TEACHER EVALUATION PLAN Malden CCSD#84 School District

Transcription

1 TEACHER EVALUATION PLAN Malden CCSD#84 School District Malden Union President Amy Nichols Board President Tawnya Marciniak Superintendent: Michael Patterson (This plan will be reviewed on an annual basis by the Joint Committee) Philosophy of Performance Evaluation Evaluation is viewed as a positive means of encouraging, recognizing, and promoting effective teaching. The success of the evaluation is dependent upon a cooperative and continuous relationship between the evaluator and the evaluatee. Evaluation should be viewed as a vehicle to improve the quality of instruction at Malden CCSD #84. A qualified administrator will conduct all formal written evaluations. Purpose of Evaluation To recognize and support effective teaching To identify commendable teaching qualities To provide meaningful feedback for improving instruction To help teachers succeed in their chosen profession To motivate teachers to render their highest level of professional service To provide objective data for making administrative decisions Evaluation Cycle Non-Tenured Teachers: The performance of full-time first, second, third, and fourth year staff members shall be formally evaluated in writing a minimum of three times each school year, resulting in a summative rating after the second Post-Observation Conference. Tenured Teachers: Each teacher shall be formally evaluated in writing at least twice in the course of every two school years with at least one being a formal observation. A tenured teacher has the option to request an evaluation during a non-scheduled year; however, that teacher will still be evaluated the following year as scheduled. Part-time Teachers: The performance for part-time teachers shall be formally evaluated in writing at least once each year. Informal Observations: If data from any informal observations will be used as a part of the summative evaluation, that data/evidence must be documented and shared with the teacher within ten days of the informal observation. Individual Growth Plan: Each teacher will complete an Individual Growth Plan by May

2 1st of the year prior to his/her evaluation cycle. This plan will be reviewed as a part of the Post-Observation Conference. First year teachers must have a Individual Growth Plan submitted by September 15 th. Formal Evaluation Timeline The administrator shall conduct a minimum of two formal written evaluations for each non-tenured teacher and one formal written evaluation for each tenured teacher scheduled for evaluation. Evaluations will be conducted throughout the school year from September to early March. Pre-Observation Conference Classroom Observation within seven (7) school days of the Pre-Observation Conference Post-Observation Conference within seven (7) school days of the Classroom Observation Completed Evaluation Document Review within seven (7) school days of the Post-Observation Conference Evaluation signing within seven (7) school days of the Completed Evaluation Document Review Evaluation Steps Individual Growth Plan To be submitted by the teacher and approved by the administrator by May 1st of the year prior to your evaluation cycle. First year teacher- September 15th Pre-Observation Conference To review the evaluation tool and how it is used To determine what assessments will be used for student growth and how those measures will be to generate a Student Growth Data Rating. To communicate and discuss the pertinent information relating to the students, as well as the lesson being observed Classroom Observation To observe the plan discussed and developed in the pre-observation conference To record observation notes sufficient to document ratings and comments on the evaluation tool Post-Observation Conference To discuss and analyze the data gathered during the observation and discuss student growth data results. To discuss the teacher's reflections on the lesson and professional responsibilities Completed Evaluation Process To provide teacher with a completed evaluation, verbally and in writing To provide a summative evaluation rating (except for first evaluations of non-tenured teachers) To provide evaluator with a signed document within three days of receipt by the teacher (signature does not signify agreement or disagreement with this evaluation) The teacher has the right to add a written response to this evaluation within 30

3 days Teacher and evaluator retain a signed copy of summative evaluation and any written responses (evaluator will place a copy in the teacher s personnel file) Teacher and evaluator review and revise, if necessary, the Individual Growth Plan. Appraisal Process Chart for those teachers having received a PROFICIENT & EXCELLENT Rating Time of Year Required Process: Applies all year. Formal Observation(s) Informal Observation(s) Summative Evaluation Individual Growth Plan Appraisal Process Chart for those teachers having received a NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Rating Time of Year Within 30 calendar days of Teacher receiving an Overall Rating of Needs Improvement By September 1st of the following school year Required Process: Develop Professional Development Plan (PDP) with evaluator Confirm implementation of PDP with Teacher, Evaluator, and any Consulting Teacher who will be providing support for the plan By Winter Break of the following school year Formal Observation(s) Informal Observation(s) Mid-Plan Meeting(s) Mid-point review of Student Growth Data After Winter Break of the following school year Informal Observation(s) Optional - Formal Observation (at discretion of the administrator) Mid-point review of Student Growth Data Prior to the March Board Meeting of the Summative Evaluation

