson Structure & Pacing
Activities & Materials
Questioning
Academic Feedback
Grouping Students
Teacher Content Knowledge
Teacher Knowledge of Students
Thinking
Problem Solving
LOOK FOR ALIGNMENT SLIDE!
2-3 minutes
This slide is just an overview of the domains and the standards for each of the domains – keep this slide displayed as participants talk.
We know that you will want to take this home and look over it. You will want to consider how this aligns to ADEPT.
Professionalism
Staff Development
Instructional Supervision
School Responsibilities
Reflecting on Teaching

12. Domains: Instruction, Planning, Environment, and Professionalism
Compare changes in descriptors across performance levels for each indicator.
What do the descriptors look and sound like in practice?
What is the essence of each domain, according to the indicators in that domain? (2 to 3 words)
15 minutes
Groups should be prepared to share their “essence” for each domain – need an appropriate way to share out.
In small, preferably program area groups, they should compare the entire SC Teaching Standards Rubric (all four domains, the indicators under each domain) to our old observation forms.
**Need to provide “old” copy of Professionalism part of observation to compare it to SC Teaching Standards 12

13. ADEPT Planning Domains
SC Teaching Standards
Planning
Instruction
Environment
Professionalism
5-8 minutes
Pass out Crosswalk handout and allow participants time to review the document.
The state has created a crosswalk document to show the connections between the new SC Teaching Standards rubric and the ADEPT domains. 13

14. Clemson’s Plan Event Tentative Date(s) Faculty conversations On-going
University Supervisor Workshops
December 5 & 6, 2016
Student Teaching Orientation
January 11-13, 2017
Cooperating Teacher Workshops
Scheduled with individual districts (starting in January, 2017)
3-5 minutes
Talking Points:
We are creating a master Field and Clinical Partner calendar that will be shared with everyone (faculty, CT, US, ST) and that will be posted on our website
We are in the process of updating our lesson observation rubrics, assignments, etc. These will all be posted to our website soon.
The main purpose of this slide is to reassure our supervisors that we are working on incorporating this rubric into our placements so that we can prepare our preservice teachers.
Cooperating Teacher Workshops planned:
Anderson One: January 9th
Anderson Five: January 17th
Oconee: TBD
Anderson Four: TBD
Pickens: TBD
Greenville: doing own training – will make our training virtual and share this with all CTs
December 5th will be devoted to Media X training; December 6th will be devoted to SC Teaching Standards rubric training 14

15. Questions?
5 minutes
Time to see what additional questions folks may have. 15