1 / 9

Austin Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Process

Austin Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Process. TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS. Individual Growth and Development Plan with 35% Student G rowth Data Peer Review Student Engagement Walkthrough Data Summative Evaluation. IGDP. Completed annually by all staff members Baseline data needed

meda
Download Presentation

Austin Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Process

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Austin Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Process

  2. TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS • Individual Growth and Development Plan with 35% Student Growth Data • Peer Review • Student Engagement Walkthrough Data • Summative Evaluation

  3. IGDP • Completed annually by all staff members • Baseline data needed • Aligned to building strategic plan • Goal tied to a measurable student data point • Principal approval of goal • Mid-year check • Individual assesses his/her student data using rubric Individual Growth and Development Plan

  4. 35% STUDENT GROWTH DATA • Embedded in your IGDP • Teacher-created goals including valid and reliable assessment • Incorporated into summative evaluation • A zero in the rubric will result in a PIP • Calculated over the course of three years as opposed to just one year

  5. PEER REVIEW: • Completed annually by tenured staff only • Teacher selects partner • Completed by March 31st • Confidential Peer Observation

  6. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT • Done by administrators during walk-throughs • Evaluated as part of Danielson

  7. SUMMATIVE EVALUATION • Danielson Framework will be utilized • 65% of evaluation based on Danielson • Once every three years for tenured staff

  8. THANK YOU • Remember Education Minnesota and Minnesota School Board Association agree that local districts and associations should create a plan. • Vote on December 4th!

  9. Committee Members • Teacher Representatives (Building Locations) • Brandon Button ( I.J. Holton) • Jens Levisen (High School) • Jill Rollie (Ellis) • Erin Schoen (Southgate) • John Sullivan (Specialist and AEA executive committee) • Greg Wehner (Special Ed Rep) • Administrative Representatives (Locations) • John Alberts (District Office Educational Services) • Brad Bergstrom (High School) • Mary Burroughs (District Office Human Resources) • Jessica Cabeen (Woodson) • Edwina Harder (Southgate)

More Related