PAEMST State Review

North Carolina

Selection Committee

April 29, 2013

State Selection Committee,

All teachers who have submitted applications have demonstrated a professionalism and commitment to teaching.  Your task is to select the outstanding teachers who will be your state finalists.  This is a difficult and time consuming process, but a very important one.  The NSF PAEMST team extends our sincere thanks and appreciation for the work of the state selection committees.   PAEMST Program Director

Message From NSF

PAEMST Program Overview Selection Process Panelists’ Roles &

Responsibilities Selection Criteria/Review

Process Sample Reviewer

Comments

Agenda

Administered by NSF on behalf of The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Enacted by Congress in 1983, authorizes the President to bestow up to 108 awards each year (50 states and four jurisdictions)

Highest recognition a K–12 mathematics or science teacher may receive for outstanding teaching in the United States

Goal of the award program is to exemplify the highest standards of mathematics and science teaching

PAEMST Program Overview

Recipients of the award receive the following:

Citation signed by the President of the United States.

A trip to Washington, D.C. for the Awardee and one guest to attend a series of recognition events and professional development opportunities.

A $10,000 award from the National Science Foundation.

PAEMST Program Overview

State Level: Each state or territory is encouraged to forward three to

five applicants in Mathematics and three to five in Science for consideration

at the national level.

National Level: Two teachers (ideally, one in Mathematics and one in

Science) per state may be selected for further consdieration by NSF, OSTP,

the FBI and The White House.

Two-Stage Competitive Review Process

Selection Process

Selection Process

State Finalists– are highly qualified teachers, as deemed by their states,

districts, or schools;– possess a degree or appropriate credentials in the category for

which they are applying; – teach in one of the 50 states or four U.S. jurisdictions; – are employed full-time in a school or school district; – have at least 5 years of mathematics or science teaching

experience; – teach grades 7-12 mathematics or science in a public or

private school; – be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident;– and have not received the national PAEMST award in a prior

competition.

Panelist Roles & Responsibilities

State Selection Committee– Have expertise and backgrounds that align

with the applications (including classroom teachers).

– Are free from conflicts of interests.

– Practice objectivity and avoid explicit and implicit bias.

– Maintain applicant and reviewer confidentiality.

– Use established PAEMST review criteria (Eligibility, Technical Specifications, Dimension of Outstanding Teaching).

Panelist Roles & Responsibilities

In the screening process: – Read and review all materials provided. – Prepare and submit a written summary for

each dimension for each application by the agreed-upon date. (May 31/13)

– Preserve confidentiality. Do not discuss applications or share materials with others.

Panelist Roles & Responsibilities

After the review process: – Discard (shred) any paper copies of the

application. – Delete any information from personal

computers.

– Preserve confidentiality. Do not discuss applications or share materials with others.

– Reviewers cannot share the videos with anyone.

Selection Criteria

Dimension 1– Mastery of mathematics or science content appropriate for the grade

level taught. Dimension 2

– Use of instructional methods and strategies that are appropriate for the students in the class and that support student learning.

Dimension 3– Effective use of student assessments to evaluate, monitor, and improve

student learning. Dimension 4

– Reflective practice and life-long learning to improve teaching and student learning.

Dimension 5– Leadership in education outside the classroom.

Dimensions of Outstanding Teaching

Selection Criteria

Reviewers use evidence form the applicant’s resume, letters of recommendation, written response, supplemental materials, teacher information form and video to score each dimension.

Note: You may not use the Demographic Information Form in the review process.

The following factors should not impact an applicant’s score: Failure to use a particular teaching strategy or

technique Failure to reference state or national standards

Dimension 1: Mastery of mathematics or science content appropriate for the grade level taught.

– 1a. Discuss the mathematical or scientific ideas that are fundamental to understanding the chosen topic or concept.

– 1b. Explain why this topic or concept is important for students to learn and how it relates to more complex concepts that students will encounter in subsequent lessons, grades, or courses.

– 1c. Discuss the misconceptions or misunderstandings that students typically have with regard to this topic or concept.

Selection Criteria

Dimension 2: Use of instructional methods and strategies that are appropriate for the students in the class and that support student learning.

– 2a. Describe the instructional approaches you used to help students understand the topic or concept chosen in Dimension One.

– 2b. Explain how you identify and build on students’ prior knowledge, and how this knowledge is addressed in your video and in your general teaching strategies.

– 2c. Discuss the instructional strategies and techniques you use to meet the learning needs of all students, challenging those with stronger knowledge while ensuring learning for less accomplished students in the video and in your general teaching strategies.

Selection Criteria

Dimension 3: Effective use of student assessments to evaluate, monitor, and improve student learning.

– 3a. Describe how you assessed student learning and achievement for the topic discussed in Dimension One and shown on the video, and how you use what you learned from the assessment to improve your teaching.

