Central School District 51 Teacher Evaluation Plan

Introduction Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Central School District 51 Teacher Evaluation Plan Purpose of Evaluation: The purpose of this evaluation plan for certified personnel is to: 1. Improve the quality of instruction and performance of staff; 2. To enhance student learning as defined in the professional competencies; 3. Create positive attitudes toward the purposes and value of appraisal and professional development; 4. Collect reliable, valid, and varied data for making employment decisions. District Evaluators: Dale Heidbreder, Superintendent (Administrator w/ Type 75) Brian Hoelscher, Principal, CIS (Administrator w/ Type 75) Brett Lawless, Principal, CPS (Administrator w/ Type 75) Philosophy of the Plan This evaluation plan uses Charlotte Danielson s Framework for Teaching to establish a common definition of effective teaching for all Central District 51 teachers. This plan seeks to use the Framework for Effective Teaching to define effective practice, encourage conversations about instruction, and identify areas for professional growth. Teacher Involvement: Representatives of the Washington 51 Education Association were involved in the development of the District evaluation plan. An assurance statement documenting said involvement is included. Descriptions/Standards of Performance For the purpose of this evaluation plan, teachers shall be evaluated utilizing the Framework for Teaching model. All certified staff will be evaluated by administrators approved to conduct evaluation of certified staff. All tenured teachers will be formally evaluated a minimum of once every two years. All non-tenured teachers will be formally evaluated a minimum of one time per year. Each certified staff member is expected to achieve a proficient or excellent rating on the Summative Evaluation document. Certified tenured or non tenured teachers receiving a needs improvement rating will be subject to the professional assistance plan as outlined in this document. 1

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Any certified non-tenured teacher who receives a rating of unsatisfactory may be subject to dismissal or afforded an opportunity for remediation if deemed appropriate by administration at the end of their personal contract period. Certified tenured teachers receiving an unsatisfactory rating will be required to follow remediation activities as outlined in this document. Teachers who fail to complete the ninety (90) school day remediation plan with a proficient or above rating shall be dismissed in accordance with 105 ILCS 5/24A-1 through 5 of The Illinois School Code. Professional Practice Central District 51 will utilize the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (Appendix 1). The framework aligns with the state model using four domains to identify and evaluate different aspects of teaching: Planning and Preparation, The Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities. The professional practice piece consists of formal/informal observations, pre and post-observation conferences, self-reflection and a mid-cycle meeting. Evaluation Process Within ten (10) school days from the beginning of the school year, the building principal will meet with all certified staff members who are scheduled to be evaluated for the current school year. At this meeting, all appendices associated with this document pertaining to the evaluation process will be shared and discussed. Pre-Observation Information Prior to an observation, each teacher will supply the evaluator with the completed Pre- Observation Form with all necessary attachments and overviews. Post-Observation Conference After the observation, the principal will conduct a post-observation conference with the teacher. Items discussed will be related to any areas of commendation or concern. Filing of Evaluations Each completed Formal Observation Summary and Summative Evaluation will be signed by the administrator and the teacher. This may include a response by the teacher to the evaluation. Observation Summaries must be completed and signed within ten (10) school days of the said observation. One copy of the signed Summative Evaluation will be given to the teacher and one will be retained by the administrator and forwarded to the District Office for placement in the teacher s personnel file. 2

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Schedule of Evaluation: The following schedule will be utilized to conduct teacher evaluations: Full-time/Part-Time Non-Tenured Teachers All full or part-time, non-tenured teachers will complete the evaluation process a minimum of one time per year. Evaluations which recommend dismissal will be completed at least sixty (60) calendar days before the end of the school year. An evaluation will consist of a minimum of two (2) scheduled observations and two (2) unscheduled observations. Teachers on Contractual Continued Service All tenured teachers will complete the evaluation process a minimum of once every two years. The evaluation will consist of a minimum of one (1) formal observation and one (1) informal observation. If a teacher has a planned leave of absence or an absence that falls under the Family Medical Leave Act, the administrator will make every effort to complete the evaluation prior to the absence. If this cannot be done, then the teacher will be placed on the evaluation cycle the following school year. Professional Practice Scoring In order to obtain a professional practice score, ratings are given for each individual component and are then combined to obtain a domain score. The four domain scores are then combined into one final professional practice score that accounts for 75% of the total summative score. (70% after the first two years.) 3