4 following school year Certified Next Steps Overall Rating of Proficient or Excellent - see Appraisal Process Chart for Proficient & Excellent Failure to attain the overall rating of Proficient or Excellent after completion of a PDP, will result in the rating of Unsatisfactory Overall Rating of Unsatisfactory - See Appraisal Process Chart for Unsatisfactory Teachers may request one additional formal evaluation within the observation year. Appraisal Process Chart for those teachers having received an UNSATISFACTORY Rating Time of Year Within 30 calendar days of Teacher receiving an Overall Rating of Unsatisfactory Required Process Assign a Consulting Teacher to support Remediation Plan Develop 90 day Remediation Plan with evaluator At the beginning of the 90 day Remediation Plan Confirm implementation of Remediation Plan with Teacher, Evaluator, and Consulting Teacher By the midpoint of the Remediation Plan, and throughout the remainder of the Remediation Period Informal Observation(s) Formal Observation(s)(at the discretion of the administrator) At the midpoint of the Remediation Plan Summative Evaluation is conducted and reviewed with the Teacher At the conclusion of the Remediation Plan period Summative Evaluation Certified Next Steps Overall Rating of Proficient or Excellent - See Appraisal Chart for Proficient & Excellent

5 Overall Rating of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory - Recommendation for Dismissal Qualified Evaluators Any person hired in an administrative capacity and possessing the appropriate certification and qualifications. All qualified evaluators in the state of Illinois have passed the required teacher evaluation training, in order to establish inter-rater reliability. Thus, it is mandatory that the evaluator not only provides element, component, domain, and overall ratings, but can support them. This document will operate under the principle that a teacher would receive the same ratings from one qualified evaluator as they would from another. Rating System The evaluator must take into consideration all of the ratings given within a section; thus, the component, domain, and overall ratings will reflect all of the evidence gathered during the evaluation process. Therefore, they are not dependent on one Excellent, Proficient, Needs Improvement, or Unsatisfactory rating; rather, they are based on a combination of all of the ratings given within that particular section. If an imbalance in ratings occurs (i.e., one Excellent, one Proficient, and three No Basis ), the qualified evaluators will determine the final rating. Caveat The Danielson Model has been recognized by the state of Illinois as a very effective teaching and evaluation tool. Nevertheless, there are classes in which the pattern of higher-order discussion must give way to hands-on learning techniques that require a different style of classroom engagement. Therefore, it is imperative that the evaluator recognize that not all elements of the model--especially domains 2 and 3--are applicable to all classroom situations. For example, a teacher who moves from room to room may have limited ability to organize physical space; classes may require students to follow precedents to gain certain skills; or technology may fail during a lesson. The evaluation tool will allow the evaluator to acknowledge those realities and apply a no basis rating when necessary. Student Growth Data: Student Growth data will comprise of 25% of the total performance rating score for and school year and 30% thereafter. The Joint Committee will identify all the assessments that will be allowed to determine student growth. The assessments must align to the school improvement goals and provide multiple data

6 points. At least one Type I assessment or Type II assessment and a Type III or two Type III assessments will be used to measure student growth. The teacher and evaluator will determine which assessments will be used during each evaluation cycle. The determination of what category the assessment belongs will be determined during the pre-observation or goal setting meeting. Growth Data Rating- No later than October 1 st, the evaluator and teacher will meet and determine what measures will be used to determine the Student Growth Scores. Goals will be determined at this time with ratings assigned based on expected student growth which will be set by the teacher and evaluator. Each assessment used will be weighted equally when determining the final student growth rating. Teachers will be responsible for collecting mid-year data and reporting that data to the administrator. Growth data goals may be adjusted at the mid-year point. During this meeting, the group of students who are to be measured will be determined. The evaluator and teacher may choose to evaluate a specific set of students. All students are not required to be used in measuring student growth. Assessment Type Description Type I A reliable assessment that measures a certain group or subset of students in the same manner with the same potential assessment items, is scored by a non-district entity, and is administered either statewide or beyond Illinois Type II Any assessment developed or adopted and approved for use by the school district and used on a district wide basis by all teachers in a given grade or subject area Type III Any assessment that is rigorous, that is aligned to the course curriculum, and that the qualified evaluator and teacher determine measures student learning in that course Identified Assessments Approved by the Joint Committee Approved Joint Committee Assessments Aimes Webs NWEA MAP SRA Reading (Connect-Ed) Staff designed assessments Student Work Samples Textbook created test/chapter Tests Common Core Assessment Packet

