1 / 52

Professional Educators’ Evaluation in Montana 2.0

Professional Educators’ Evaluation in Montana 2.0. Session Presenters. What’s this racket I hear about some new swanky performance evaluation?. Session Objectives. Here’s what we are sharing about teacher and principal evaluations…. Information from the national level

kohana
Download Presentation

Professional Educators’ Evaluation in Montana 2.0

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. Professional Educators’ Evaluation in Montana 2.0

  2. Session Presenters

  3. What’s this racket I hear about some new swanky performance evaluation?

  4. Session Objectives Here’s what we are sharing about teacher and principal evaluations…. • Information from the national level • Information from the state level • Information from the school level

  5. Principal and Teacher Evaluation from a National Perspective Rob Watson Principal Bozeman High School

  6. Principal Evaluation Committee • National Committee - Joint project between NASSP and NAESP • 17 Principals (7 - NASSP & 8 – NAESP); representing the various regions) • Chaired by current presidents; Rob Monson and Ken Griffith • Goal: Develop guidelines for Evaluating Principals in the 21st Century

  7. Why Gather Now? • Federal Initiatives (Race to the Top) have renewed the focus on evaluation • Professional associations wanted to create a joint message with regard to evaluation • States and Districts are beginning to develop processes and procedures • Renewed focus on the importance of the role of the principal

  8. Why Principals Matter • Leadership impacts student achievement • Expectation is that we spend more time monitoring/supporting instruction • Principal’s influence is a determining factor in retaining good teachers • Principal’s influence on creating safe/trusting learning environment • Principal’s influence on policy and resources

  9. What aspects of the job should be evaluated?

  10. What should NOT be included in the evaluation of the principal? • Securing financial resources • Financial management that is outside the control of the principal • A single measure of student achievement • Personality or personal issues • Things beyond principal control • Parent and/or teacher complaints

  11. What about context? What should be considered? • Level of experience • School location • School performance history • Level of local control in the state • Level of financial resources available • School type, size, grade levels

  12. Project Goals • Make known NASSP/NAESP position • Review existing research and practices • Reinforce importance of local/state context • Inform district and state policy makers • Emphasize professional growth • Emphasize need for use of multiple measures • Strategies for analyzing data

  13. MOST IMPORTANTLY • Committee did not want to dictate a process. Because of the importance of “context” the exact process should be left to local district. The goal of the committee was to provide guidelines for consideration when designing the process.

  14. The BIG 6 categories • Continuous Educational Improvement (Implementation of the SIP) • Student Educational Outcomes • School Culture • Stakeholder Support • Professional Qualities and Practices • Professional Growth Activities

  15. Some Strategies to Consider • Define goals and criteria • Conditions for supporting principal PD • Identify potential data sources (surveys, interviews, focus groups) • Direct observations • School outcome data • Principal self-reflection

  16. A word about teacher evaluation • National Landscape of Accountability • Value added rating based on student growth on single assessment • As a teacher, 25% of overall evaluation determined by school rating (35% if you are a new teacher) • As a principal 50% of overall evaluation determined by school rating • As a principal, If your teacher evaluation does not match the value added rating, your evaluation is effected • Common Core Assessments – purpose of the PARCC assessment is to provide a value added rating

  17. PARCC States

  18. Principal EvaluationMontana Standards (10.55.705b) • Evaluation system shall include an assessment of the extent to which administrator… • Facilitates stewardship of school/district vision that promotes success of all students • Promotes positive school culture and applies best practice to student learning • Designs comprehensive professional growth plans • Manages organization, operations, and resources to promote safe, efficient & effective learning environment.

  19. Principal EvaluationMontana Standards (10.55.705b) • Evaluation system shall include an assessment of the extent to which administrators… • Collaborates and responds to diverse community interests, including American Indian communities • Mobilizes community resources • Acts with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner to promote success for all • Understands, responds to, and influences the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context to promote success

  20. Evolution of the Proposed MT Evaluation Standards “Where Did All These Crazy Ideas Come From and Why Do We Need Them?”

  21. Purpose of Evaluation Standards Standards Serve 3 Different Functions • “Banner” - lays out big picture vision of where we want to go – what we want teaching to look like. • Define a “bar” or specific level of performance we wish to achieve. • Articulate an “opportunity to learn” or the supports that must be in place for people to meet the standard (professional development, policies).

  22. Research and Best Practices • Charlotte Danielson – Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching -1996. • 4 Domains of Teaching • Planning and Preparation -6 components • Classroom Environment – 5 components • Instruction – 5 components • Professional Responsibilities – 6 components 76 elements describing good teaching toward student success.

  23. McREL- 5 Standards for Evaluation 2009 • Teachers Demonstrate Leadership. • Teachers Establish a Respectful Environment for a Diverse Population of Students. • Teachers Know the Content They Teach. • Teachers Facilitate Learning for Their Students. • Teachers Reflect on Their Practice. • Though the language sounds different from standard to standard, the elements are virtually the same.

  24. Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) 2011 • Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) • 10 Standards – 4 Areas A. The Learner and Learning 1.Learner development 2. Learning Differences 3. The Learning Environment B. Content 4. Content Knowledge 5. Applying Content

  25. InTASC Standards C. – Instructional Practice 6. Assessment 7. Planning for Instruction 8. Instructional Strategies D. – Professional Responsibility 9. Professional Learning/Ethical Practice 10. Leadership and Collaboration

  26. Proposed MT Evaluation Standards- 2012 • Adds #11 – “demonstrates understanding…of American Indians and tribes in Montana” • 11 Standards – uses the 10 InTASC Standards • Content/language of the proposed standards found to strongly match the McREL and Danielson Frameworks (derived from those research bases).

  27. What Works in the Proposed System • MT Standards for Evaluation – DO NOT base teacher evaluation on student test scores. • Continuity and Alignment of teaching practice from the University classrooms to K-12 classrooms. • Research Based – are not part of canned programs that are here one year and gone the next. • Common Language and Expectations Across the State – Satisfies Legislative Agenda. • Opportunity for SAM, OPI, MT University System to deliver comprehensive professional development in a variety of areas from content to instructional practices.

  28. The Evaluation Process

  29. Establish School Goals and Priorities

  30. Wolfpack Vision One of the top high schools in the nation by 2013-2014!

  31. What does it look like to be a high performing school? • Use of guaranteed and viable curriculums • Use of high leverage instructional strategies • Challenging learner goals and effective feedback • Use of effective grading and homework practices • Support of a safe and orderly environment • Involved parents and the community • Collegiality and professionalism • Every student connected to school 8 Indicators

  32. Glacier High School 2011-2013 Goals Organized Around Standards Goal Areas by the end of…

  33. GHS Research Topic2011-2012

  34. Resources DVD Book

  35. Send Evaluation Letter

  36. Letter

  37. Portfolio

  38. Host Pre Conference

  39. Conduct Formal Evaluation

  40. Conduct Formal Evaluation

  41. Host Post Conference

  42. " Teachers can be paid to make students do work and acquire average grades, but it is when that student leaves a course with great passion and understanding for what was taught to them that a teacher has worked to their fullest potential." Britta Reshan

  43. Session Objectives Here’s what we shared about teacher and principal evaluations…. • Information from the national level • Information from the state level • Information from the school level

More Related