performance appraisal systems

By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following:

A model for teacher evaluation based on current research

The FEAPs as a framework for the observation process

The correlation of BEST in the observation rubrics

The revised structure of the instructional appraisal system

Evaluation process requires a two-way dialogue between observer and observee

A teacher’s impact as a leader on the school should extend beyond the classroom

The primary purpose of an evaluation is to improve instruction, evidenced by student achievement

The development of the evaluation process for any one teacher is designed with the input of both teacher and administration

Evaluation for the teacher is an ongoing reflective process

It takes more than one observation to evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher

Teacher effectiveness is correlated to the level of student engagement and student performance

Fundamental to all we do is the underlying purpose: Improving student achievement through growth in reflection, collaboration, and professional practice.

All teachers will increase their

expertise and skill level from

year to year which allows gains

in student achievement from

year to year.

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICESPROFESSIONAL PRACTICES

30 Points30 Points: : Professional Practices

6 Points6 Points: : Professional Growth Plan Development

10 Points10 Points: : Plan Implementation

4 Points4 Points: : Collaboration & Mutual Accountability

50%Multi-Metric (50 pts)

INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY BASED ON IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY BASED ON IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENTSASSESSMENTS

45 Points45 Points:: Individual ResultsResults

5 Points5 Points: : Collaborative team student achievement results related to closing the achievement gap closing the achievement gap of the Lowest 25% in Reading and/or Math

50% Student

Achievement(50 pts)

Annual Evaluation of Professional Practices 30 Pts◦ reflects evidence collected during formal and

informal observations

Professional Growth Plan Development 6 Pts

PGP Implementation 10 Pts

Collaboration and Mutual Accountability 4 Pts

BPS Instructional BPS Instructional Performance Appraisal System DimensionsDimensions

Development of PGP Goal

Work Plan Strategies

Outcome Measures and Reflection

* Individual pre-conference meetings with administrator* Teachers may collaborate with others in development but no plan should be

identical* PGP goal may continue into second year if

student data indicates a need for continued professional growth in a particular area* Strategies and outcome indicators would be

differentiated in year two

•For teachers returning to BPS, reflect on last year’s annual evaluation and student achievement results to develop your “stretch goal.”•Wednesday, August 27, is an early release day designated for PGP development activity.•You may submit a draft plan to your administrator for review prior to scoring by August 29, 2014.•Final due date for PGP’s: Friday, September 26

•For teachers new to BPS, reflect on your first semester observations and midterm evaluation to develop your “stretch goal.” •You may submit a draft plan to your administrator for review prior to scoring by January 9, 2015.•Final due date for PGP’s: Friday, January 23, 2015

Working the PlanPeer observations are required for a

“Distinguished” ratingIn-Process MonitoringEvidence to support implementation may include training records, peer observations, student work samples, lesson plans, parent communication, other artifacts illustrating efforts to implement the strategies and use feedback from colleagues to improve instructional practice.Evidence not required for indicators or dimensions observed by the administrator.

Teams have two purposes: working together to improve each other’s instructional practice, and working with at-risk students to improve their achievement and close the achievement gap.

Groups may be by grade level, department, cohorts, within or outside the school.

All teacher teams must have at least 8 students and specify learning targets and measures.

Deadline to identify teacher teams, students, achievement measures, and targeted outcomes:

October 3, 2014

Formative Time frame provided to teacher Pre-conference required Full lesson segment Use classroom observation instrument (COI)

◦ Post-conference with scored feedback within 10 days

◦ Scored feedback = evidence for evaluations

Formative Minimum of two for all teachers by

administrator Scored feedback provided within 5 days

electronically or face to face Scored feedback = evidence for evaluations

Teachers new to Brevard

◦ Probationary for one year

◦ Minimum of two informal observations by administrator

◦ Two formal observations, midterm evaluation, and annual evaluation conducted by administrator

◦ Two additional informal observations by administrator, mentor teacher, or other qualified persons

◦Teachers not meeting effective standards of instructional practice

Interim evaluation Written PDAP for dimensions scoring 2.9 or lower

Specific strategies, suggestions, improvements

Specific & reasonable timeline to correct deficient areas

Administrators may conduct additional formal or informal observations and may videotape instructional practice.

If evidence from an observation or video will be used in the evaluation, written feedback must be provided to the teacher prior to the evaluation meeting.

Administrators may also conduct walk-throughs or instructional rounds. These events are for data collection and are not used in a teacher’s evaluation.

Teachers are encouraged to observe one another and provide feedback to one another.

These observations are not used in a teacher’s evaluation but may be provided to administrator as PGP implementation evidence.

PSC Teacher who receives a second “unsatisfactory” rating or three needs improvement ratings in a three year period shall be placed on probation for 90 calendar days

Four formal observations will be conductedAdministrator will assess performance again no more than 14 days after the end of the 90-day probationary period and submit a recommendation regarding future employment status to the Superintendent

Summative evaluation, Part I 50 points Formal evaluation of professional practices from

formal and informal observations (30 points) PGP Development (6 points) PGP Implementation (10 points) Collaborative/Mutual Accountability Score (4

points) Signed in the spring by teacher and administrator Use results to guide reflection for next year’s PGP

goal

Summative Evaluation Part II◦ Totals 100 points

◦ Includes Summative Part I and Student Achievement Scores

◦ Signed by Teacher and Administrator in the fall

Scores added together from

Summative Part I and

Summative Part II determine

final rating: Highly Effective,

Effective, Needs to Improve or

Unsatisfactory Performance

Summative Part I

50-42– Highly Effective

41-30– Effective

29-15– Needs Improvement

14-0 – UnsatisfactoryProficient scores = Effective Performance (used to determine score ranges)

Summative Part II

88-100 – Highly Effective

69-87 – Effective

68-46 – Needs Improvement

45-0– Unsatisfactory

Serving every student with excellence as the standard.