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Domain Ratings Component ratings will be combined into each of the four domain ratings using the following operating principles: Rating Principle Expectation Excellent Proficient Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Must have at least three Excellent components in each domain, with the rest rated Proficient. No more than two Needs Improvement in each domain. Note If the teacher receives 1 Needs Improvement in the same domain for two cycles in a row, then it becomes a Needs Improvement. At least 3 components within that domain rated Needs Improvement, with no more than 1 component rated Unsatisfactory. Note If the teacher receives 2 Needs Improvements in the same domain for two cycles in a row, then the domain becomes an Unsatisfactory. Two or more components within any domain rated as Unsatisfactory Refers to professional teaching that innovatively involves students in the learning process and creates a true community of learners. Teachers performing at this level are master teachers and leaders in the field. Refers to successful, professional teaching that is consistently at a high level. It would be expected that most experienced teachers would perform at this level. Refers to teaching that has the necessary knowledge and skills to be effective, but its application is inconsistent. Refers to teaching that does not convey understanding of the concepts underlying the components. 4

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Final Teacher Practice Rating The four domain ratings will be combined to identify one final teacher practice rating using the following operating principles: Rating Principle 4 Excellent At least 3 of the domains are rated as Excellent, with the remaining domain rated as Proficient. 3 Proficient All domains must be rated Proficient or higher. No domain rated as Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory. 2 Needs Improvement One or more domains rated as Needs Improvement. Remaining domains rated as Proficient or higher. 1 - Unsatisfactory One or more domains rated as Unsatisfactory. 5

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Student Growth Introduction Using student growth measures helps achieve the mission of Central SD 51 to provide educational opportunities focused on the future and to meet the needs of all in a safe, nurturing environment so that each student may reach their fullest potential. SLOs also connect to the Danielson Framework for Teaching, representing another layer of the work around teacher effectiveness and fulfilling Central SD 51 s Mission. Assessment Requirements Illinois PERA law has defined assessments according to three distinct Types: Type I, Type II, and Type III. See the graphic below: Type I Type II Type III An assessment that measures a certain group of students in the same manner with the same potential assessment items, is scored by a non-district entity, and is widely administered beyond Illinois An assessment developed or adopted and approved by the school district and used on a district-wide basis that is given by all teachers in a given grade or subject area An assessment that is rigorous, aligned with the course s curriculum, and that the evaluator and teacher determine measures student learning Examples: STAR Examples: Collaboratively developed common assessments, curriculum tests, Benchmark assessments Examples: teacher-created assessments, assessments of student performance Collaboration with FLA/Grade Level Team is encouraged when selecting or writing assessments. 6

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Central District 51 has identified the following SLO group expectations: Teachers Assessments Kindergarten-1 st Grade Teachers Reading/Math Content Area Teachers 2 nd grade and up Non Reading/Math Teachers 2 nd grade and up Specials Teachers Fine Arts, Computers, PE Special Education and Reading/Math Interventions Type 1 or 2 Choose from: KIDS Fountas and Pinnell Fundations by Wilson STAR Math Type 1 Must use STAR If applicable to your teaching area including Reading, Math, ELL, and CIS grade-level RTI Teachers have to use either STAR Reading or Math Type 2 or 3 Must be quarterly/trimester test (Long-term unit) Type 2 or 3 Addresses Long-term goals/skills Type 1 or 2 STAR or other normreferenced test Other ideas: Fountas and Pinnell, Ready Common Core, etc. Type 3 Choice with Admin Must be subject area not tested by other assessment Reading or Math Type 3 Choice with Admin If teach both Reading and Math, Type 3 must address subject area not used for Type 1 Type 3 Choice with Admin Addresses Shortterm unit Type 3 Choice with Admin Addresses Shortterm unit Type 3 Choice with Admin May use IEP goals May be discussion about need to include Math/Reading based on teaching assignment. 7

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Growth Targets Teachers may choose from the following 3 options to determine growth targets: 1) Halfway to 100 o Each student will make growth equivalent to halfway to 100 based on their pretest score. 2) 80% of the population will score 80% or higher o 80% of the group of students will score 80% or higher on the post-test. 3) Specify growth for groups (up to 5 groups) of students o Groups can be formed based on similar academic and historical performance o Administration must approve groups and targets o Can adjust groups at midpoint Allowable Exceptions Teachers can request exceptions, with the approval of the evaluator, for certain students on a student-by-student basis. *Sub-groups (e.g. SPED, ELL) cannot be excluded. Evidence to justify an exception may include: Attendance/Attribution data (e.g. student was absent from class x amount) Additional work samples (e.g. a portfolio, standards-based assessments, comparative data) Miscellaneous student information Any exceptions made must be done with the approval of the evaluator. SLO Scoring Each SLO will receive a score in one of four categories, Excellent, Proficient, Needs Improvement, or Unsatisfactory. The SLO scores are averaged to account for 25% of the summative scoring for the first two years, 30% thereafter. Steps to SLO Scoring 1) The teacher scores the SLO s and determines the performance rating using the established threshold criteria. 2) The teacher must provide documentation of students test scores, using the Student Growth Spreadsheet when submitting. 3) The evaluator approves the performance ratings. 4) If the teacher and evaluator cannot agree: If the SLO scores are rejected, the evaluator and teacher meet. If the teacher and evaluator still cannot agree, the SLO scoring is determined by the Superintendent. 8

