1 / 19

OCM BOCES

OCM BOCES. Annual Professional Performance Review 2012-2013. Committee Work. Goal – Design an evaluation system that improves instructional practice and student learning. Committee met 7 full d ays from October-May Committee Membership 8 OCMBFT Members 8 Administrators

gyda
Download Presentation

OCM BOCES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OCM BOCES Annual Professional Performance Review 2012-2013

  2. Committee Work • Goal – Design an evaluation system that improves instructional practice and student learning. • Committee met 7 full days from October-May • Committee Membership • 8 OCMBFT Members • 8 Administrators • All Departments Represented

  3. 20 + 20 + 60 =100 20% StudentGrowth 60% Multiple Measures 20% StudentAchievement

  4. 60 Points for Multiple Measures • Evidence collected throughout the school year • Teacher submits evidence • Administrator collects evidence from observation • At least three 5-15 minutes-long mini-observation for all teachers (written feedback within 2 days) • Also one extended observation (including pre and post-conference) for probationary teachers

  5. 60 Points for Multiple Measures • Collected evidence gets sorted according to the 7 NYS Teaching Standards • At end of the year, collected evidence is compared to the NYSUT Professional Practice Rubric • Committee chose NYSUT Rubric instead of Danielson Rubric because of strong alignment to NYS Teaching Standards.

  6. 60 Points for Multiple Measures • Levels on the rubric get converted to points: • Highly Effective = 4.0 pts • Effective = 3.3 pts • Developing = 2.8 pts • Ineffective = 0 pts

  7. 60 Points for Multiple Measures • Levels on the rubric get converted to points: • Highly Effective = 4.0 pts • Effective = 3.3 pts • Developing = 2.8 pts • Ineffective = 0 pts

  8. 60 Points for Multiple Measures • Levels on the rubric get converted to points: • Highly Effective = 4.0 pts • Effective = 3.3 pts • Developing = 2.8 pts • Ineffective = 0 pts • 4.0 pts • 3.3 pts • 4.0 pts • 2.8 pts

  9. 60 Points for Multiple Measures • Scores on indicators for each Indicator within a Teaching Standard get averaged into an overall score for each Teaching Standard • Scores for the 7 Teaching Standards get averaged for the overall rubric score • Overall rubric score gets translated to 60 points

  10. 20 Points for Student Growth • State provides these points for 4-8 ELA and math teachers • Everyone else must make a Student Learning Objective to figure these points out for ourselves

  11. 20 Points for Student Growth • Student Learning Objective is a process the state has prescribed • Set goals for the most important learning • Based on where your kids are starting the year • Common teachers will collaborate on measures • No one will have 10 SLOs • Varied and vast • Additional training

  12. INGREDIENTS

  13. INGREDIENTS

  14. 20 Points for Local Achievement • A lot like the SLOs • Same basic process and format • Can’t be exactly the same as the SLO used for State Growth 20% • Like SLOs, committee structure will select assessments.

  15. 20 + 20 + 60 =100 20% StudentGrowth 60% Multiple Measures 20% StudentAchievement

  16. Annual Summative Evaluation • 20 + 20 + 60 = Annual Summative Score for each teacher • HEDI (91-100, 75-90, 65-74, 0-64) • Final score by the end of the year (unless waiting for state’s 20%) • Appeals process • If “developing” or  “ ineffective,” will have improvement plan for following year

  17. A Year at a Glance • Beginning of the year meeting between teacher and Lead Evaluator • Set Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) • Baseline information about students and plans for the year • Mini-observations (and possible extended observation) • End of the year meeting between teacher and Lead Evaluator • Review SLOs • Compare evidence to rubric • Summative evaluation

  18. A Work in Progress • APPR Committee will meet mid-year to discuss how the process is working. • At the end of the year the APPR Committee will re-convene to make changes if appropriate.

  19. Questions?

More Related