Bay District Schools Teacher Training
-
Upload
gulf-coast-community-college -
Category
Education
-
view
1.955 -
download
5
Transcript of Bay District Schools Teacher Training
An Overview of the Teacher Appraisal System
Production date: May 11, 2011
Guiding PrincipleBy increasing teacher capacity*, there will be
an improvement in student achievementDevelop and assist teachersNot punitive, but instead creates a
comprehensive teacher evaluation system with focused data collection and a connection to relevant professional development
*Capabilities, education, abilities
BackgroundStakeholder participation
Teachers, Administrators, District-level staff ABCE
Work Groups began meeting in 2010Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Original contract between district and stateReview previous stepsEstablish current statusStudy plans currently underway
Writing Teams met in the Fall of 2010Final Scope of WorkPlan of action
Teacher Appraisal System Committee (TASC)15 member team
ABCE, principals and district staffCollegial relationship for open and honest discussions12 meetings to date (as of May 9, 2011)
Student Success Act and Race to the Top initiatives Student growth componentObservations/Evaluations
Deliver by June 1stObservation/Evaluation, IPDP development,
teacher-level student growth, and school-level student growth
Teacher Appraisal System Percentiles
Administrator observation/evaluation- 35% According to law the system must be based on strong
educational principles and contemporary researchFlorida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPS)Robert Marzano and Charlotte Danielson
Marzano 3-day academy and books State model Relatively untested
Danielson Webinar, meetings and books Used throughout the United States Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of
Chicago
Decision: Danielson
The Danielson FrameworkAn effective system of teacher evaluation
accomplishes two things: it ensures quality teaching and it promotes professional learning. The quality of teaching is the single most important determinant of student learning; a school district’s system of teacher evaluation is the method by which it ensures that teaching is of high quality. Therefore, the system developed for teacher evaluation must have certain characteristics; it must be rigorous, valid, reliable and defensible, and must be grounded in a research-based and accepted definition of good teaching. -C. Danielson
Component 1a:
Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy
Component
1b:Demonstrating
knowledge of students
Component
1c:Setting
instructional outcomes
Component
1d:Demonstrating
knowledge of resources
Component
1e:Designing
coherent instruction
Component
1f:Designing student
assessments
Component 2a:
Creating an environment of respect and rapport
Component
2b:Establishing a
culture for learning
Component
2c:Managing
classroom procedures
Component
2d:Managing student
behavior Component
2e:Organizing
physical space
Component 3a:
Communicating with students
Component
3b:Using questioning
and discussion techniques
Component
3c:Engaging students
in learning Component
3d:Using assessment
in instruction Component
3e:Demonstrating
flexibility and responsiveness
Component 4a:
Reflecting on teaching
Component
4b:Maintaining
accurate records
Component
4c: Communicating
with families Component
4d:Participating in a
professional community
Component
4e:Growing and
developing professionally
Component
4f:Showing
professionalism
Domain Summary for the Framework for Teaching
Domain 2: The Classroom EnvironmentComponent Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement or
DevelopingUnsatisfactory
2a: Creating anenvironment of respect andrapport[FEAPs (a)2.d.f.h.; (a)3.e.]
Classroom interactions among the teacher and individual students are highly respectful, reflecting genuine warmth and caring and sensitivity to students’ cultures and levels of development. Students themselves ensure high levels of civility among members of the class.
Classroom interactions between teacher and students and among students are polite and respectful, reflecting general warmth and caring, and are appropriate to the cultural and developmental differences among groups of students.
Classroom interactions, both between the teacher and students and among students, are generally appropriate and free from conflict but may be characterized by occasional displays of insensitivity or lack of responsiveness to cultural or developmental differences among students
Classroom interactions, both between the teacher and students and among students, are negative, inappropriate, or insensitive to students’ cultural backgrounds, and characterized by sarcasm, put-downs, or conflict.
Critical Attributes
In addition to the characteristics of “effective,” •Teacher demonstrates knowledge and caring about individual students’ lives beyond school.•The teacher’s response to a student’s incorrect response respects the student’s dignity.•When necessary, students correct one another in their conduct toward classmates.
• Talk between teacher and students and among students is uniformly respectful.
• Teacher makes connections with individual students.
• Students exhibit respect for the teacher.
• During the lesson, the teacher offers encouragement to students as they struggle with complex learning. This may be 2b, expectations.
• The quality of interactions between teacher and students or among students is uneven, with occasional disrespect.
• Teacher attempts to respond to disrespectful behavior, with uneven results.
• Teacher attempts to make connections with individual students, but student reactions indicate that the efforts are not successful.
• Teacher uses disrespectful talk toward students.
• Student body language indicates feelings of hurt or insecurity.
• Teacher does not address disrespectful interactions among students.
• Teacher displays no familiarity with or caring about individual students’ interests or personalities.
• Students use disrespectful talk toward one another with no response from the teacher.
Evidence
The Danielson FrameworkParadigm shift Pre and post conferences provide opportunities
for open conversations between teachers and administrators about educator practice
Administrators and teachers work collaboratively to look differently at teaching and learning
Teachers become active participants in their observations and evaluations
Evaluation of instructional practices= 35%
IPDP Development-15%Student Baseline Data What specific student achievement data indicates the need for improvement?
Needs-based Question for
Professional Inquiry
In reflecting on this student achievement data, what instructional question(s) come to mind?
Expected Student Achievement Goal(s)
What is your expectation of student achievement as a result of your professional development?