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 SLO Threshold Criteria Performance Ratings Excellent Proficient Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Thresholds At least 80% of students met targeted growth 70-79% of students met targeted growth 60-69% of students met targeted growth Less than 59% met targeted growth Did not correctly score assessment Did not accurately administer assessment Summative Scoring Professional practice accounts for 75% of the summative score for the first two years, 70% thereafter. Student growth accounts for 25% of the summative score for the first two years, 30% thereafter. To obtain a summative score: 1) A final Teacher Practice Rating is given based on the domain scores. 2) The two SLO scores are averaged to identify a final Student Growth score. 3) Calculation: (Teacher Practice Score x.75) + (Student Growth Score x.25) = Final Summative Score 4) Final rating is determined using the following bands: Rating Summative Band Excellent 3.5-4.0 Proficient 2.7-3.49 Needs Improvement 1.7-2.69 Unsatisfactory 1.69 or below 9

Professional Assistance/Remediation Plans Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Professional Assistance Plan (Needs Improvement) The Professional Assistance process will provide for a minimum of four scheduled observations and four unscheduled observations for the school year following the receipt of the Needs Improvement rating. A professional assistance plan will be developed with input from the teacher and administrator, utilizing the Professional Assistance Plan Document (Appendix 15-16). The professional assistance plan will focus on the areas that need improvement and will outline supports that the district will provide to address the areas of concern that have been identified in the previous evaluation. Certified tenured or non-tenured teachers receiving a needs improvement as an overall rating on their summative evaluation will be subject to the professional assistance process for the next school year. Should a problem, situation, or weak area of teacher performance be identified via notice of direction during a non-evaluation year, the following process will be put into place: 1. A meeting between the teacher and administrator will take place. The teacher has a right to union representation at this meeting. 2. Identification of the problem will be submitted to the teacher in writing. 3. A plan of action will be developed to remedy the problem/situation. A timeline will be included for review. 4. If the problem is not resolved within the limits of the collaborative timeline, the teacher will be evaluated for the remainder of the current school year as well as the following school year utilizing the Professional Assistance Process. Remediation Activities (Unsatisfactory) A remediation plan will be developed and initiated within thirty (30) school days after an evaluation has been completed which results in an overall unsatisfactory rating. This plan will be designed to correct the areas identified as unsatisfactory, provided the deficiencies are deemed remediable. The remediation plan will provide for two 45-day evaluation periods in which a minimum of 2 scheduled and 2 unscheduled observations shall be completed in each period. At the conclusion of the first 45 day evaluation, the administrator must complete a Summative Evaluation and assign an overall rating for that time period. At the conclusion of the second 45-day evaluation period, the administrator must complete a Summative Evaluation and assign an overall rating for the entire 90 day period. 10

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 a. Failure of the teacher to comply with the timelines for the required evaluations due to events such as summer months, illness, or district approved leaves of absence under a remediation plan shall not invalidate the results of said plan. b. Failure of the administration to strictly comply with the time requirements contained herein shall not invalidate the results of the remediation plan c. There shall be a conference for the overall remediation plan evaluation within ten (10) school days of the completed remediation process. Participants--The participants in the remediation plan shall include the teacher deemed unsatisfactory, a qualified administrator, and a consulting teacher as approved by the association and by the Superintendent. The writing of the remediation plan may include the participation of the above mentioned personnel to assist in correcting areas identified as unsatisfactory a. The participation of the consulting teacher shall be voluntary. b. The qualified consulting teacher shall have received a rating of excellent or proficient on the most recent evaluation, has a minimum of five (5) years experience in teaching, and has knowledge and experience in the assignment of the teacher under remediation. c. The consulting teacher shall be chosen from the names of all teachers so qualified d. Where no consulting teacher is available in the district, the district shall request the State Board of Education to provide a consulting teacher. The State Board of Education shall then provide a consulting teacher who meets the requirements for qualifications as a consulting teacher. e. If the consulting teacher becomes unavailable during the course of a remediation plan, a new consulting teacher shall be selected in the same manner as the initial consulting teacher. The remediation plan shall be amended, as may be necessary upon consultation with the new consulting teacher. f. The consulting teacher shall provide advice to the teacher under remediation as to how to improve teaching skills and how to successfully complete the remediation plan. g. The consulting teacher shall not be required to participate in either of the two 45-day evaluation cycles in an official observation role, nor be engaged to evaluate the performance of the teacher under remediation. h. In order to provide assistance to the teacher under a remediation plan, the consulting teacher shall attend each post-observation conference as well as the 45-day evaluation conference. 11

