Transcript Document

2013-2014 Weld Re-4 School District
Evaluation System
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
Educator Effectiveness (S.B. 191) Overview
Guiding Principles of Model Evaluation System
Framework for System to Evaluate Educators
Educator Rubrics
What is Weld Re-4 doing?
Guiding Principles of State Evaluation
System
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Data should inform decisions, but human judgment will always be
an essential component of evaluations.
The implementation and evaluation of the system must embody
continuous improvement.
The purpose of the system is to provide meaningful and credible
feedback that improves performance. (It’s about the conversation!)
The development and implementation of educator evaluation
systems must continue to involve all stakeholders in a
collaborative process. (District Accountability Subcommittee
opportunity)
Educator evaluations must take place within a larger system that
is aligned and supportive.
1.
Training
2.
Annual
Orientation
9.
3.
Goal-Setting
and
Performance
Planning
SelfAssessment
4.
8.
Review of
Annual
Goals and
Performance
Plan
Educator
Evaluation Cycle
Final
Ratings
7.
5.
End-of-Year
Review
Mid-Year
Review
6.
Evaluator
Assessment
In Certified Handbook – page 6
DO Responsibility
August to Gather initial data to share
October with principals for preconferences/goal-setting
meetings.
Begin review of potential
assessments for use in
evaluation
Administrator
Responsibility
Schedule PreConferences and set
goals with teachers in
building
Determine evaluation
times for the year and
begin evaluations and
walkthroughs
Determine offerings of
potential professional
development that aligns
with need
December Support buildings with data Evaluations and
- February or professional development walkthroughs
Continue reviewing potential Midyear Conference with
assessments and data use Staff
for evaluations.
March-May Review process and gather
feedback on implementation
and determine assessment
priorities and/or decisions
for the following year
Process and collect all
evaluations for staff
Evaluations and
walkthroughs
End of year conference
with staff to determine
final ratings and final
written evaluation
Teacher Responsibility
Participate in any
required training
Do Self-Assessment
within first two weeks of
school
Become familiar with
current data and building
and /or department
goals.
Schedule a Midyear
conference with
Administrator
Review data and goals to
determine midyear
adjustments
Schedule end of year
conference with
administrator
Discuss your evaluation
and data scores with
administrator
Review data and
generate possibilities for
goals
Teacher Evaluations
Evaluated using: (1) a
measure of individuallyattributed growth, (2) a
measure of collectivelyattributed growth; (3) when
available, statewide summative
assessments; and (4) where
applicable, Colorado Growth
Model data.
Evaluated using: (1)
observations; and (2) at least
one of the following: student
perception measures, peer
feedback, parent/guardian
feedback, or review of lesson
plans/student work samples.
May include additional
measures.
50% Student
Academic
Growth
Quality Standard VI:
VI. Responsibility for student
academic growth
50%
Professional
Practice
Quality Standards I-V:
I. Mastery of content
II. Establish learning environment
III. Facilitate learning
IV. Reflect on practice
V. Demonstrate leadership
STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS
Framework for System to Evaluate Teachers
Definition of Teacher Effectiveness
Quality Standards
I. Know Content
II. Establish
Environment
III. Facilitate
Learning
50% Professional Practice Standards
Observations of
Teaching
Other Measures
Aligned with
CDE Guidelines
V. Demonstrate
Leadership
IV. Reflect on
Practice
VI. Student
Growth
50% Student Growth Measures
Weighting: How Much
Does Each Standard
Count Towards Overall
Performance?
State
Other Assessments
Other Measures
Summative
for Non-tested
Aligned
Assessments
Areas
CDE Guidelines
Match of test to teaching assignments
Weighting:
Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards
Result in a Determination of Individual Performance?
Performance Standards
Ineffective
Partially Effective
Effective
Appeals Process
Highly Effective
PowerPoint Template
Driving
Questions
Students
Educators
Schools/
Districts
What do we want
students, educators,
schools, and districts to
know and be able to do?
How will we
know if
expectations
are met?
How will we respond
when help is needed
and to support
continued growth?
Assessments
•
•
•
•
RTI
PBSI
Targeted interventions
IEPs
Educator quality
standards
Educator
evaluations
•
•
•
•
Induction
Mentoring
Professional development plans
Remediation plans
Performance
indicators
School and
district
performance
frameworks
• Unified planning
• Priority
• Turnaround
Colorado Academic
Standards
Quality
Standard
Changed to
“Basic” in
13-14
Rating
levels
Quality Standard II: Teachers establish a safe, inclusive and respectful learning environment for a diverse population of students.
Not Evident
Partially Proficient
Proficient
(Meets State Standard)
Accomplished
Exemplary
Element c: Teachers engage students as individuals with unique interests and strengths.
The teacher:

Has low-level expectations for
some students.

Uses data for instructional
decision making on an
infrequent basis.
Element
that
aligns
with
standard
The teacher:

Monitors students for
level of participation.

Encourages students to
share their interests.

Challenges students to
expand and enhance
their learning.
. . . and
The teacher:

Asks difficult questions
of all students.

Scaffolds questions.

Gives wait time
equitably.

Flexibly Groups
students.

Assumes that all
students will meet or
exceed expectations.
Modifies instruction to assure that
all students:

Understand what is
expected of them.

Are challenged to meet
or exceed
expectations.

Participate in
classroom activities
with a high level of
frequency and quality.

Take responsibility for
their work.

Have the opportunity
to build on their
interests and
strengths.
. . . and
Students:

Actively participate in
all classroom activities.

Monitor their own
performance for
frequency of
participation.
Seek opportunities to respond to
difficult questions.
. . . and
Students:

Select challenging
content and activities
when given the choice
in order to stretch their
skills and abilities.
Encourage fellow students to
participate and challenge
themselves.
Professional
Practices
Principal and Teacher
Performance Evaluation Ratings
Highly Effective
Effective
Partially Effective
Ineffective
After CDE develops the state model system and an evaluation scoring matrix,
the State Board will adopt definitions for each rating.
Teacher
Quality
Standards
Performance
Rating Levels
Elements of
the
Standard
=
Observable in
Classroom
Examples of
Artifacts
Evaluator
Comments
Teacher’s
Response to
Evaluation
Professional
Practices
Evidence
Provided by
Artifacts
Summary of
Ratings for
the Standard
What is Weld Re-4 Doing?
• Professional Practices 50%
– CDE Evaluations used again 2013-2014
– Updated rubric posted under Staff Resources, Weld
Re-4 Staff Resources, Educator Effectiveness
– Folders available again for schools
– The state will be adopting a free evaluation storage
solution this year. We will implement when available.
Some schools are choosing to start with Teach Point.
What is Weld Re-4 doing?
• Student Learning Outcomes 50%
– All staff will receive ratings based on School
Performance Frameworks this year
– Assessment Approval process is being
developed – staff who attended training this
summer will be a great resource
– Assessments will go through a district process
in order to be used for evaluation purposes
(more info coming)
Questions?
• Overall Process – Amy Heinsma, X8028
and District Accountability Members
• Specific Evaluation and Deadlines – see
your administrator
• Feedback or general questions – District
Accountability subcommittee members