1 / 22

Document Review

Document Review. Rating Levels. Proficient is the performance standard and is the expected level of performance. Standard 1: Professional Knowledge Evidence: Certificate of completion for professional development, agenda of professional development led by

kynan
Download Presentation

Document Review

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. Document Review

  2. Rating Levels Proficient is the performance standard and is the expected level of performance.

  3. Standard 1: Professional Knowledge • Evidence: Certificate of completion for professional • development, agenda of professional development led by • teacher, article written for a state teachers’ organization, • samples of the teacher’s innovative instructional • approaches developed for the classroom, and the teacher’s • reflection journal for the year.

  4. Conclusions: It is apparent to the evaluator that the • teacher addresses appropriate curriculum, pedagogy, and • student developmental needs. During the formal • observations, the teacher facilitated higher-level thinking, • linked content to both past and future learning, and • demonstrated high expectations for all students. • Additionally, the teacher both participated and led division • professional development. The preponderance of • evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of • Exemplary for Standard 1.

  5. Standard 2: Instructional Planning • Evidence: Analysis of a classroom assessment; • differentiation in lesson planning and practice; data • driven curriculum revision work; and the course • syllabi.

  6. Conclusions: The teacher’s lessons were coherent, • sequenced, and aligned with established curriculum • and long-term instructional plans. His lesson planning • reflected an understanding of student needs. • Strategies were planned to enhance critical and • creative thinking. More differentiation of content and • process would most likely support mastery learning for • all students. The preponderance of evidence leads the • evaluator to assign a rating of Proficient for • Standard 2.

  7. Standard 3: Instructional Delivery • Evidence: Class handouts and student work samples; • formal observation(s); and annotated photographs of • class activities

  8. Conclusions: During both observations the teacher • Fostered critical and creative thinking and allowed for • differing views that were supported with evidence. The • teacher used many and varied instructional • strategies/activities to include direct instruction, • applying prior knowledge, and think-pair-share. • Students received feedback from the teacher and gave • feedback to one another. One area for growth would • be the amount of instructional time used to introduce • and explain both lessons. Excessive time was used for • explanation; thereby, decreasing the instructional time • needed for effective delivery. The preponderance of • evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of • Proficient for Standard 3.

  9. Standard 4: Assessment of and for Student • Learning • Evidence: Analysis of classroom assessment; writing • rubric; and samples of both summative and formative • assessments.

  10. Conclusions: The teacher used formative and summative • assessments for diagnostic, formative, and summative • purposes. The teacher’s grading practices report final • mastery in relationship to content goals and objectives. • His assessments were appropriate for the • developmental level of the students. The preponderance • of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of • Proficient for Standard 4.

  11. Standard 5: Learning Environment • Evidence: Classroom rules and positive reinforcement • plan; student survey summary; schedule of daily • classroom routines; formal observations and • walkthroughs.

  12. Conclusions: The teacher created a supportive, caring, • and engaging learning environment. There were clear • expectations. Students were engaged and could work • independently. The classroom was configured to • support multiple learning contexts (i.e., whole group, • small groups, and individual learning). The • preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to • assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 5.

  13. Standard 6: Professionalism • Evidence:Record of participation in extracurricular • activities; examples of collaborative work with peers; • evidence of communication with parents; copy of • classroom newsletters; parent communication log.

  14. Conclusions: The teacher is professional in speech, • actions, and demeanor. He communicates effectively • with students, parents, and colleagues. He is a role • model for others, continually participating in • professional development, leading a department, and • creating division-level curriculum that benefits • teachers and students alike. The preponderance of • evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of • Exemplary for Standard 6.

  15. Standard 7: Student Academic Progress How do we synthesize multiple measures of student academic progress to rate a teacher on Standard 7: Student Academic Progress?

  16. Putting It All together: How to Synthesize Multiple Data Sources for a Rating on Standard 7 Teachers for Whom Student Growth Percentile Data Are Neither Available nor Appropriate • Review data from student achievement goal setting. • Review data from at least a second source such as a second goal or other measures of student academic progress. • Assign a performance level rating based on the preponderance of evidence (using data-informed professional judgment).

  17. Putting It All together: How to Synthesize Multiple Data Sources for a Rating on Standard 7 Teachers for Whom Student Growth Percentile Data Are Available and Appropriate • Follow the guidelines related to using student growth percentiles in teacher performance evaluation. According to this guidance, a rating may not always be possible to determine due to missing data. However, a range of appropriate ratings can be determined. • Review data from student achievement goal setting and determine a rating based on decision rules established. • Review data from student growth percentiles and from student achievement goal setting and make a determination based on the preponderance of evidence (using data-informed professional judgment) as to a final rating on Standard 7: Student Academic Progress.

  18. Decision Rules for Judging Standard 7

  19. Standard 7: Student Academic Progress • Evidence: Student achievement goal setting document • – revised at mid-term and end of year.

  20. Conclusions: The teacher’s work resulted in • appropriate student academic progress in the target • areas. The teacher documents achievement of student • academic progress goals and provides evidence of • students’ progress throughout the year, monitors • learning, and makes the adjustments to instruction as • needed to meet achievement goals. The • preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to • assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 7.

  21. Summative Rating

  22. Summative Rating

More Related