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Dismissal The remediation plan shall provide that if the teacher under remediation fails to complete the ninety (90) school day remediation plan with a Proficient or above (final) rating, said teacher shall be dismissed in accordance with 105 ILCS 5/24A-1 through 5 of The Illinois School Code. Successful Completion A teacher who successfully completes a remediation program with a Proficient or above (final) rating will be evaluated the next school year, then resume the regular tenured cycle thereafter. 12

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Central School District 51 Assurance Statement Documenting Teacher Involvement Representatives of the Washington 51 Education Association (WEA) were involved in the development of the district evaluation plan which is effective for the 2016-2017 school year. President, W51EA Date President, Board of Education Date Superintendent Date Evaluation Committee Rep. Date 13

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Framework for Teaching Appendix #1 Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy ELEMENT UNSATISFACTORY 1 NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 PROFICIENT 3 EXCELLENT 4 Knowledge of Content Teacher makes content errors or does not correct content errors students make Teacher displays basic content knowledge and use of standards but cannot articulate connections with other parts of the discipline or with other disciplines Teacher displays solid content knowledge and use of standards and makes connections between content and other parts of the discipline and other disciplines Teacher displays extensive content knowledge and use of standards. Evidence of continuing pursuit of such knowledge Knowledge of Prerequisite Relationships and Standards Teacher displays little understanding of prerequisite knowledge and standards important for student learning and content Teacher indicates some awareness of prerequisite learning and standards, although such knowledge may be incomplete or inaccurate Teacher s plans and practices reflect understanding of prerequisite relationships among topics and concepts. Uses standards vertically and horizontally Teacher actively builds on knowledge of prerequisite relationships and standards when describing instruction or seeking causes for student misunderstanding Knowledge of Content-Related Pedagogy Teacher displays little understanding of pedagogical issues involved in student learning of the content. Teacher displays basic pedagogical knowledge but does not anticipate student misconceptions. Pedagogical practices reflect current research on best pedagogical practice within the discipline but without anticipating student misconceptions. Teacher displays continuing search for best practice and anticipates student misconceptions. Learning Activities Learning activities are not suitable to students or instructional goals. They do not follow an organized progression and do not reflect recent professional research Only some learning activities are suitable to students or instructional goals. Progression of activities in the unit is uneven, and only some activities reflect recent professional research Most of the learning activities are suitable to students and instructional goals. Progression of activities in the unit is fairly even and most activities reflect recent professional research. Learning activities are highly relevant to students and instructional goals. They progress coherently, producing a unified whole and reflecting recent professional research. 14

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students ELEMENT Knowledge of Characteristics of Age Group Knowledge of Students Varied Approaches to Learning Knowledge of Students Skills, Knowledge, and Interests UNSATISFACTORY 1 Teacher displays minimal knowledge of developmental characteristics of age group. Teacher is unfamiliar with the different approaches to learning that students exhibit, such as learning styles, modalities, and different intelligences. Teacher displays little knowledge of students skills, knowledge, and interests and does not indicate that such knowledge is valuable NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Teacher displays generally accurate knowledge of developmental characteristics of age group. Teacher displays general understanding of the different approaches to learning that students exhibit. Teacher recognizes the value of understanding students skills, knowledge, and interests but displays knowledge for the class only as a whole. PROFICIENT 3 Teacher displays thorough understanding of typical developmental characteristics of age group as well as exceptions to general patterns Teacher displays solid understanding of the different approaches to learning that different students exhibit. Teacher displays knowledge of students skills, knowledge, and interests for groups of students and recognizes the value of this knowledge. EXCELLENT 4 Teacher displays knowledge of typical developmental characteristics of age group, exceptions to the patterns, and the extent to which each student follows patterns. Teacher uses, where appropriate knowledge of students varied approaches to learning in instructional planning. Teacher displays knowledge of students skills and knowledge for each student, including those with special needs. 15