– 3b. Discuss other specific ways that you routinely assess and

guide student learning. You may include examples of formative or summative techniques, including student presentations, projects, quizzes, unit exams, or other methods.

– 3c. Provide evidence of your teaching effectiveness as measured by student achievement on school, district or state assessments, or other external indicators of student learning or achievement.

Selection Criteria

Selection Criteria

Dimension 4: Reflective practice and life-long learning to improve teaching and student learning.

– 4a. Discuss the more successful and less successful aspects of the instructional activities shown in the video and discussed in the narrative, and describe what you might do differently to improve student learning.

– 4b. Describe how reflection on your teaching practices helps you improve your classroom instruction. You may provide examples of lessons or activities you revised based on this reflection.

– 4c. Using one or two of the professional development experiences cited in your resume, describe how your participation in these activities has improved your teaching and enhanced student learning.

Selection Criteria

Dimension 5: Leadership in education outside the classroom.

– 5a. Describe how you have supported other teachers, student teachers or interns through activities such as induction, mentoring, leading professional development activities, or co-teaching.

– 5b. Describe how you contribute to educational

excellence at the school, district, state or national level.

Review Process

The four-point scale for each dimension is as follows:

Excellent (4): The applicant demonstrated outstanding knowledge, skills or performance in this dimension with no significant errors or limitations.

Very Good (3): The applicant demonstrated strong knowledge, skills or performance in this dimension with no significant errors or limitations.

Good (2): The applicant demonstrated limited knowledge, skills or performance in this dimension with some errors or limitations.

Fair (1): The applicant demonstrated limited knowledge, skills or performance in this dimension with significant errors or limitations.

Possible Score

Weighting Factor

Points Possible

Dimension One 4-1 7 28

Dimension Two 4-1 7 28

Dimension Three 4-1 6 24

Dimension Four 4-1 3 12

Dimension Five 4-1 2 8

Total Possible Points 100

Scoring Process

Scoring Process

• Sign the confidentiality agreement and return

• We will send you names to review for conflicts of interest. When it is returned you will be given access to the PAEMST portal

• All of the scoring is online in the portal

• You will review no more than 4 applications

Review Process

Review Process

Review Process

Scoring Process

Tips for writing review comments:- Remember, excellent teaching takes many forms. Review the

application based on the dimensions. - Be as specific as you can. Give examples to back up your ratings.- Remember, you are reviewing the application, not the person.

The application packet only demonstrates limited evidence of the

teacher’s abilities. If possible, refer to “the application” rather than

“the teacher” in the written reviews.- Be positive. Point out good things in the application.- Avoid hurtful or unnecessarily harsh language. - Use the “Fair” evaluation appropriately, but sparingly. - Write in complete sentences and check your spelling and

grammar.

Dimension OneMastery of mathematics or science content appropriate for the grade level taught.

Reviewer’s Comments:The written portion did not describe the science or mathematics content that would be taught. Rather the application described a series of activities the students would do. These were not related to important ideas. In the video, there was little evidence that the teacher helped the students understand why an activity was important or how it related to what they were learning.

Sample Reviewer’s Comments

Sample Reviewer’s Comments

Dimension TwoUse of instructional methods and strategies that are appropriate for the students in the class and that support student learning.

Reviewer’s Comments:There was little evidence in either the written materials or in the video that the lesson was based on what students knew. The application did not discuss how the teacher modifies the lesson, activities or questions to draw out students at different levels. In the video, most of the questions were answered by a few students who seemed to be in advanced.

Sample Reviewer’s Comments

Dimension ThreeEffective use of student assessment tools to evaluate, monitor, and improve student achievement.

Reviewer’s Comments:Several formative and summative assessments were described in the written portion and examples were provided. The student work showed how the teacher gave work to allow students to show what they knew. The application provided strong evidence that the students from previous years had done well on state tests compared to similar students.

Sample Reviewer’s Comments

Dimension FourReflective practice and life-long learning to improve teaching and student learning.

Reviewer’s Comments:This is a very strong response with specific evidence from the video that demonstrates both strengths and areas for improvements. The applicant has participated in significant professional development activities including the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship. The written portion showed how she used materials from that PD to enhance her classes. The teacher recognized she may have made an error in the video and discussed what she would do differently next time.

Sample Reviewer’s Comments

Dimension FiveLeadership in education outside the classroom.

Reviewer’s Comments:There is little evidence in the application of leadership outside the classroom. There were no examples of serving on district committees, community organizations related to education or giving presentations at state events in the resume or in the dimension write-up. The principal spoke highly of her teaching, but did not mention other service. Given the other strengths demonstrated in the application, this may have been an oversight, but the reviewers must go by what is written.

Logistics

Conflict of Interests– Close personal relationship with

applicant – Financial relationship with applicant– Professional relationship with applicant– Knowledge that creates bias

Confidentiality– This is a confidential process. – Do not discuss applications with others,

including panelists on other Subpanels.

Thank You!

www.paemst.org