1 / 16

Dearborn Teacher Evaluation Program

Dearborn Teacher Evaluation Program. By Glenn Maleyko, November 3, 2011. Teacher Evaluation Committee. Rose Bruno Mark Palise Jill Chochol Shannon Peterson Andrew Denison Linda Salamey Fatme Faraj Robert Seeterlin Hassane Jaafar Gail Shenkman

dawn
Download Presentation

Dearborn Teacher Evaluation Program

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. Dearborn Teacher Evaluation Program By Glenn Maleyko, November 3, 2011

  2. Teacher Evaluation Committee Rose Bruno Mark Palise Jill Chochol Shannon Peterson Andrew Denison Linda Salamey Fatme Faraj Robert Seeterlin Hassane Jaafar Gail Shenkman Julia Maconochie Chris Sipperley Glenn MaleykoMarc Zigterman

  3. Rating scale, ineffective, minimally effective, effective and highly effective by September 19, 2011 Changes tenure to 5 years unless a probationary teacher receives highly effective on 3 annual evaluations, then it is 4 years of probation Tenure only granted after receiving effective or highly effective rating 3 years in a row. Legislative Changes

  4. Legislative Changes • Evaluation must include student growth data by 2013-2014 25%, 2014-15 40%, 2015-16 50%. • Governor Committee on Student Growth and Assessment. October 31st, 2011. Will make recommendations by April 2012.

  5. Legislative Changes • IDP goals developed for all 1st year probationary teachers or any teacher rated minimally effective or ineffective on most recent evaluation

  6. Plan I: • Prior to 10-1, IDP Goals, and expectations. • 1st year probationary teachers need to have an IDP ASAP • Prior to 12-15 1st formal observation • Observation Times have changed (no less than 40 minutes) • Prior to 3-15 2nd formal observation • Prior to 4-30 Year End Evaluation to be completed and include multiple observations • Please note that all timelines are recommended

  7. Plan II • Prior to 10-1, Distribute forms and review expectations. • Prior to 11-15 Initial Meeting to set goals • Prior to 4-30 Multiple Formal Observations (minimum of 2) • Prior to 5-31 Year End Evaluation to be completed and include multiple observations

  8. Observations • Performance evaluations must include classroom observations. MCL 380.1249 • The observer must review • 1. Lesson Plans • 2. State Curriculum Used • 3. Pupil Engagement

  9. Observations -The observation does not have to be for a full period -There is a formal template titled “Conference Observation Form” -Multiple (minimum of two) observations are needed. -Administrators can still conduct informational/walkthrough observations and use the information gathered for the evaluation document

  10. Plan II Year End Evaluation • If a teacher is rated minimally effective or ineffective on the Year End Evaluation, then an IDP must be initiated. • If a teacher is rated minimally effective at the Year End Evaluation they will enter an awareness phase for the upcoming year. The Year End Evaluation evaluator will complete the awareness phase documents to begin at the start of the upcoming school year.

  11. Plan II Year End Evaluation • If a teacher is rated ineffective on the Year End Evaluation, a Plan III awareness phase document must have occurred prior to April 30.

  12. Plan III • 3 Phases (no major changes to the process. • Awareness • Assistance (3 reporting stages recommended • Disciplinary There are 30 calendar days between each phase and report

  13. Overall Changes • Attendance will be reported on the evaluation template. • Rubric has expanded to 4 levels • Ineffective, minimally effective, effective, and highly effective • Student Growth Must be a significant Part of the Evaluation • Thus Standard IV. Assessment, and Element 5. Student Growth and Achievement must be referenced on the Year-End Evaluation

  14. Sec 1249 1c • Evaluates a teacher's or school administrator's job performance, using multiple rating categories that take into account data on student growth as a significant factor. For these purposes, student growth shall be measured by national, state, or local assessments and other objective criteria.

  15. From MEAP manual • Test Results Will Be Included in Educator Evaluations The 2011-12 school year is the first time schools will be required to incorporate data on student growth into all educator evaluations. Schools and districts will be provided with student rosters for each teacher that list the achievement level and growth information for each student. For more information on the legislation and requirements for the conduct of educator evaluations, please visit our Educator Evaluation webpage at www.michigan.gov/oeaa <http://www.michigan.gov/oeaa> .

  16. HR Website http://dearbornschools.org/human-resources/hr-evaluation-tools

More Related