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1c: Selecting Instructional Goals ELEMENT Value Clarity Balance UNSATISFACTORY 1 Goals are not suitable or valuable and represent low expectations or no conceptual understanding for students. Goals do not reflect important learning Goals are either not clear or are stated as student activities. Goals do not permit viable methods of assessment. Goals reflect only one type of learning and one discipline or strand NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Suitable goals are moderately valuable in either their expectations or conceptual understanding for most students and in importance of learning. Goals are only moderately clear or include a combination of goals and activities. Some goals do not permit viable methods of assessment. Goals reflect several types of learning but no effort at coordination or integration. PROFICIENT 3 Goals are valuable in their level of expectations, conceptual understanding, and importance of learning. Most of the goals are clear and permit viable methods of assessment. Goals reflect several different types of learning and opportunities for integration. EXCELLENT 4 The teacher can clearly articulate how valuable goals establish high expectations and relate to curriculum frameworks and standards. Goals take into account the varying learning needs of individual students or groups. All the goals are clear, written in the form of student learning, and permit viable methods of assessment. Goals reflect student initiative in establishing important learning. 16

Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources ELEMENT UNSATISFACTORY 1 NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 PROFICIENT 3 EXCELLENT 4 Resources for Teaching and for Students Teacher is unaware of resources available through the school or district Teacher displays limited awareness of resources available through the school or district Teacher is fully aware of all resources available through the school or district and knows how to gain access for students. In addition to being aware of school resources, teacher actively seeks other materials to enhance instruction, for example, from professional organizations or through the community 17

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1e: Assessing Student Learning Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Congruence with instructional Goals UNSATISFACTORY 1 Content and methods of assessment lack congruence with instructional goals NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Some of the instructional goals are assessed through the proposed approach, but many are not PROFICIENT 3 All the instructional goals are nominally assessed through the proposed plan, but the approach is more suitable to some goals than others. EXCELLENT 4 The proposed approach to assessment is completely congruent with the instructional goals, both in content and in process Criteria and Standards The proposed approach contains no clear criteria or standards Assessment criteria and standards have been developed, but they are either not clear or have not been clearly communicated to students. Assessment criteria and standards are clear and have been clearly communicated to students. Assessment criteria and standards are clear and have been clearly communicated to students. Use for Planning The assessment results affect planning for these students only minimally Teacher uses assessment results to plan for the class as a whole. Teacher uses assessment results to plan remediation activities Students are aware of how they are meeting the established standards and teacher uses results to plan both remediation and enrichment opportunities 18

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Component 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Teacher Interaction with students Student Interaction Use for Planning UNSATISFACTORY 1 Teacher interaction with at least some students is negative, demeaning, sarcastic, or inappropriate to the age or culture of the students. Students exhibit disrespect for teacher. Student interactions are characterized by conflict, sarcasm, or put-downs The assessment results affect planning for these students only minimally NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Teacher-student interactions are generally appropriate but may reflect occasional inconsistencies or favoritism. Students exhibit only minimal respect for teacher. Students do not demonstrate negative behavior toward one another. Teacher uses assessment results to plan for the class as a whole. PROFICIENT 3 Teacher-student interactions are friendly and demonstrate general warmth, caring and respect. Such interactions are appropriate to developmental norms. Students exhibit respect for the teacher Student interactions are generally polite and respectful Teacher uses assessment results to plan remediation activities EXCELLENT 4 Teacher demonstrates genuine caring and respect for individual students. Students exhibit respect for the teacher as an individual beyond that for the role. Assessment criteria and standards are clear and have been clearly communicated to students. Students demonstrate genuine caring for one another as individuals and as students. 19

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Component 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Importance of the Content Student Pride in Work Expectations for Learning and Achievement UNSATISFACTORY 1 Teacher or students convey a negative attitude toward the content, suggesting that the content is not important or is mandated by others. Students demonstrate little or no pride in their work. They seem to be motivated by the desire to complete a task rather than do high quality work. Instructional goals and activities, interactions, and the classroom environment convey only modest expectations for student achievement NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Teacher communicates importance of the work but with little conviction and only minimal apparent buy-in by the students Students minimally accept the responsibility to do good work but invest little of their energy in the quality of the work. Instructional goals and activities, interactions and the classroom environment convey inconsistent expectations for student achievement PROFICIENT 3 Teacher conveys genuine enthusiasm for the subject, and students demonstrate consistent commitment to its value Students accept teacher insistence on work of high quality and demonstrate pride in that work. Instructional goals and activities, interactions, and the classroom environment convey high expectations for student achievement EXCELLENT 4 Students demonstrate through their active participation, curiosity, and attention to detail that they value the content s importance. Students take obvious pride in their work and initiate improvements in it, for example, by revising drafts on their own initiative, helping peers, and ensuring that highquality work is displayed. Both students and teacher establish and maintain high expectations through planning of learning activities, interactions, and the classroom environment for the learning of all students 20