7 Writing Samples Behavior Charts Observation/Anecdotal Notes Weekly Spelling Tests Supplemental Materials/Worksheets Math Facts Tests A-Z Readers Word Waves WADE Test Khan Academy Moby Max Student Growth Rating Professional Practice Rating Excellent Proficient Needs Unsatisfactory Improvement Excellent Excellent Excellent Proficient More information needed for rating Proficient Excellent Proficient Proficient Needs Improvement Needs Proficient Proficient Needs Needs Improvement Improvement Improvement Unsatisfactory More Needs Needs Unsatisfactory Information Improvement Improvement Professional Practice Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Ratings: ( E ) Excellent, ( P ) Proficient, ( N ) Needs Improvement, ( U ) Unsatisfactory ( NB ) No Basis Signifies that the evaluator has no basis to provide a rating. 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Instructional Strategies 1a. Demonstration of Is an expert in the subject area and has Knows the subject matter Is somewhat familiar with Is unfamiliar with subject matter and

8 knowledge of content and instructional strategies cutting edge knowledge of how students learn. well and has working knowledge of how students learn. subject matter and has few ideas of how students learn. does not know how students learn. 1a Component Rating 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students 1b. Demonstration of knowledge of student s Consistently and reliably demonstrates the ability to infuse knowledge of student backgrounds and abilities in design and delivery of instruction. Often demonstrates the ability to infuse knowledge of student backgrounds and abilities in design and delivery of instruction. Rarely demonstrates the ability to understand student backgrounds and abilities and use them for design and delivery of instruction. Does not demonstrate the ability to understand student backgrounds and use them for instruction. 1b Component Rating 1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes 1c. Establishes instructional Goals and Objectives that are authentic and aligned to Common Core Standards. Instructional activities are aligned and integrated to the Common Core Standards and reflects challenging and attainable expectations. Instructional activities are aligned to the Common Core Standards and reflect attainable expectations. Instructional activities are sometimes aligned to the Common Core Standards and reflect inappropriate expectations. Instructional activities are not aligned to the Common Core Standards and expectations are unclear and inappropriate. 1c Component Rating 1d: Designing Coherent Instruction 1d. Designing Coherent Instruction. Always presents material clearly and explicitly with well chosen examples and vivid and appropriate language that teaches stated goals. Uses clear explanations, good examples, and appropriate language to present material that teaches stated goals. Sometimes uses language and examples that are unclear and confusing which are unrelated to the stated goals. Often presents material in a confusing manner with inappropriate language. Goals are not stated or are unclear. 1d Component Rating

9 1e: Designing Student Assessments 1e. Designing Student Assessments Clear and consistent evidence that a variety of assessments are used during instruction. Assessments are used to mold, create, and implement lesson. Summative assessments align to the stated objectives. Students are aware and cooperative in the assessment. Clear and consistent evidence that a variety of assessments are used during instruction and planning. Assessments align to the stated goals of the lesson or unit. Some evidence that assessments are used during instruction and planning. Assessments inconsistently align to goals and objectives. Does not perform formative assessments, and summative assessments inconsistently align to the stated goals. 1e Component Rating Evaluator Comments Domain 1 Final Rating Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Ratings: ( E ) Excellent, ( P ) Proficient, ( N ) Needs Improvement, ( U ) Unsatisfactory ( NB ) No Basis Signifies that the evaluator has no basis to provide a rating. 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport 2a. Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport Classroom interactions among teacher and students demonstrate a high regard and respect for one another, reflecting genuine warmth. Consistently and effectively encouraging students to treat each other with civility. Classroom interactions among teachers and students demonstrate an atmosphere of respect. Consistently encouraging students to treat each other with civility. Classroom interactions among teachers and students demonstrate little respect with limited amounts of warmth. Inconsistent attempts to encourage civility among students. Classroom interactions demonstrate negativity, inappropriateness, or insensitivity. Little or no attempt to encourage civility among students. 2a Component Rating 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning 2b. Establishing a culture for learning Creates and maintains a culture of high expectations for rigorous learning Creates and maintains a culture of high expectation for rigorous Creates and maintains a level of average expectations. Fails to create any expectations. Students do not understand the