Related Professional Development Objective(s)?
What practice(s) will you need to enhance/develop in order to answer your question and meet your stated student achievement goals?
Related Professional Training & Learning
Activities
How will you use research-based knowledge and strategies that will help you achieve your stated professional development objective(s)?
Classroom Implementation
What practices have you implemented in your classroom as a result of your professional development?
(Examine classroom level data that is disaggregated by student performance level, gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. Document this disaggregation.)
(Considering this specific student data, formulate a question that will help you improve your practice and student performance.)
(Indicate a measurable result on a specific assessment. Multiple data sources are encouraged.)
(Indicate what you need to know and be able to do.)
(List activities that you have planned for your personal professional learning and indicate the documentation you will provide for each activity.)
(Record new strategies as you implement in your classroom and indicate the documentation you will gather for each strategy listed.)
IPDP Scoring Rubric Sample
Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory 3 points 2 points 1 point 0 points
Student Baseline Data
Includes: disaggregation and then
triangulation of a minimum of 3 sources of data
identification of strengths and weaknesses of individual students and groups of students
Includes: disaggregation of data by
demographics identification of group
strengths and weaknesses
Includes: disaggregation of data insufficient analysis of student
data and student strengths and weaknesses
Includes: no disaggregation of
available data no analysis of strengths
and weaknesses
Student Growth-50%“At least 50% of evaluation must be based on
student learning growth assessed annually and measured by statewide assessments or, for subjects not measured by statewide assessments, by district assessments.” (Student Success Act)
50% with 3 years of data 40% with less than 3 years of data2011-2012 less than 3 years of data
40% Teacher-Level Student Growth10% School-Level Student Growth
FCAT-tested subjectsValue-added model
Implemented 2011-2012State Committee June 1st- Commissioner selects model Mid-July district receives information
Used to determine proficiency levels (HE, E, NI/D, U)
Teacher-level=40% School-level=10%
Additional value-added provided over the next 3 years
Value-Added ContinuedLevel the playing field by accounting for
differences in the proficiency and characteristics of students assigned to teachers
Must take into account prior performanceMay consider attendance, disability or ELL
statusCannot be based on gender, race, ethnicity or
socioeconomic statusIdentify teacher contribution to student learningMeasure student learning using student-level
test scores collected over a period of time
Non-FCAT personnel Use value-added models as they are delivered from the state
Use FCAT data for students assigned to teacher 7th grade geography
40% -students assigned to them 10% -school
Elementary PE, music, and art 50% -students assigned to them They see all students Only 4th and 5th grade have value-added information
Create district adopted growth measures Establish learning targets
Six committees Special Diploma Vocational Education/Industry Certification ESE-Pre K K-2, 3rd grade IB, AP, AICE, DE Learning Target Guidelines
Teacher Appraisal System Pie Chart
Type Teacher Type of Metric Calculation 1. Classroom teachers with students taking FCAT
Individual Student-Based Growth FCAT value-added for students assigned to teacher
40%
School-Based Growth (FCAT value-added data for school) 10% IPDP development 15% Administrator Observation 35%
2. Classroom teachers with students enrolled in: IB, AICE, AP, DE Grades K-2 3rd grade ESE Pre-K Vocational Ed/Industry Certification Special Diploma Track
Individual Student-Based Growth District adopted growth measures
40%
School-Based Growth (FCAT value-added data for school) 10% IPDP development 15% Administrator Observation 35%
3. Those classroom teachers not covered by 1 or 2 (i.e. 11th and 12th grade students without EOC or FCAT information)
Individual Learning Targets based on District Developed Guidelines
40%
School-Based Growth (FCAT value-added data for school) 10% IPDP development 15% Administrator Observation 35%
4. Non-classroom teachers (School-Based)
Media Specialists Guidance
Counselors
School-Based Growth (FCAT value-added data for school) 50% IPDP development 15% Administrator Observation 35%
5. Non-classroom teachers who serve multiple schools
School Psychologists
Resource Teachers Literacy Coaches Speech/vision
Teachers Social Workers Staff Training
Specialists
District-Based Growth (FCAT value-added data for district) 50%
IPDP development 15%
Administrator Observation
35%
Professional DevelopmentTeacher Appraisal System results inform
Professional DevelopmentObservation/Evaluation= Teacher NeedsStudent Growth = Student NeedsAdministrators and district staff offer relevant
and appropriate professional development Helps teachers know what professional
development they need to take to meet their needs and needs of students
Provides final evaluation based on many factors
How will this be managed?Fundamental change in the way teachers are
evaluatedCharlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching
TrainingAdministrators and district staff personnelDanielson Group
June 7th and 8th June 14th and 15th
Teacher Appraisal System training July 19th or July 26th
AIMS (Appraisal Information Management System) August
AIMS (Appraisal Information Management System)
Single-sign onProvides transparency in the
observation/evaluation processEase in managing, announcing, registration for
professional development Stores for easy retrieval
Past appraisal resultsIn-service and certification information
Instrumental in the management of the Teacher Appraisal System and professional development
AdjustmentsChanges over time will occurStudent growth and instructional practices
should mirror one anotherValue-added models from the stateDistrict assessments
Teacher-level becomes more specificSystem effectiveness
Fidelity, validity, and appropriateness
Additional TrainingTeachers receive training from PrincipalTraining materials provided
ProcessPaperworkDecision Points
Conclusionwww.bay.k12.fl.us