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Component 2c: Managing Classroom Procedures Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Management of Instructional Groups Management of Materials and Supplies Performance of Non-Instructional Duties Supervision of Volunteers and Paraprofessionals UNSATISFACTORY 1 Students not working with the teacher are not productively engaged in learning Materials are handled inefficiently, resulting in loss of instructional time Considerable instruction time is lost in performing non-instructional duties. Volunteers and paraprofessionals have no clearly defined duties or do nothing most of the time. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Tasks for group work are partially organized, resulting in some off-task behavior when teacher is involved with one group Routines for handling materials and supplies function moderately well. Systems for performing noninstructional duties are fairly efficient, resulting in little loss of instructional time. Volunteers and paraprofessionals are productively engaged during portions of class time but require frequent supervision PROFICIENT 3 Tasks for group work are organized, and groups are managed so most students are engaged at all times. Routines for handling materials and supplies occur smoothly, with little loss of instructional time. Efficient systems for performing noninstructional duties are in place, resulting in minimal loss of instructional time Volunteers and paraprofessionals are productively and independently engaged during the entire class. EXCELLENT 4 Groups working independently are productively engaged at all times, with students assuming responsibility for productivity Routines for handling materials and supplies are seamless, with students assuming some responsibility for efficient operation Systems for performing noninstructional duties are well established, with students assuming considerable responsibility for efficient operation. Volunteers and paraprofessionals make a substantive contribution to the classroom environment. 21

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Component 2d: Managing Student Behavior Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Expectations Monitoring of Student Behavior Response to Student Misbehavior UNSATISFACTORY 1 No standards of conduct appear to have been established, or students are confused as to what the standards are. Student behavior is not monitored, and teacher is unaware of what students are doing. Teacher does not respond to misbehavior, or the response is inconsistent, overly repressive, or does not respect the students dignity NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Standards of conduct appear to have been established for most situations, and most students seem to understand them. Teacher is generally aware of student behavior but may miss the activities of some students Teacher attempts to respond to student misbehavior but with uneven results, or no serious disruptive behavior occurs. PROFICIENT 3 Standards of conduct are clear to all students Teacher is alert to student behavior at all times Teacher response to misbehavior is appropriate and successful and respects the student s dignity, or student behavior is generally appropriate. EXCELLENT 4 Standards of conduct are clear to all students and appear to have been developed with student participation. Monitoring by teacher is subtle and preventative. Students monitor their own and their peers behavior correcting one another respectfully Teacher response to misbehavior is highly effective and sensitive to students individual needs, or student behavior is entirely appropriate. 22

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Component 2e: Organizing Physical Space Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Safety and Arrangement of Furniture Accessibility to Learning and Use of Physical Resources UNSATISFACTORY 1 The classroom is unsafe, or the furniture arrangement is not suited to the lesson activities, or both Teacher uses physical resources poorly, or learning is not accessible to some students. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 The classroom is safe and the classroom furniture is adjusted for a lesson, or if necessary, a lesson is adjusted to the furniture, but with limited effectiveness Teacher uses physical resources adequately and at least essential learning is accessible to all students PROFICIENT 3 The classroom is safe, and the furniture arrangement is a resource for learning activities Teacher uses physical resources skillfully and all learning is equally accessible to all students EXCELLENT 4 The classroom is safe, and the furniture arrangement is a resource for learning activities. As appropriate, students adjust the furniture to advance their own purposes in learning Both teacher and students use physical resources optimally, and students ensure that all learning is equally accessible to all students. 23

Domain 3: Instruction Component 3a: Communicating Clearly and Accurately Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Directions and Procedures UNSATISFACTORY 1 Teacher directions and procedures are confusing to students NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Teacher directions and procedures are clarified after initial student confusion or are excessively detailed. PROFICIENT 3 Teacher directions and procedures are clear to students and contain an appropriate level of detail EXCELLENT 4 Teacher directions and procedures are clear to students and anticipate possible student misunderstanding. Oral and Written Language Teacher s spoken language is inaudible, or written language is illegible. Spoken or written language may contain many grammar and syntax errors. Vocabulary may be inappropriate, vague, or used incorrectly, leaving students confused. Teacher s spoken language is audible, and written language is legible. Both are used correctly. Vocabulary is correct bout limited or is not appropriate to students ages or backgrounds Teacher s spoken and written language is clear and correct. Vocabulary is appropriate to student s age and interests. Teacher s spoken and written language is correct and expressive, with wellchosen vocabulary that enriches the lesson. 24

Domain 3: Instruction Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Quality of Questions Discussion Techniques and Student Participation UNSATISFACTORY 1 Teacher s questions are virtually all of poor quality. Interaction between teacher and students is predominantly recitation style, with teacher mediating all questions and answers. Only a few students participate in the discussion. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Teacher s questions are a combination of low and high quality. Only some invite response. Teacher makes some attempt to engage students in a true discussion, with uneven results PROFICIENT 3 Most of teacher s questions are of high quality. Adequate time is available for students to respond Classroom interaction represents true discussion, with teacher stepping, when appropriate to the side. Teacher successfully engages all students EXCELLENT 4 Teacher s questions are of uniformly high quality, with adequate time for students to respond. Students formulate many questions. Students assume considerable responsibility for the success of the discussion, initiating topics, making unsolicited contributions, and ensuring that all voices are heard in the discussion. 25

Domain 3: Instruction Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Representation of Content Activities and Assignments Grouping of Students Instructional Materials and Resources UNSATISFACTORY 1 Representation of content is inappropriate and unclear or sues poor examples and analogies Activities and assignments are inappropriate for students in terms of their age or backgrounds. Students are not engaged mentally Instructional groups are inappropriate to the students or to the instructional goals and offer no variety Instructional materials and resources do not support the instructional goals or do not engage students mentally. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Representation of content is inconsistent in quality. Some is done skillfully, with good examples; other portions are difficult to follow. Some activities and assignments are appropriate to students and engage them mentally, but others do not. Instructional groups are only partially appropriate to the students or only moderately successful in advancing the instructional goals of a lesson and offer minimal variety Instructional materials and resources are partially suitable to the instructional goals, or students level of mental engagement is moderate PROFICIENT 3 Representation of content is appropriate and links well with students knowledge and experience. Most activities and assignments are appropriate to students. Almost all students are cognitively engaged. Instructional groups are varied, productive, and fully appropriate to the students or to the instructional goals of a lesson. Instructional materials and resources are suitable to the instructional goals and engage students mentally EXCELLENT 4 Representation of content is appropriate and links well with students knowledge and experience. Students contribute to representation of content. All students are cognitively engaged in the activities and assignments in their exploration of content. Students initiate or adapt activities and projects to enhance understanding. Instructional groups are varied, productive and fully appropriate to the instructional goals of a lesson. Students take the initiative to influence instructional groups to advance their understanding. Instructional materials and resources are suitable to the instructional goals and engage students mentally. There is evidence of student choice, adaptation, or creation of materials to enhance their own purposes. Lesson and Unit Structure and Pacing The Lesson or unit has no clearly defined structure. Time allocations are unrealistic. The lesson or unit has a recognizable structure, although it is not uniformly maintained throughout. The lesson has a clearly defined structure around which the activities are organized The lesson s structure is highly coherent, allowing for reflection and closure as appropriate. Pacing of the lesson is appropriate for all students. 26

Domain 3: Instruction Component 3d: Providing Feedback to Students Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Quality: Accurate, substantive, Constructive, and Specific Timeliness UNSATISFACTORY 1 Feedback is either not provided or is of uniformly poor quality Feedback is not provided in a timely manner NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Feedback is inconsistent in quality. Some elements of high quality are present; others are not. Timeliness of feedback is inconsistent PROFICIENT 3 Feedback is consistently of high quality. Feedback is consistently provided in a timely manner. EXCELLENT 4 Feedback is consistently high quality. Provision is made for students to use feedback in their learning. Feedback is consistently provided in a timely manner. Students make prompt use of the feedback in their learning. 27

Domain 3: Instruction Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Lesson Adjustment Response to Students Persistence UNSATISFACTORY 1 Teacher adheres rigidly to an instructional plan, even when a change will clearly improve a lesson Teacher ignores or brushes aside students questions or interests. When a student has difficulty learning, the teacher either gives up or blames the student or the environment for student s lack of success NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Teacher attempts to adjust a lesson, with mixed results Teacher attempts to accommodate students questions or interests. The effects on the coherence of a lesson are uneven. Teacher accepts responsibility for the success of all students but has only a limited repertoire of instructional strategies PROFICIENT 3 Teacher makes a minor adjustment to a lesson, and the adjustment occurs smoothly Teacher successfully accommodates students questions or interests. Teacher persists in seeking approaches for students who have difficulty learning, possessing a moderate repertoire of strategies. EXCELLENT 4 Teacher successfully makes a major adjustment to a lesson. Teacher seizes a major opportunity to enhance learning, building on a spontaneous event. Teacher persists in seeking effective approaches for students who need help, using an extensive repertoire of strategies and soliciting additional resources from the school. 28

Domain 3: Instruction Component 3f: Classroom Assessment Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Clear and Appropriate Learning Targets Matching Methods to Targets Student Achievement UNSATISFACTORY 1 The teacher does not have clear learning targets nor are they aligned with the Central Curriculum and Illinois Learning Standards. Students cannot articulate why they received their grades or self-assess. Does not use formative assessment Only uses assessments that come with instructional materials Few students can demonstrate mastery of achievement standards, course objectives, curriculum standards, and/or grade level expectations NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Teacher uses targets but relies heavily on textbook or prepackaged materials. Recognizes need to relate targets to learning standards. Some use of formative assessment Trends to use the same type of assessment method. Some analysis/redesign of prepackaged assessments. Most students can demonstrate mastery of achievement standards, course objectives, curriculum standards and/or grade level expectations PROFICIENT 3 Clearly articulates targets and how they relate to learning standards. Regular use of formative assessment. Uses several types of assessments. Can articulate when to use each assessment method. Involves students in assessment design. All students can demonstrate mastery of achievement standards, course objectives, curriculum standards, and/or grade level expectations EXCELLENT 4 Designs and articulates targets to learning standards. Uses formative assessment with students to increase student achievement (assessment for learning) Uses all types of assessment methods and matches method to purpose, target and instruction. Regular student involvement in assessment design and implementation All students can demonstrate mastery of achievement standards, course objectives, curriculum standards, and/or grade level expectations. Teacher can show evidence of interventions provided to students when they are necessary 29

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Component 4a: Reflecting on Teaching Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Accuracy Use in Future Teaching UNSATISFACTORY 1 Teacher does not know if a lesson was effective or achieved its goals, or profoundly misjudges the success of a lesson Teacher has no suggestions for how a lesson may be improved another time NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Teacher has a generally accurate impression of a lesson s effectiveness and the extent to which instructional goals were met Teacher makes general suggestions about how a lesson may be improved. PROFICIENT 3 Teacher makes an accurate assessment of a lesson s effectiveness and the extent to which it achieved its goals, and can cite general references to support the judgment. Teacher makes a few specific suggestions of what she/he may try another time. EXCELLENT 4 Teacher makes a thoughtful and accurate assessment of a lesson s effectiveness and the extent to which it achieved its goals, citing many specific examples from the lesson and weighing the relative strength of each Drawing on a repertoire of skills, the teacher offers specific alternative actions, successes of different approaches 30

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Component 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Student Completion of Assignments Student Progress in Learning UNSATISFACTORY 1 Teacher s system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments is in disarray Teacher has no system for maintaining information on student progress in learning, or the system is in disarray. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Teacher s system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments is rudimentary and only partially effective Teacher s system for maintaining information on student progress in learning is rudimentary and partially effective PROFICIENT 3 Teacher s system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments is fully effective Teacher s system for maintaining information on student progress in learning is effective EXCELLENT 4 Teacher s system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments is fully effective. Students participate in the maintenance of records Teacher s system for maintaining information on student progress in learning is fully effective. Students contribute information and interpretation of the records 31

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Component 4c: Communicating With Families Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Information About the Instructional Program Information About Individual Students Engagement of Families in the Instructional Program UNSATISFACTORY 1 Teacher provides little information about the instructional program to families Teacher provides minimal information to parents and does not respond or responds insensitively to parent concerns about students Teacher makes no attempt to engage families in the instructional program, or such attempts are inappropriate NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Teacher participates in school s activities for parent communication but offers little additional information Teacher adheres to the school s required procedures for communicating to parents. Responses to parent concerns are minimal Teacher makes modest and inconsistently successful attempts to engage families in the instructional program PROFICIENT 3 Teacher provides frequent information to parents, as appropriate, about the instructional program. Teacher communicates with parents about students progress on a regular basis and is available as needed to respond to parent concerns. Teacher s efforts to engage families in the instructional program are frequent and successful EXCELLENT 4 Teacher provides frequent information to parents, as appropriate, about the instructional program. Students participate in preparing materials for their families. Teacher provides information to parents frequently on both positive and negative aspects of student progress. Response to parent concerns is handled with great sensitivity Teacher s efforts to engage families in the instructional program are frequent and successful. Students contribute ideas for projects that will be enhanced by family participation 32

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Component 4d: Contributing to the School District Central District 51 Teacher Evaluation 2016 ELEMENT Relationships with Colleagues Service to the School and/or District UNSATISFACTORY 1 Teacher s relationships with colleagues are negative or selfserving. Teacher avoids involvement in school/district events and projects NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 2 Teacher maintains friendly, professional relationships with colleagues to fulfill the duties that the school or district requires. Teacher participates in school/district events and projects when specifically asked PROFICIENT 3 Support and collaboration characterize relationships with colleagues Teacher volunteers to participate in school/district events and projects, making a substantial contribution. EXCELLENT 4 Support and collaboration characterize relationships with colleagues. Teacher takes initiative in assuming leadership among the faculty. Teacher volunteers to participate in school/district events and projects, making a substantial contribution, and assumes a leadership role in at least some of school life 33