10 in which the students share a belief in and understand the importance of the lesson learning. Most students understand the importance of the lesson. importance of the lesson. 2b Component Rating 2c: Managing Classroom Procedures 2c. Managing Classroom Procedures Evidence of highly effective classroom routines, procedures, handling of supplies, and performance of non instructional duties. Students understand the daily routine without re direction. Evidence of highly effective classroom routines, procedure, handling of supplies, and performance of non instructional duties. Most students understand the daily routine without re direction. Evidence of manageable classroom routines, procedure, and handling of supplies. Handling of non instructional duties creates distractions in the learning environment. Students are re directed regularly. Classroom routines, procedure, and non instructional duties are unorganized and students are re directed daily. 2c Component Rating 2d: Managing Student Behavior 2d. Managing Student Behavior Standards of conduct are clear with evidence of student participation in setting them. Teacher monitoring of student behavior is subtle and clear. Students monitor their own behavior correcting each other respectfully. Standards of conduct are clear with evidence of student participation in setting them. Teacher monitoring of student behavior is subtle and clear. Standard of conduct is unclear and confusing to students. Teacher monitoring of behavior consistently create a distraction from the learning environment. There is no standard of conduct. Teacher exhibits little respect in monitoring behavior and classroom instruction is routinely disrupted by teacher reaction to behavior. 2d Component Rating 2e: Organizing Physical Space 2e. Organizing Physical Space Artfully uses room arrangement, materials, and displays to maximize student learning. Organizes classroom furniture, materials, and displays to support Organizes furniture and materials to support general learning but not specific units or Has a conventional furniture arrangement, hard to access materials, and few

11 unit and lesson goals. lessons. wall displays. 2e Component Rating Evaluator Comments: Domain 2 Final Rating Domain 3: Instruction Ratings: ( E ) Excellent, ( P ) Proficient, ( N ) Needs Improvement, ( U ) Unsatisfactory ( NB ) No Basis Signifies that the evaluator has no basis to provide a rating. 3a: Communicating with Students 3a. Communicatin g with students Expectations for learning and explanations of content are consistently clear to students. Teacher s oral and written communications are clear, relevant, and respectful. Teacher anticipates misconceptions and makes proper adjustments. Expectations for learning and explanations of content are consistently clear to students. Teacher s oral and written communications are clear, relevant, and respectful. Expectations for learning and explanations of content are unclear, but clarified after initial confusion. Teacher language is correct, but lacks clarity or relevance. There is a lack of expectations for learning and explanations are unclear and confusing. Teacher uses inappropriate language in the teaching setting. 3a Component Rating 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques 3b. Using questioning techniques and discussion techniques Skillfully meets the learning needs and styles of all students by differentiation, scaffolding, and questioning. Teacher independently seeks best practices in regards to teaching strategies. All students engaged during questioning/discussion. Differentiates and scaffolds instruction to meet the needs of most students. Most engaged during questioning/discussion. Attempts to use multiple teacher methods and strategies with limited success. Only very small percentage of students engaged during questioning/discussion. Does not attempt to vary teaching methods. No student students engaged during discussion and questioning. 3b Component Rating 3c: Engaging Students in Learning

12 3c. Engaging of students in learning All students are challenged equitably and show interest in the lesson. The lesson is adapted to the needs of the students and provides opportunity for student reflection. Students actively participate in the lesson. All students are challenged equitably and most show interest in the lesson. The lesson is adapted to the needs of the students. Students actively participate in the lesson. Students are at times challenged, but do not show much interest in the lesson. Some students actively participate in the lesson. Students are not challenged, or students are singled out in a show of favoritism. Students have no interest in the lesson and do not actively participate. 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction 3d. Using Assessment in Instruction Consistently and effectively uses a wide variety of formative and summative assessment to differentiate instruction. Progress is articulated and celebrated. Consistently uses assessment results to measure growth and shares results with students. Consistently uses a wide variety of formative and summative assessments to differentiate instruction. Progress is communicated regularly to students. 3c Component Rating Formative and summative assessments are rarely used and not used to help deter mine instructional strategies. Progress is rarely shared with students. Formative and Summative assessments are not used. Results of these tests are not analyzed and purely used to give a grade. Progress is not shared with the students. 3d Component Rating 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness 3e. Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsivenes s Consistently and effectively monitors and adjusts the lesson in response to assessments. Consistently ensures student learning by using a wide range of instructional strategies with great flexibility. Consistently and effectively monitors and adjusts the lesson in response to assessments. Consistently ensures student learning by using a wide range of instructional strategies. Rarely adjusts lesson based on formative assessments. Uses limited instructional strategies that do not meet the needs of all students. Does not use formative assessments and uses limited instructional strategies which do not meet the needs the students in class. 3e Component Rating Evaluator Comments:

13 Domain 3 Final Rating Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Ratings: ( E ) Excellent, ( P ) Proficient, ( N ) Needs Improvement, ( U ) Unsatisfactory ( NB ) No Basis Signifies that the evaluator has no basis to provide a rating. 4a: Reflecting on Teaching 4a. Reflecting on teaching Consistently and effectively assesses the lesson s effectiveness. Offers extensive suggestions for lesson improvement. Consistently assesses the lesson s effectiveness. Offers adequate suggestions for lesson improvement. Inconsistently assesses a lesson s effectiveness. Does not assess the lessons effectiveness. Offers no suggestions for how the lesson could be improved. 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records 4b. Maintaining accurate records Clear and consistent system of managing records that monitor s student s progress. Student involvement in the process. Consistent evidence of managing records that monitor s student s progress. 4a Component Rating Inconsistent evidence of managing student records. No evidence of managing student records and student progress. 4c: Communicating with families 4c.Communicating with families Regularly contacts parents about the students educational program, which yields productive results. Initiates contacts with parents with about the student s educational program. 4b Component Rating Responds to parent contacts about the student s educational program. Fails to respond to or initiate parent contacts about the students educational program. 4d: Participating and Developing in a Professional Community 4d. Participating and Developing a Professional Community Regularly leads school and district initiatives with respect and support from colleagues. Teacher initiates plans for professional growth Regularly participates and contributes to district initiatives in collaboration with colleagues. Teacher participates in professional growth. 4c Component Rating Rarely participates in district initiatives and only collaborates with colleagues when directed to do so. Participates Does not participate in district initiatives. Does not collaborate with colleagues and does not participate in professional growth activities.

14 only in district provided profession growth. 4d Component Rating 4e: Showing Professionalism 4e. Showing Professionalism Actively and consistently participates in decision making process, leads staff in advocacy for students, at all times conducts themselves with integrity, honesty, and confidentiality. Participates in decision making process when asked. Participates in advocacy for students, conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, and confidentiality. Does not participate in the decision making process. Does not always comply with school regulation. Advocates for children only when it is convenient for themselves. Actively attempts to undermine the decision making process, lacks integrity and honesty or does not hold confidentiality. Does not comply with school regulations. Evaluator Comments: Domain 4 Final Rating Professional Practice Overall Rating Student Growth Rating 4e Component Rating Description of Student Growth Method: Assessments Used: Goal Description/Student Growth Targets: Percentage of Students who met goals: Student Growth Teacher Rating Rubric Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Proficient Excellent Less the 25% student s met growth targets 25%-50% students met growth targets 51%-75% students met growth targets 76%-100% students met growth targets

15 Student Growth Overall Rating Performance Evaluation Overall Rating Evaluator Signature Date Teacher Signature Date The signature above indicates that this evaluation was reviewed with the administrator. Within 10 calendar days of the post-conference, a teacher may submit a written response to be included in the evaluation. INDIVIDUAL GROWTH PLAN (To be completed by to May 1st prior to an evaluation year) Teacher Name: School Year:

16 Individual Growth Goal Statement: What Domains/Component(s) are addressed in this IGP: Action Steps/Activities (Specific Teacher Activities that are part of your plan) Timelines (Timeframe that Action Steps/Activities will be completed) Resources (Staff, Professional Development, or Materials) Indicators of Success I have reviewed the above Individual Growth Plan: Teacher s Name: _ Teacher s Signature: Evaluator s Signature: Date: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Page 1 of 2) (Required within 30 days of a teacher receiving a Needs Improvement Rating)

17 Name: Evaluator: Date of PDP: (Within 30 Days of Needs Improvement Rating) Area(s) of Improvement: Rationale for Area(s) of Improvement: Domain/Component: Expectations for Effective Teaching: Improvement Strategies: Tasks to complete: Supports and Resources: Target Date: Date of Completion: * Note: For additional details, please see the Appraisal Process Chart for teacher receiving a Needs Improvement Rating. Domain/Component: Indicator of Progress:

18 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Page 2 of 2) Evaluator: Teacher: Date: Date: * The teacher s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the content, but does acknowledge that the evaluation meeting occurred and that he/she received a copy of this professional development plan. Teacher completion of Professional Development Plan: Yes No Comments: Evaluator: Teacher: Date: Date: * The teacher s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the assessment.

19 Tenured Mid-Plan Meeting Record (Required by winter break for teachings receiving a Needs Improvement Rating) Teacher Name: _ Evaluator: Date: Topics from Certified Staff Member: Topics from Administrator: Notes from meeting: What s working: Identified areas for growth: Challenges/Concerns (if any): Follow-up (if any): Evaluator: Date: Teacher: Date: