Please delete this logo and replace with the district logo Instructional Evaluation System Template Marion County Public Schools Dr. Heidi Maier, Superintendent of Schools Table of Contents 1. Performance of Students 2. Instructional Practice 3. Other Indicators of Performance 4. Summative Evaluation Score 5. Additional Requirements 6. District Evaluation Procedures 7. District Self-Monitoring 8. Appendix A – Checklist for Approval Directions: This document has been provided in Microsoft Word format for the convenience of the district. The order of the template shall not be rearranged. Each section offers specific directions, but does not limit the amount of space or information that can be added to fit the needs of the district. All submitted documents shall be titled and paginated. Where documentation or evidence is required, copies of the source document(s) (for example, rubrics, policies and procedures, observation instruments) shall be provided. Upon completion, the district shall email the template and required supporting documentation for submission to the address [email protected]. 1. Performance of Students Directions: The district shall provide: 1. For all instructional personnel, the percentage of the evaluation that is based on the performance of students criterion as outlined in s. 1012.34(3)(a)1., F.S., along with an explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)1., F.A.C.]. 2. For classroom teachers newly hired by the district, the student performance measure and scoring method for each evaluation, including how it is calculated and combined [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)2., F.A.C.]. 3. For all instructional personnel, confirmation of including student performance data for at least three years, including the current year and the two years immediately preceding the current year, when available. If less than the three most recent years of data are available, those years for which data are available must be used. If more than three years of student performance data are used, specify the years that will be used [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)3., F.A.C.]. 4. For classroom teachers of students for courses assessed by statewide, standardized assessments under s. 1008.22, F.S., documentation that VAM results comprise at least one-third of the evaluation [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)4., F.A.C.]. 5. For classroom teachers of students for courses not assessed by statewide, standardized assessments, the district-determined student performance measure(s) [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)5., F.A.C.]. 6. For instructional personnel who are not classroom teachers, the district-determined student performance measure(s) [Rule 6A5.030(2)(a)6., F.A.C.]. 1, 2, 3, 4: Marion County Student Achievement Calculation Policy The following are the rules and procedures created for compilation and calculation of student achievement scores for local exams to be used in teacher evaluation ratings. Student achievement will account for 33% of the teachers’ final evaluation score. Student Achievement score will be calculated for the current year, and up to 2 years prior as data is available. If less than 3 years of data is available, years for which there is data, up to 3, will be included. Category 1 teachers (newly hired or new to the district) will receive 2 evaluations, a midterm and final. 67% of each evaluation will be based on instructional practice and 33% will be based on student performance. In the midterm, student performance rating will be at the discretion of the school principal using course grades based on course proficiency or semester exam, if available, according to the following calculation: Grade (course or test) 98 and above 70-97 60-69 <60 Points per student 4 3 2 1 Points earned by each student will be added and the total number will be divided by the number of students for a class average. Class averages will be matched against the approved Marion County Rubric ranges for the rating as below: Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory 3.40000001-4.0 2.0000001-3.4 1.25000001-2.0 <1.25 For the summative evaluation, student performance for category 1 teachers is included in the following charts. FSA, EOC/VAM: State provided raw scores and ratings determined by the State for teachers will be used for Student Achievement ratings when provided. State EOC scores and ratings, when State provided, will be used. LOCAL EXAMS: The District mean score will be calculated based on the entire population of students taking the same test The standard deviation will be calculated based on the entire sample for each test The standard deviation for semester courses is pure for the semester and the sample The rating ranges will be: E=1 standard deviation above and below the mean; HE=2 Standard Deviations above the mean; NI/D=2 standard deviations below the mean. This will be applied to all tests Student scores will be taken individually and added and averaged for the class. The average will be applied to rating ranges described above for the teacher score Student scores that were ZERO will be pulled due to the fact that it is not possible to determine whether the score is a true zero or whether the score exists because there was a scan sheet for the student who never took the test that was scanned All metrics will be converted to score range of 1-4, HE=4; E=3; NI/D=2; U=1 Data will be pulled on a date certain from Performance Matters. No further data pull will be made. Students who make up tests after the date certain will not be included in the student achievement score for the teacher 5,6: Elementary School Teacher Evaluation – Student Achievement Calculation 2015-2016 TEACHER GROUP ASSESSMENT SCORING Gr K-2 LEOCE Convert to a score on a scale of 1-4 ELA LEOCE – 50% MA LEOCE – 50% Gr 3 FSA ELA FSA – 50% MA FSA - 50% Gr 4 FSA Student achievement levels converted to a score of 1-4, HE=Levels 4&5=4, E=level 3=3, NI/D=level 2=2, U=level 1=1 State provided score and rating Gr 5 FSA State provided score and rating Special Areas (PE, Art, Music, Foreign Language) Gifted that travel FSA State provided score and rating ELA FSA – 50% MA FSA – 50% *Science FCAT is NOT used FSA Reading for students assigned-100% Support Facilitators ESE Alternatively Assessed ELA FSA (for students assigned to the teacher) ELA FSA or ELA FAA & LEOCE WEIGHTS ELA FSA – 50% MA FSA - 50% State provided score and rating ELA FSA – 100% (GR 3-5) ELA LEOCE – 100% (K-2) Or 50/50 if all grades State provided score and rating ELA LEOCE (K-2) 49% ELA FSA (3-5) 51% If only teaches K-2, then LEOCE = 100% If only teaches 3-5, then FSA = 100% FAA – 100% Convert to a score on a scale of 1-4 ESE Students- Functional Students (do not take FSA/FAA or LEOCE Test= Unique Learning Systems Curriculum Convert to a score on a scale of 1-4 School Student Achievement Calculation School Student Achievement Calculation Media, Guidance, Coach, etc. Hand calculated for each student based on growth from one test administration to the other. School VAM Score – 100% Middle School Teacher Evaluation Student Achievement Calculation 2015-2016 Course/ Content 6-8 Math 6-8 English Assessments 100% Statewide Standardized Assessment Reading-VAM Scoring State provided score and rating State Standardized Tests- State VAM calculation or EOC (Algebra 1, Geometry) calculate like state VAM using K & cut scores 6-8 Social Studies 6-8 Science 100% LEOCE; EOC for Civics LEOC converted to point value 1-4; EOC converted to standard score & then point value 1-4 *Science FCAT is NOT used Special Areas (PE, Art, Music, Foreign Language, Drama, Career & Vo Tech, Dance) LEOC LEOCE converted to point value 1-4; Semester courses- avg of semester 1 & semester 2 LEOCE scores Gifted that travel State Standardized assessmentsreading for students assigned to teacher Calculate a VAM for each teacher Support Facilitators State Standardized assessmentsreading for students assigned to teacher; or LEOCE where available State Standardized Tests- State VAM calculation or EOC (Algebra 1, Geometry) calculate like state VAM using K & cut scores; LEOCE converted to point value 1-4; ESE Alternate Assessment FAA/ District test- LEOCE Apply FAA score to scale or LEOCE converted to point value 1-4 All Media, Guidance, Coach, etc. ESE Students- Functional Students (do not take FSA/FAA or LEOCE School VAM School VAM calculation Unique Learning Systems Curriculum Hand calculated for each student based on growth from one test administration to the other. Convert to score on scale of 1-4. High School Teacher Evaluation Student Achievement Calculation 2015-2016 Course/ Content Assessments 9-11 Courses with statewide assessments or EOC 100% statewide standardized assessments or EOC; EOC converted to a standard test score & point value 1-4; Algebra 1 calculate like state VAM using K and cut scores 9-10 courses with LEOCE only no FSA 100% LEOCE 9-10 courses with no LEOCE or EOC 100% Statewide Standardized Assessment Reading 11-12 courses with LEOCE 100% LEOCE 11-12 courses no LEOCE 100% Statewide Standardized Assessment Reading/ FCAT retake/ ACT/SAT concordant reading score for FCAT College Readiness Courses 100% LEOCE Agriscience Foundations 9-10 Elective/ Vocational with Industry Exam 11-12 Elective/ Vocational with Industry Exam 9-12 Elective/ Vocational with No Industry exam/ No LEOCE 100% LEOCE AICE/IB/AP 100% AICE/IB/AP Exam Dual Enrollment 100% Final Course Grade ESE Alternate Assessment 100% FAA/ District Assessment ESE Students- Functional Students (do not take FSA/FAA or LEOCE Test: Unique Learning Systems Curriculum. Hand calculated for each student based on growth from one test administration to the other. Convert to score on scale of 1-4. 11-12 Special Diploma Marion Virtual School 100% Performance Measure determined individually for each student 100% Score Reports provided by Florida Virtual School NGCAR-PD courses 100% LEOCE Semester Courses 100% LEOCE (average of 2 semesters) All Media, Guidance, Coach, etc School VAM 50% Industry Exam, 50% LEOCE 50% Industry Exam, 50% LEOCE 100% Statewide Standardized Assessment Reading/ FCAT retake/ ACT/SAT concordant reading score for FCAT Directions: The district shall provide: 1. For all instructional personnel, the percentage of the evaluation that is based on the instructional practice criterion as outlined in s. 1012.34(3)(a)2., F.S., along with an explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined [Rule 6A5.030(2)(b)1., F.A.C.]. 2. Description of the district evaluation framework for instructional personnel and the contemporary research basis in effective educational practices [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(b)2., F.A.C.]. 3. For all instructional personnel, a crosswalk from the district's evaluation framework to the Educator Accomplished Practices demonstrating that the district’s evaluation system contains indicators based upon each of the Educator Accomplished Practices [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(b)3., F.A.C.]. 4. For classroom teachers, observation instrument(s) that include indicators based on each of the Educator Accomplished Practices [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(b)4., F.A.C.]. 5. For non-classroom instructional personnel, evaluation instrument(s) that include indicators based on each of the Educator Accomplished Practices [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(b)5., F.A.C.]. 6. For all instructional personnel, procedures for conducting observations and collecting data and other evidence of instructional practice [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(b)6., F.A.C.]. 1. MID-TERM AND SUMMATIVE EVALUATION CALCULATIONS AND INSTRUMENT: Mid-term (Category 1 only) and Final evaluations will consist of a rating based on the collection of evidence in the 4 Instructional Practice domains; this will be 67% of the final evaluation rating. Ratings are given a numeric value to calculate summative score as follows: HE=4, E=3, NI/D=2, U=1. The total score of ratings in each domain are added and divided by the number of ratings in the domain in order to determine the domain score. The final evaluation instrument is an electronic instrument that automatically adds evidence collected and assigns a rating based on percentage weight of each domain. The four domains are weighted according to District determined impact to quality practice as listed below: Domain Title Weighting 1 Planning and Preparation 20% 2 Classroom Environment 3 Instruction 4 Professional Responsibilities 30% 40% 10% 2. Danielson System Outline Domains, Components, and Elements of the Framework for Teaching Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy Knowledge of content and the structure of the discipline Knowledge of prerequisite relationships Knowledge of content‐related pedagogy Knowledge of child and adolescent development Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students Knowledge of the learning process Knowledge of students’ skills, knowledge, and language proficiency Knowledge of students’ interests and cultural heritage Knowledge of students’ special needs Component 1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes Value, sequence, and alignment Clarity Balance Suitability for diverse learners Component 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources Resources for classroom use Resources to extend content knowledge and pedagogy Resources for students Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction Learning activities Instructional materials and resources Instructional groups Lesson and unit structure Component 1f: Designing Student Assessments Congruence with instructional outcomes Criteria and standards Design of formative assessments Use for planning Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Component 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport Teacher interaction with students Student interactions with other students Component 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning Importance of the content Expectations for learning and achievement Student pride in work Component 2c: Managing Classroom Procedures Management of instructional groups Management of transitions Management of materials and supplies Performance of non‐instructional duties Supervision of volunteers and paraprofessionals Component 2d: Managing Student Behavior Expectations Monitoring of student behavior Response to student misbehavior Component 2e: Organizing Physical Space Safety and accessibility Arrangement of furniture and use of physical resources Danielson System Outline Domains, Components, and Elements of the Framework for Teaching Domain 3: Instruction Component 3a: Communicating with Students Expectations for learning Directions and procedures Explanations of content Use of oral and written language Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques Quality of questions Discussion techniques Student participation Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning Activities and assignments Grouping of students Instructional materials and resources Structure and pacing Component 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction Assessment criteria Monitoring of student learning Feedback to students Student self‐assessment and monitoring of progress Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Lesson adjustment Response to students Persistence Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Component 4a: Reflecting on Teaching Accuracy Use in future teaching Component 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records Student completion of assignments Student progress in learning Non‐instructional records Component 4c: Communicating with families Information about the instructional program Information about individual students Engagement of families in the instructional program Component 4d: Participating in a Professional Community Relationships with colleagues Involvement in a culture of professional inquiry Service to the school Participation in school district projects Component 4e: Growing andand Developing Professionally Enhancement of content knowledge and pedagogical skill Receptivity to feedback from colleagues Component Service to profession 4f:the Showing Professionalism Integrity and ethical conduct Service to students Advocacy Decision making Compliance with school and district regulations Danielson Research Base: A Framework for Teaching/Danielson Model Contemporary Research Base References Berliner, F.C. (2001). Learning about teaching from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 463-482. Berliner, D.C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society, 21(3), 200-212. Brandt, R. (1992). On research on teaching: A conversation with Lee Shulman. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 14-19. Brandt, R. (1994). On making sense: A conversation with Magdalena Lampert. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 26-30. Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Calhoun, E.F. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Carnegie Forum of Education and the Economy’s Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (1986, May). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. Hyattsville, MD: Author. Chadwick, K.G. (2004). Improving schools through community engagement: A practical guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Cohen, D.K., McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Colton, A.B., & Sparks-Langer, G.M. (1992). Restructuing student teaching experiences. In C.D. Glickman (Ed.). Supervision in transition (pp. 155-168). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Colton, A.B., & Sparks-Langer, G.M. (1993). A conceptual framework to guide the development of teacher reflection and decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 45-54. Cruickshank, D.R. (1990). Research that informs teachers and teacher educators. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service. Dwyer, C.A., & Villegas, A.M. (1995). Guiding conceptions and assessment principles for the Praxis series: Professional assessments for beginning teachers. (Research Report No. 93-17). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Dwyer, C.A. (1994). Development of the knowledge base for the Praxis III: Classroom performance assessments assessment criteria. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Ellet, C. (1990). A new generation of classroom-based assessments of teaching and learning: Concerts, issues, and controversies from pilots of the Louisiana STAR. Baton Rouge: College of Education, Louisiana State University. Ellwein, M. C., Graue, M. E., & Comfort, R. E. (1990). Talking about instruction: Student teachers: reflections on success and failure in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 3-14. Evertson, C. M., & Hariis, A. H. (1992). What we know about managing classrooms. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 74-78. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. New York: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2005, February). Resiliency and sustainability. School Administrator, 62(2), 16-18. Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Gage, N. L. (1977). The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Gardner, H., &Boiz-Mansilla, V. (1994). Teaching for understanding within and across the disciplines. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 14-18. Guskey, T. R. (2005, April). Formative classroom assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom theory research, and implications. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Heckman, P. E. (1994). Planting seeds: Understanding through investigation. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 36-39. Irvine, J. J. (1990, May). Beyond role models: The influence of black teachers on black students. Paper presented at Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press. Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Jones, J. (1992). Praxis III teacher assessment criteria research base. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McCombs, B. L. (1992). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Moore, R. A. (2004). Classroom research for teachers: A practical guide. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1991). Toward high and rigorous standards for the teaching profession (3rd ed.). Detroit, MI: Author. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2004). The five core propositions. Available: www.nbpts.org/the_standards/the_five_core_propositio Newmann, F. M., Secada, W. G., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Nias, J., Southworth, G., & Campbell, P. (1992). Whole school curriculum development in the primary school. London: Falmer Press. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy act. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Perkins, D., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 4-7. Perrone, V. (1994). How to engage students in learning. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 11-13. Powell, J. H., Casanova, U., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Parental involvement: Readings in educational research, a program for professional development. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 1-35. Rhem, J. (1999). Pygmalion in the classroom. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 8(2). Available: www.ntlf.com/html/pi/9902/pygm_1.htm Richardson, J. (2004, February/March). Lesson study. Tools for Schools. Available: www.nsdc.org/library/publications/tools/tools2-04rich.cfm Ross, J. A., & Regan, E. M. (1993). Sharing professional experience; Its impact on professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(1), 91-106. Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Shalaway, L. (2005). Learning to teach…not just for beginners: The essential guide for all teachers. New York: Scholastic. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Skowron, J. (2001). Powerful lesson planning models: The art of 1,000 decisions. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight Training and Publishing. Strategies for success. (1994, November). Educational Leadership, 52(3) [entire issue]. Sykes, G., & Bird, T. (1992, August). Teacher education and the case idea. Review of Research in Education, 18, 457-521. Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. (1991). Reflections on reflective teaching. In B. Tabachnick & K Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-16 education (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tucker, P. D., & Strong, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Family involvement in children’s education: Successful local approaches. Washington, DC: Authors. Villegas, A. M. (1991). Culturally responsive pedagogy for the 1900’s and beyond. Unpublished manuscript. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Whitaker, T. (2004). What great teachers do differently: Fourteen things that matter most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wiliam, D. (2004, June). Keeping learning on track: Integrating assessment with instruction. Invited address to the 30th annual conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA). Philadelphia. Wiske, M. S. (1994). How teaching for understanding changes the rules in the classroom. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 19-21. Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.). (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Wolf, D. P. (1987, Winter). The art of questioning. Academic Connections, 1-7. Wolk, S. (1994). Project-based learning: Pursuits with a purpose. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 42-45. Woods, R. K. (1994). A close-up look at how children learn science. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 33-35. Wormeli, R. (2003). Day one & beyond: Practical matters for new middle-level teachers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, and Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Implemented Project Reports http://chicagoteacherexcellence.org/ http://www.cps-k12.org/employment/tchreval/tchreval.htm http://www.usd385.org/vnews/display.v/SEC/Faculty%20%26%20Staff|Teacher%20Eva luation%20Document http://state.tn.us/education/frameval/ http://ascd.org/SearchResults.aspx?s=teacher%20evaluation&c=1&n=10&p=0 Research Studies http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2010/06/15/pilot-chicago-public-schools-teacher- evaluation-initiative-shows-earlypromise http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/page.php?cat=3&content_id=34 http://www.nber.org/s/search?client=test3_fe&proxystylesheet=test3_fe&site=default_co llection&btnG=Search&entqr=0&ud=1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&q=Danielson+and+teacher+evaluation 3. Link Between the Florida Accomplished Educator Standards* and the Danielson Framework for Teaching Florida Educator Accomplished Standards Danielson Framework for Teaching Domains/Components/Themes Specific Support of FEAPS in Framework for Teaching FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES Creates a culture of high expectations for all students by promoting the importance of education and each student’s capacity for academic achievement. Demonstrates deep and comprehensive knowledge of the subject taught. Exemplifies the standards of the profession. One of the common themes of the framework for teaching, permeating all components, is “High Expectations.” Component 1a: Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy ‐ Knowledge of Content and the Structure of the Discipline ‐ Knowledge of Prerequisite Relationships ‐ Knowledge of Content‐Related Pedagogy Component 4f: Showing professionalism ‐ Integrity And Ethical Conduct ‐ Service To Students ‐ Advocacy for students ‐ Decision Making EDUCATOR ACCOMPLISHED PRACTICES Quality of Instruction. 1. Instructional Design and Lesson Planning. Applying concepts from human development and learning theories, the effective educator consistently: a. Aligns instruction with state‐adopted standards at the appropriate level of rigor; b. Sequences lessons and concepts to ensure coherence and required prior knowledge. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 1c: Setting instructional outcomes ‐ Value, Sequence, and Alignment ‐ Clarity ‐ Balance ‐ Suitability for Diverse Learners 1e: Designing coherent instruction ‐ Learning Activities Instructional outcomes are aligned with state and district curriculum standards. They are appropriately rigorous for all learners. An important aspect of lesson and unit design is that each lesson builds on previous learning. Florida Educator Accomplished Standards c. Designs instruction for students to achieve mastery; d. Selects appropriate formative assessments to monitor learning; e. Uses a variety of data, independently, and in collaboration with colleagues, to evaluate learning outcomes, adjust planning and continuously improve the effectiveness of the lessons; f. Develops learning experiences that require students to demonstrate a variety of applicable skills and competencies. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Danielson Framework for Teaching Domains/Components/Themes ‐ Instructional Materials and Resources ‐ Instructional Groups ‐ Lesson and Unit Structure 1e: Designing coherent instruction ‐ Learning Activities ‐ Instructional Materials and Resources ‐ Instructional Groups ‐ Lesson and Unit Structure 1f: Designing student assessments ‐ Congruence with Instructional Outcomes ‐ Criteria and Standards ‐ Design of Formative Assessments 1b: ‐ ‐ ‐ Specific Support of FEAPS in Framework for Teaching Activities are designed, at the appropriate level of challenge, for all students to achieve mastery. The successful use of formative assessments requires that they be designed as part of the planning process. Demonstrating knowledge of students Knowledge of Child and Adolescent Development Knowledge of the Learning Process Knowledge of Students’ Skills, Knowledge, and Language Proficiency ‐ Knowledge of Students’ Interests and Cultural Heritage ‐ Knowledge of Students’ Special Needs 4d: Participating in a professional community ‐ Relationships with Colleagues ‐ Involvement in a Culture of Professional Inquiry ‐ Service to School ‐ Participation in School and District Projects In planning, teachers must know their students’ level of knowledge and skill with respect to the desired learning outcomes; they derive this information from a variety of sources. 1e: ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ The design of learning experiences is central to good planning; they are suitably rigorous and enable students to exhibit their growing knowledge and skill. Designing coherent instruction Learning Activities Instructional Materials and Resources Instructional Groups Lesson and Unit Structure Furthermore, such planning is accomplished most effectively in collaboration with colleagues. Florida Educator Accomplished Standards 2. a. Specific Support of FEAPS in Framework for Teaching The Learning Environment. To maintain a student‐centered learning environment that is safe, organized, equitable, flexible, inclusive, and collaborative, the effective educator consistently: Organizes, allocates, and manages the 2c: Managing classroom procedures The purpose of well‐designed routines and resources of time, space, and attention. ‐ Management of Instructional Groups procedures is to maximize instructional time. ‐ Management of Transitions ‐ Management of Materials and Supplies ‐ Performance of Non‐Instructional Duties ‐ Supervision of Volunteers and Paraprofessionals 2e: Organizing physical space A well managed classroom is not only safe, but is ‐ Safety and Accessibility ‐ Arrangement of Furniture and Use of Physical arranged in such a manner as to support the Resources. instructional activities. b. Manages individual and class behaviors through a well‐planned management system; c. Conveys high expectations to all students; d. Danielson Framework for Teaching Domains/Components/Themes Respects students’ cultural, linguistic and family background; 2d: Managing student behavior ‐ Expectations ‐ Monitoring of Student Behavior ‐ Response to Student Misbehavior One of the common themes of the framework for teaching, permeating all components, is “High Expectations.” 2b: Establishing a culture for learning ‐ Importance of the Content ‐ Expectations for Learning and Achievement ‐ Student Pride in Work One of the common themes of the framework for teaching, permeating all components, is “cultural sensitivity;” this is reflected in many of the components. 2a: Creating an environment of respect and rapport ‐ Teacher Interaction with Students ‐ Student Interactions with One Another Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Students can’t learn in a chaotic environment; both the routines and procedures (2c) and the standards of conduct (2d) contribute to the sense of order and predictability. The research on high expectations is clear; in the framework for teaching it is given prominence as a “common theme,” permeating many components of the framework, and as one element in Component 2b. As a common theme, respect for students’ cultural backgrounds permeates the framework for teaching. In addition, it is reflected in the higher levels of performance in component 2a; Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport. Florida Educator Accomplished Standards Danielson Framework for Teaching Domains/Components/Themes e. Models clear, acceptable oral and written communication skills. f. Maintains a climate of openness, inquiry, fairness and support. g. Integrates current information and communication technologies. h. Adapts the learning environment to accommodate the differing needs and diversity of students. i. 3. Utilizes current and emerging assistive One of the common themes of the framework for One of the common themes of the framework for technologies that enable students to teaching, permeating all components, is “Appropriate use teaching permeating all components is “Appropriate Use of Technology” participate in high‐quality communication of Technology” interactions and achieve their educational goals. Instructional Delivery and Facilitation. The effective educator consistently utilizes a deep and comprehensive knowledge of the subject taught to: a. Deliver engaging and challenging lessons; Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 3a: Communicating with students ‐ Expectations for Learning ‐ Directions and Procedures ‐ Explanations of Content ‐ Use of Oral and Written Language 2a: Creating an environment of respect and rapport ‐ Teacher Interaction with Students ‐ Student Interactions with One Another 2b: Establishing a culture for learning ‐ Importance of the Content ‐ Expectations for Learning and Achievement ‐ Student Pride In Work One of the common themes of the framework for teaching, permeating all components, is “Appropriate Use of Technology” Specific Support of FEAPS in Framework for Teaching One of the common themes of the framework for teaching, permeating all components, is “Accommodating Diverse Student Needs.” 3c: ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Engaging students in learning Activities and Assignments Grouping of Students Instructional Materials and Resources Structure and Pacing In the “Use of Oral and Written Language” the teacher models correct and expressive language. A critical attribute of both components 2a and 2b is an atmosphere of rigorous learning, in an environment in which it is safe for students to take intellectual risks. This common theme is reflected in many components, in Domain 1 (planning and preparation), Domain 3 (instruction), and Domain 4 (professional responsibilities.) This common theme is reflected in many components, in both Domain 1 (planning and preparation) and Domain 3 (Instruction.) A core characteristic of student engagement is that students are cognitively involved in rigorous thinking. Florida Educator Accomplished Standards Danielson Framework for Teaching Domains/Components/Themes Specific Support of FEAPS in Framework for Teaching b. Deepen and enrich students’ understanding through content area literacy strategies, verbalization of thought, and application of the subject matter; 3c: ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Engaging students in learning Activities and Assignments Grouping of Students Instructional Materials and Resources Structure and Pacing These are specific strategies that would characterize the learning experiences, and the pacing of the lesson. c. Identify gaps in students’ subject matter knowledge; 3d: ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Using assessment in instruction Assessment Criteria Monitoring of Student Learning Feedback to Students Student Self‐Assessment and Monitoring of Progress The purpose of monitoring student learning during instruction is to identify gaps in understanding and adjust the approach being used. d. Modify instruction to respond to preconceptions or misconceptions; 3e: ‐ ‐ ‐ Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness Lesson Adjustment Response to Students Persistence e. Relate and integrate the subject matter with other disciplines and life experiences; 1e: ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Designing coherent instruction Learning Activities Instructional Materials and Resources Instructional Groups Lesson and Unit Structure 3C: Engaging students in learning Activities and Assignments Grouping of Students Instructional Materials and Resources Structure and Pacing An essential skill in teaching (and one that develops with experience) is the ability to make adjustments to the approaches being used. During both planning (Domain 1) and instruction (Domain 3) a mark of expertise is the skill to coordinate and integrate disciplines to one another. A critical element of high‐level instruction is to relate the content to students’ life experiences. 3b: ‐ ‐ ‐ Using questioning and discussion techniques Quality of Questions Discussion Techniques Student Participation f. Employ higher‐order questioning techniques; Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Questioning and discussion is a critical element of good instruction; through good questioning, students are able to deepen their understanding. Florida Educator Accomplished Standards Danielson Framework for Teaching Domains/Components/Themes Specific Support of FEAPS in Framework for Teaching g. Apply varied instructional strategies and resources, including appropriate technology, to provide comprehensible instruction, and to teach for student understanding. 3c: Engaging students in learning ‐ Activities and Assignments ‐ Grouping of Students ‐ Instructional Materials and Resources ‐ Structure and Pacing One of the common themes of the framework for teaching, permeating all components, is “Appropriate Use of Technology” The goal of engaging students in learning is to enable them to develop understanding of complex content. When appropriate, teachers use technology for this purpose. h. Differentiate instruction based on an assessment of student learning needs and recognition of individual differences in students. 1b: ‐ ‐ ‐ Demonstrating knowledge of students Knowledge of Child and Adolescent Development Knowledge of the Learning Process Knowledge of Students’ Skills, Knowledge, and Language Proficiency ‐ Knowledge of Students’ Interests and Cultural Heritage ‐ Knowledge of Students’ Special Needs One of the common themes of the framework for teaching, permeating all components, is “Accommodating Diverse Student Needs.” At the higher levels of performance in many components of the framework for teaching, teachers attend to individual student needs. i. Support, encourage, and provide immediate and specific feedback to students to promote student achievement. 3d: ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Using formative assessment in teaching is one of the most powerful techniques to enhance student learning. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Using assessment in instruction Assessment Criteria Monitoring of Student Learning Feedback to Students Student Self‐Assessment and Monitoring of Progress Florida Educator Accomplished Standards j. 4. a. Danielson Framework for Teaching Domains/Components/Themes Utilize student feedback to monitor instructional needs and to adjust instruction. 3d: Using assessment in instruction ‐ Assessment Criteria ‐ Monitoring of Student Learning ‐ Feedback to Students ‐ Student Self‐Assessment and ‐ Monitoring of Progress 3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness ‐ Lesson Adjustment ‐ Response to Students ‐ Persistence Assessment. The effective educator consistently: Using assessment in instruction, and adjusting instruction accordingly, are the principal means by which teachers individualize instruction. Analyzes and applies data from multiple assessments and measures to diagnose students’ learning needs, informs instruction based on those needs, and drives the learning process. An essential component of knowing one’s students is knowing their background knowledge and skill; only then can teachers design appropriate learning experiences. 1b: ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ b. Specific Support of FEAPS in Framework for Teaching Designs and aligns formative and summative assessments that match learning objectives and lead to mastery; Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Demonstrating knowledge of students Knowledge of Child and Adolescent Development Knowledge of the Learning Process Knowledge of Students’ Skills, Knowledge, and Language Proficiency Knowledge of Students’ Interests and Cultural Heritage Knowledge of Students’ Special Needs 1f: Designing student assessments ‐ Congruence with Instructional Outcomes ‐ Criteria of Standards ‐ Design of Formative Assessments Good assessment – both formative and summative ‐ must be designed prior to instruction; therefore it is part of Domain 1 (Planning and Preparation.) Florida Educator Accomplished Standards Danielson Framework for Teaching Domains/Components/Themes 3d: Using assessment in instruction ‐ Assessment Criteria ‐ Monitoring of Student Learning ‐ Feedback to Students ‐ Student Self‐Assessment and ‐ Monitoring of Progress Specific Support of FEAPS in Framework for Teaching When teachers incorporate assessment strategies into their instruction, they use a variety of strategies, as appropriate to the content. c. Uses a variety of assessment tools to monitor student progress, achievement and learning gains; d. Modifies assessments and testing conditions to accommodate learning styles and varying levels of knowledge; 1f: Designing student assessments ‐ Congruence with Instructional Outcomes ‐ Criteria and Standards ‐ Design of Formative Assessments 3d: Using assessment in instruction ‐ Assessment Criteria ‐ Monitoring of Student Learning ‐ Feedback to Students ‐ Student Self‐Assessment and ‐ Monitoring of Progress Assessment strategies are appropriate to both the content and the diverse students in the class. e. Shares the importance and outcomes of student assessment data with the student and the student’s parent/caregiver(s). 3d: ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4c: ‐ ‐ ‐ Experienced teachers provide feedback to students, and enlist them in their own self‐ assessment. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Using assessment in instruction Assessment Criteria Monitoring of Student Learning Feedback to Students Student Self‐Assessment and Monitoring of Progress Communicating with families Information About the Instructional Program Information About Individual Students Engagement of Families in the Instructional Program A critical aspect of a teacher’s communication with families relates to their children’s progress in learning. Florida Educator Accomplished Standards f. Applies technology to organize and integrate assessment information. Danielson Framework for Teaching Domains/Components/Themes One of the common themes of the framework for teaching, permeating all components, is “Appropriate Use of Technology” Specific Support of FEAPS in Framework for Teaching Technology is incorporated throughout a teacher’s practice, including assessment. (b) Continuous Improvement, Responsibility and Ethics. 1. Continuous Professional Improvement. The effective educator consistently: a. Designs purposeful professional goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on students’ needs; 4e: Growing and developing professionally ‐ Enhancement of Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Skill ‐ Receptivity to Feedback from Colleagues ‐ Service to the Profession An essential component of a teacher’s professionalism is a commitment to ongoing learning. b. Examines and uses data‐informed research to improve instruction and student achievement; 4e: Growing and developing professionally ‐ Enhancement of Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Skill ‐ Receptivity to Feedback from Colleagues ‐ Service to the Profession Worthwhile professional learning depends on strengthening practice based on research‐based strategies. c. Collaborates with the home, school and larger communities to foster communication and to support student learning and continuous improvement. 4c: ‐ ‐ ‐ 4d: ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Student learning is enhanced when all parties to their experience – teachers, other colleagues, and parents – work in tandem. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Communicating with families Information About the Instructional Program Information About Individual Students Engagement of Families in the Instructional Program Participating in a professional community Relationships with Colleagues Involvement in a Culture of Professional Inquiry Service to the School Participation in School and District Projects Florida Educator Accomplished Standards Danielson Framework for Teaching Specific Support of FEAPS in Framework for Domains/Components/Themes Teaching d. Engages in targeted professional growth 4a: Reflecting on teaching Reflection on practice, and basing professional opportunities and reflective practices, both ‐ Accuracy development activities on that reflection, is the independently and in collaboration with mark of a true professional. ‐ Use in Future Teaching colleagues; 4e: Growing and developing professionally ‐ Enhancement of Content Knowledge and ‐ Pedagogical Skill ‐ Receptivity to Feedback from Colleagues ‐ Service to the Profession e. Implements knowledge and skills learned in 4a: Reflecting on teaching Professional development activities are wasted if professional development in the teaching and ‐ Accuracy teachers don’t make use of their learning in their learning process. practice. ‐ Use of Future Teaching 4e: Growing and developing professionally ‐ Enhancement of Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Skill ‐ Receptivity to Feedback from Colleagues ‐ Service to the Profession Professional Responsibility and Ethical Conduct. Understanding that educators are held to a high moral standard in a community, the effective educator adheres to the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession of Florida, pursuant to State Board of Education Rules 6B‐1.001 and 6B‐1‐006, F.A.C., and fulfills the expected obligations to students, the public and the education profession. Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional 4f: Showing professionalism Teaching, like other professions, depends on Conduct ‐ Integrity And Ethical Conduct adherence to a meaningful code of ethics. ‐ Service to Students ‐ Advocacy ‐ Decision Making 4. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy Knowledge of Content and Structure of Discipline, Prerequisite Relationships, and Content-Related Pedagogy Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: -working understanding of how topics/concepts relate to one another and other disciplines -awareness of how topics/concepts relate to one another -some awareness of prerequisite relationships among topics/concepts -no awareness of prerequisite relationships among topics/concepts and content errors -wide range of pedagogical approaches and anticipates student misconceptions -wide range of pedagogical approaches -limited range of pedagogical approaches -no range of pedagogical approaches Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students Knowledge of Child/Adolescent Development, Learning Process, Students’ Skills and Knowledge, Language Proficiency, Interests, and Special Needs Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: - extensive understanding of developmental characteristics of individual students - accurate understanding of developmental characteristics - partial understanding of developmental characteristics - no understanding of the developmental characteristics - accurate understanding of students' skills, knowledge and language proficiency and applies knowledge to groups of students as well as the whole class - partial understanding of students' skills, knowledge and/or language proficiency and applies knowledge to the class as a whole - no understanding of students' skills, knowledge and/or language proficiency -accurate understanding of students’ special learning and medical needs, maintains records and utilizes information appropriately -partial understanding of students’ special learning and medical needs but may be inaccurate or incomplete -no understanding of students’ special learning and medical needs - extensive understanding of students' skills, knowledge, and language proficiency and applies knowledge to individual students, groups of students and the whole class - extensive understanding of students’ special learning and medical needs, maintains records and utilizes information appropriately applying to individual students Component 1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes Value, Sequence, Alignment, Clarity, Balance, and Suitability for Learners Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: -outcomes that represent high expectations and rigor connected to a sequence of learning and written in the form of student -outcomes that represent high expectations connected to a sequence of learning and are written in the form of student learning Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Teacher’s plans and practices display: -outcomes that represent moderate expectations with some connection to a sequence of learning and/or inconsistently written in the form of student learning Unsatisfactory Teacher’s plans and practices display: -outcomes that represent no or low expectations without a connection to a sequence of learning learning both in the discipline and across disciplines -clearly identified viable methods of assessment for all outcomes -viable methods of assessment for most outcomes -only some outcomes that allow for viable methods of assessment -no viable method of assessment Component 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources Resources for Instruction and Student Use Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: - appropriate materials and resources that are designed to engage all students in meaningful learning - appropriate materials and resources that are designed to engage most students in meaningful learning -materials and resources that are designed to engage some students in meaningful learning -materials and resources that do not engage students in meaningful learning -evidence of appropriate use of available technology by students -evidence of appropriate use of available technology by teachers Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction Learning Activities and Lesson and Unit Structure Highly Effective Effective Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Unsatisfactory -little, no, or inappropriate use of available technology -limited use of available technology Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: -learning activities that represent high cognitive challenge with differentiation for individual students -learning activities that represent cognitive challenge with differentiation for groups of student -some learning activities that represent a cognitive challenge, but with little or no differentiation for groups of students -learning activities that are not suitable for learning outcomes -a highly coherent structure and progression of lesson and/or unit plan -a defined structure and progression of the lesson and/or unit -lesson or unit plan with some structure and/or uneven progression -lesson or unit plan has no clearly defined structure Component 1f: Designing Student Assessments Congruence with Instructional Outcomes, Criteria and Standards, Design of formative Assessments Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Unsatisfactory Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: Teacher’s plans and practices display: -an assessment approach that fully aligns with instructional outcomes in both content and process -an assessment approach that aligns with instructional outcomes -an assessment approach that does not fully align with instructional outcomes -an assessment approach that does not align with instructional outcomes -assessment criteria and standards that are clear to students -assessment criteria and standards that are clear and align with instructional outcomes -assessment criteria and standards that have been developed, but are not clear -a lack of assessment criteria and standards -a well-developed use of assessment which includes instructional outcomes that is utilized by both students and the teacher -a well-developed use of assessment which includes instructional outcomes -a rudimentary use of assessment which includes only some instructional outcomes -no plan to incorporate assessment in the lesson or unit Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Component 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport Teacher Interaction with Students and Student with Student Interactions Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Unsatisfactory Interactions display: Interactions display: Interactions display: Interactions display: -teacher interactions with students that reflect genuine caring and respect -teacher interactions with students that are friendly and demonstrate respect -teacher interactions with students that are appropriate but may reflect occasional inconsistencies -negative, sarcastic or inappropriate interaction between the teacher and one or more students -student respect and trust for the teacher -respect for the teacher by the students -only minimal respect for the teacher by the students -a lack of respect for the teacher by the students -respect, genuine caring and politeness between students -respect between students -minimal respect between students -qualities of disrespect such as sarcasm, conflict and put downs between students Component 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning Importance of Content, Expectations for Learning and Achievement, and Student Pride in Work Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Unsatisfactory Teacher’s practices: Teacher’s practices: Teacher’s practices: Teacher’s practices: - inspire the active participation, curiosity and initiative of the students toward the content - reflect enthusiasm toward the content - reflect little conviction toward the content - reflect a negative attitude toward the content -display high expectations for students -display moderate expectations for students -display low expectations for some students - result in students’ acceptance of the teacher’s insistence of high quality work with students demonstrating pride in that work - result in minimal commitment by students to do quality work -result in the internalization of high expectations by students - result in students’ attention to detail, pride in their work and a desire to continually improve - result in no commitment by students to do quality work Component 2c: Managing Classroom Procedures Management of Instructional Groups, Transitions, Materials/Supplies, Non-Instructional Duties, and Supervision of Paraprofessionals and Volunteer Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Teacher’s practices result in: Teacher’s practices result in: Teacher’s practices result in: Teacher’s practices result in: -students engaged in learning during independent or group work with students taking responsibility for productivity -students productively engaged in learning during independent or group work -some students productively engaged in learning during independent or group work -students not productively engaged in learning during independent or group work -transitions that are smooth with no loss of instructional time -some loss of instructional time during transitions -chaotic transitions with significant loss of instructional time -efficient handling of materials/supplies with little or no loss of instructional time -inconsistent handling of materials/supplies with some loss of instructional time -inefficient handling of materials/supplies with significant loss of instructional time - some loss of instructional time performing non-instructional duties -considerable loss of instructional time performing non-instructional duties -volunteers/paraprofessionals with poorly defined duties -volunteers/paraprofessionals with no clearly defined duties -students assuming responsibility for efficient transitions -students assuming some responsibility for the efficient handling of materials/supplies with no loss of instructional time - students assuming some responsibility for performing non-instructional duties with no loss of instructional time - efficient systems for performing noninstructional duties with little or no loss of instructional time -volunteers/paraprofessionals making a substantial contribution to the instructional environment -volunteers/paraprofessionals productively and independently engaged during the entire class Component 2d: Managing Student Behavior Expectations, and Monitoring and Responding to Student Behavior Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Unsatisfactory Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: -clearly established standards of conduct with students promoting peer compliance -clearly established standards of conduct with consistent compliance -established standards of conduct with inconsistent compliance -no standards of conduct -preventative monitoring of student behavior -monitoring of student behavior at all times -some monitoring and awareness of student behavior, but some inappropriate student behavior is missed -no monitoring or a lack of awareness of student behavior -response to misbehavior that is attempted but with uneven results -no response or incorrect response to misbehavior -response to misbehavior that is highly appropriate and sensitive to individual students’ needs; or student behavior is entirely appropriate -response to misbehavior that is appropriate; or student behavior is generally appropriate Component 2e: Organizing Physical Space Safety, Accessibility and Use of Physical Space Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Teacher’s practices result in: Teacher’s practices result in: Teacher’s practices result in: Teacher’s practices result in: - classroom that is safe with students following procedures to ensure that learning is accessible to all students - classroom that is safe and accessible to all students -classroom that is safe and accessible to most students -classroom that is unsafe and not accessible to some students -both teacher and students effectively use furniture and space to advance learning - teacher effectively uses furniture and space to advance learning -teacher makes adequate use of physical space, but the furniture is not purposefully arranged with a focus on student learning -furniture arrangements that inhibit student learning or the teacher makes poor use of physical space Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Unsatisfactory Domain 3: Instruction Component 3a: Communicating with Students Use of Oral and Written Language for Expectations, Directions, Procedures, and Explanations of Content Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: -clear purpose for lesson or unit, including where it is situated within broader learning and relevance to student -clear purpose for lesson or unit, including where situated within broader learning -attempts to explain purpose for lesson or unit with limited success -unclear purpose for lesson or unit -directions and procedures that are clear to students after clarification -confusing directions and/or procedures -uneven explanation of content -confusing explanation of content -spoken and written language that conforms to standard English but may not be understood by students -written and spoken language that contains grammatical errors and/or is inaudible or illegible -vocabulary is not appropriate to students’ ages and interests -vocabulary is not appropriate or is used inappropriately -clear directions and procedures to students -clear directions and procedures to students that anticipate student misunderstanding -explanation of content connects with students’ knowledge and experience and provides opportunities for students to explain to peers -spoken and written language that conforms to standard English and is engaging to students -explanation of content that connects with students’ knowledge and experience -spoken and written language that conforms to standard English and is understood by the students -vocabulary is appropriate to students’ ages and interests -vocabulary that enriches the lesson and extends students’ vocabulary Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques Quality Questions, Engaging Discussion Techniques, Ensuring Student Participation Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Unsatisfactory Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: -questions that are consistently high quality with balanced cognitive challenge, adequate response time and persistence in soliciting responses -cognitively balanced questions with adequate response time -questions that are of mixed quality with low cognitive challenge and/or inadequate response time -questions that are poor quality and/or of only low cognitive challenge with inadequate response time -discussion among all students -discussion among students with uneven results -no student discussion -discussion among all students with students formulating questions and initiating discussions Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning Activities, Assignments, Grouping of Students, Use of Instructional Materials and Resources, Structure and Pacing Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: - activities and assignments that are appropriate and engaging to all allowing students to choose, initiate or adapt activities to enhance their understanding - activities and assignments that are appropriate and engaging to all students -activities and assignments that are appropriate and engaging for some students -activities and/or assignments that are inappropriate and/or not engaging -instructional groups that are productive and appropriate to instructional purposes with students taking ownership of the group’s learning -instructional groups that are productive and appropriate to instructional purposes --instructional materials and resources that enhance student learning and engagement -appropriate pacing allowing for student closure and reflection -instructional groups that are partially appropriate or moderately successful -instructional materials and resources that are appropriate -instructional materials and resources that are partially appropriate -appropriate pacing with closure -inconsistent lesson pacing with no closure Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) -instructional groups that are inappropriate or nonexistent -Instructional materials and resources that are inappropriate or nonexistent -no defined lesson structure Component 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction Assessment Criteria, Monitoring of Student Learning, Feedback to Students, Student Self-Assessment and Monitoring of Progress Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher’s practices result in: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: -awareness by all students of criteria and performance standards by which work will be evaluated and where their own performance is in relation to the standard -awareness by all students of criteria and performance standards by which work will be evaluated -awareness by some students of criteria and performance standards by which work will be evaluated -a lack of student awareness of criteria and performance standards by which work will be evaluated - students monitoring their own progress - consistent monitoring of student progress - inconsistent monitoring of student progress -evidence of monitoring student progress -consistent and timely feedback to students -inconsistent feedback to students -no, poor quality, or untimely feedback to students -occasional or inconsistent opportunities for student self-assessment -no opportunity for student self-assessment -students utilizing teacher feedback to enhance the quality of their work -consistent opportunities for student selfassessment -student assessment of their progress and utilize their data to enhance their learning Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Lesson Adjustment, Response to Students, and Persistence Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: -lesson adjustment that occurs with no loss of instructional time or none is needed -lesson adjustment that occurs or none is needed -attempt to adjust the lesson as needed with partial success -no evidence of lesson adjustment when a change is clearly needed - accommodates students' questions or interests in a manner that enhances student learning - accommodation of students' questions or interests - accommodation of students' questions or interests with some loss of instructional time -no attempt to accommodate or accommodates students' questions or interests with significant loss of instructional time --persistent differentiation using an extensive repertoire of instructional strategies -persistent differentiation using a variety of instructional strategies - differentiation using a limited repertoire of instructional strategies -no differentiation Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Component 4a: Reflecting on Teaching Accuracy and Use in Future Teaching Highly Effective Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher’s reflections display: Teacher’s reflections display: Teacher’s reflections display: Teacher’s reflections display: - thoughtful and accurate assessment of a lesson's effectiveness in achieving instructional outcomes and can cite specific examples from the lesson to support his/her judgment - accurate assessment of a lesson's effectiveness in achieving instructional outcomes - inconsistent impression of a lesson's effectiveness in achieving instructional outcomes - a lack of understanding of whether or not a lesson was effective in achieving instructional outcomes - offers specific suggestions about how a lesson could be improved drawing on extensive repertoire of skills -makes a few specific suggestions about how a lesson could be improved -makes general suggestions about how a lesson could be improved -no suggestions about how a lesson could be improved Component 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records Student Completion of Assignments and Progress in Learning, and Non-Instructional Records Highly Effective Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher’s practices display: -effective system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments including a system where students take responsibility for their assignments -system for maintaining information on student progress in learning is fully effective and allows for independent monitoring by students - effective system for maintaining information on non-instructional records and students contribute to its maintenance Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: Teacher’s practices display: - effective system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments - rudimentary and/or partially effective system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments - ineffective system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments -effective system for maintaining information on student progress in learning -rudimentary and/or partially effective system for maintaining information on student progress in learning -no system for maintaining information on student progress in learning or the system is in disarray -rudimentary and/or partially effective system for maintaining non-instructional records - ineffective system for maintaining noninstructional records resulting in errors and/or confusion - effective system for maintaining noninstructional records Component 4c: Communicating with Families Information about the Instructional Program and Individual Students, and Engagement of Families in the Instructional Program Highly Effective Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher’s practices provide: Teacher’s practices provide: Teacher’s practices provide: Teacher’s practices provide: -on-going and current information to families about the instructional program and student progress - current information to families about the instructional program and student progress - inconsistent or untimely information to families about the instructional program and student progress - little or no information to families about the instructional program and student progress - untimely response or response with limited sensitivity to family concerns about students - insensitive or no response to family concerns about students -frequent and on-going response to family concerns about students -timely and sensitive response to family concerns about students Component 4d: Participating in a Professional Community (All rating in this area can be achieved during contract hours.) Relationships with Colleagues, Involvement in a Culture of Professional Inquiry, and Participation in School and District Projects Highly Effective Teacher: -relationships with colleagues are characterized by selfless support and cooperation - takes a leadership role in promoting a culture of professional inquiry Effective Teacher: -relationships with colleagues are characterized by mutual support and cooperation -actively participates in a culture of professional inquiry -participates in school events and/or district projects making a contribution -participates in school events and/or district projects, making a substantial contribution, and assuming a leadership role in at least one aspect of school life Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher: Teacher: - relationships with colleagues may be cordial, but are self-serving or unproductive - relationships with colleagues are negative or unproductive -becomes involved in the school's culture of professional inquiry when invited to do so - participates in school events only when specifically asked to do so -avoids participation in a culture of professional inquiry, resisting opportunities to become involved -does not become involved in school events Component 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally Enhancement of Content Knowledge and Prerequisite Skill, Receptivity to Feedback, Service to Profession Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher: Teacher: Teacher: Teacher: -seeks out opportunities for professional development, implements in the classroom, and shares successful practices with colleagues -participates in professional development activities with evidence of classroom implementation -participates in professional activities to a limited extent -engages in no professional development activities -welcomes feedback on teaching practice with evidence of application -welcomes feedback on teaching practice -reluctantly accepts feedback on teaching practice -resists feedback on teaching practice Component 4f: Showing Professionalism Integrity and Ethical Conduct, and Decision Making Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory Teacher: Teacher: Teacher: Teacher: - displays high standards of honesty, integrity, and confidentiality with consistently good judgment and serves as a model for others - displays high standards of honesty, integrity and confidentiality in interactions with colleagues, students, and the public - interactions with colleagues, students and/or the public sometimes lack good judgment -displays dishonesty and/or a complete lack of sound judgment in interactions with colleagues, students and/or the public -actively serves students and works to ensure that all students receive a fair opportunity to succeed -inconsistently attempts to serve students -decisions and recommendations are based on consideration of stakeholders -decisions and recommendations are based on limited consideration of stakeholders -makes decisions and recommendations contrary to the best interest of stakeholders -complies minimally with school, district, state and federal regulations -does not comply with school, district, state and federal regulations -service to students is highly proactive, seeking out resources when needed -takes a positive and proactive role in ensuring that decisions and recommendations are based on consideration of all stakeholders -complies fully, positively and respectfully with school, district, state and federal regulations -complies with school, district, state and federal regulations -not alert to students' needs The Marion County observation rating instrument for both classroom and non-classroom based instructional personnel is solely on-line through Truenorthlogic and is not printable without printing a specific teacher’s entire composite and ratings. The observation instrument Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) replicates the rubric exactly with the addition of radio buttons found under the 4 required ratings (HE, E, NI, U) for the purpose of electronically “marking” the rating for each component observed. 5. Rubrics for Media, Student Support Personnel, and Instructional Support Personnel who are not classroom based are lengthy and are included in ATTACHMENT 1 at the end of this document. The Marion County observation rating instrument for both classroom and non-classroom based instructional personnel is solely on-line through Truenorthlogic and is not printable without printing a specific teacher’s entire composite and ratings. The observation instrument replicates the rubric exactly with the addition of radio buttons found under the 4 required ratings (HE, E, NI, U) for the purpose of electronically “marking” the rating for each component observed. 6. SYSTEM INSTRUMENTS: The MCIES has a number of forms to assist in the collection of teacher performance data. All forms are housed and completed electronically in the Truenorthlogic database. Below is a listing of forms and their use. Form Planning Conference Form **Required pre-observation work for FORMAL obs. Purpose Conversation regarding what is planned and what expectation the teacher and/or administrator has Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template *Requi (IEST – 2015) Reflection Conference Form **Required post-observation work for FORMAL obs. Rubric Rubric as Self-assessment Electronic Observation Tool Feedback conversation regarding observation in order to highlight positives and recommend alternative strategies and/or professional development To provide definition for the teacher behaviors desired in each domain and each ranking For the teacher to use to assess their strengths and weaknesses relative to the desired teacher behaviors To collect evidence of observations and walk-throughs All data collected on these forms is required, by contract and Florida State Law to be shared in a timely manner. Observation results and specific feedback comments are required to be electronically shared with the individual having been observed within 10 days by MEA contract. INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL NEW TO PROFESSION OR DISTRICT: Instructional personnel are assigned to categories based on the level of support that will be provided to them in the form of observations and feedback. Personnel with fewer years of experience will receive more support. Teachers in Category 1 are those new to the profession or new to the district. Individuals in this category will receive two (2) evaluations, a mid-term evaluation in December and a final summative evaluation in June. Mentors, if needed, are provided through a peer at the school or through the coaches employed in the Staff Development and/or Curriculum departments. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) OBSERVATION PROTOCOL: The evaluation process is comprised of multiple types of observations as defined below: Formal observations: These are required as the first observation for all categories of teachers. Formal observations will assess all 4 domains of the Teacher Performance Rubric utilizing the electronic version of the rubric to indicate behaviors observed in the appropriate rating category. Completed observation documents should be electronically linked to the teacher performance system housed in Performance Matters and made available to the teacher no later than 2 days following the observation. Formal observations are to be used to assist teachers to identify the domains and elements to focus on for the next observation(s). Formal observations are a minimum of 50 minutes or an entire lesson, and are announced to the instructional personnel with a minimum of a time range of a week during which the observation will occur. Formal observations require a planning conference and a reflection conference between the teacher and the observing administrator. Informal observations: These observations are required for all categories of teachers in varying number which may gather evidence of selected domains identified in the formal observation, or may observe all 4 domains included in the Teacher Performance Rubric. The informal observation will utilize the electronic version of the rubric to indicate behaviors observed in the appropriate rating category. Informal observations are a minimum of 20 minutes and are unannounced to the instructional personnel. These observations are used to collect evidence to assist teachers in improving their craft, enhancing skills, recommending professional development, modifying the IPDP, and documenting proficiency in the teacher performances as described in the rubric. Informal observations do not require a planning conference or reflection conference, although the latter is highly suggested for effective feedback. Walkthroughs: These unannounced observations are designed to look for a general trend or environment in the classroom and consist of approximately 3-5 minutes focusing on one or more elements within a domain. The walkthrough will utilize the electronic version of the rubric to indicate behaviors observed in the appropriate rating category and the element being observed. Data collected in walkthroughs should be used to identify trends in instruction within the school, the department, the grade level, the content, or the specific teacher’s classroom. Walkthrough data may also be accessed on a school or district level to assist in determining appropriate professional development opportunities. Walkthroughs do not require a planning conference or reflection conference. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) DISTRICT PROCEDURES FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF CLASSROOM VISITS Formal Class period or complete lesson (minimum of 50 minutes) Planning Conference (PreObservation) Reflection Conference (Post-Observation) Results used for annual evaluation Documented feedback provided to teacher Performed by certified Principal or Assistant Principal evaluator, or certified District or Peer evaluator Announced Informal Partial class period or lesson (minimum of 20 minutes) Results used for annual evaluation unless conducted by peer evaluator/mentor Electronic feedback provided to teacher Unannounced Walkthroughs 3 – 5 minutes Walkthrough is not scheduled: teacher is not informed Results used for annual evaluation unless conducted by peer evaluator/mentor Electronic feedback provided to teacher Unannounced ROLE OF OBSERVERS AND INSTRUCTIONAL EMPLOYEES: Formal Observation Planning Conference Observation (Formal and Informal) Observer Employee To support and guide the To provide evidence regarding teacher in planning and their skills in planning and preparation aligning their lessons to district standards and curricula To use defined rubric to gather To implement the designed evidence of teacher behaviors lesson as planned and discussed in the Planning Conference Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Reflection Conference To provide a climate and experience that enables the teacher and the observer to reflect upon the lesson and to determine next steps To reflect upon the impact that the lesson had on student learning Electronic/Documented Feedback To provide objective, actionable and timely feedback accordingly as described in the district procedures To reflect upon, engage in dialogue with observers and to take appropriate action Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Recommended Timeline Quarter Month Category I Instructional Personnel Instructional Personnel Formal Observation Self-Assessment End of first 9 week period End of first 9 week period Formal Observation Mid-term Evaluation* Informal Observation Informal Observation AUGUST Q1 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER Deliberate Practice Due Q2 NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY Q3 MARCH Q4 Formal Observation FEBRUARY Formal Observation APRIL MAY Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Informal Observation JUNE Summative Evaluation & Conference *Category 1 teachers will receive both a mid-term and a summative evaluation Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Summative Evaluation & Conference SOURCES OF EVIDENCE FOR DOCUMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE: Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Domain 2: Classroom Environment Planning Conference Form Reflection Conference Form Lesson Plans that include: o clear connection to standards and curriculum map o modification of instruction based on assessments o modification of instruction for special needs students Long Range Instructional Plan Doman 3: Instruction Formal Observation Informal Observation Walkthroughs Self-Assessment Form Artifacts Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Formal Observation Informal Observation Walkthroughs Self-Assessment Form Artifacts Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Lesson Study Participation in School Activities Artifacts of Reflection Reflection Conference Form Professional Learning Communities Attendance MIP Rosters/PD Transcripts Grade Book/Performance Matters data Instructional Category School Counselor Media Specialist Activities to be used for FORMAL observations Whole class instruction, small group, staffing, teacher referral meeting, other observation of delivery of services Whole class instruction, small group guided instruction, supervising a special program, read aloud, directing students on special projects, teacher professional development activities, other observation of delivery of services Activities to be used for INFORMAL observations Part of any formal, structured conversation with employee providing appropriate evidence of work Activities to be used for WALKTHROUGH observations Part of any formal, structured conversation with employee providing appropriate evidence of work Short observation of any regular delivery of service including but not limited to activities listed under formal and informal Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Short observation of any regular delivery of service including but not limited to activities listed under formal and informal Instructional Support Personnel (Academic Coaches, Deans, Vocational Program Assistant, Instructional support roles) Facilitating professional development, conducting meetings, supervising special programs, modeling lessons, one-on-one coaching, small or large group lessons, other observation of delivery of services Part of any formal, structured conversation with employee providing appropriate evidence of work Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Short observation of any regular delivery of service including but not limited to activities listed under formal and informal Other Indicators of Performance Directions: The district shall provide: The additional performance indicators, if the district chooses to include such additional indicators pursuant to s. 1012.34(3)(a)4., F.S.; The percentage of the final evaluation that is based upon the additional indicators; and The scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(d), F.A.C.]. Examples include the following: Deliberate Practice - the selection of indicators or practices, improvement on which is measured during an evaluation period Peer Reviews Objectively reliable survey information from students and parents based on teaching practices that are consistently associated with higher student achievement Individual Professional Development Plan Other indicators, as selected by the district NO ADDITIONAL INDICATORS OF PERFORMANCE ARE INCLUDED IN THE MARION COUNTY INSTRUCTIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR EITHER CLASSROOM OR NON-CLASSROOM INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 3. Summative Evaluation Score Directions: The district shall provide: 1. The summative evaluation form(s); and 2. The scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined; and 3. The performance standards used to determine the summative evaluation rating. Districts shall use the four performance levels provided in s. 1012.34(2)(e), F.S. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(e), F.A.C.]. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 1. Form is copied below but because of formatting, it is not easy to read. Form is included in ATTACHMENT 2 Print Date: 5/16/20 MCIES Summative Evaluation School Year: Name: Employee ID# Instructional Practice % Assessment Student Growth (67%) Numerical Average Rating (HE,E,NI/D,U) % Assessment 20% Domain 1 30% Domain 2 40% Domain 3 10% Domain 4 Rubric level Range HE = 3.40000001 - 4.00 NI/D = 1.25000001 - 2.00 E = 2.00000001 - 3.40 U= 1.00 - 1.25 Total Instructional Practice 67% Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Total Student Growth 33% Numerical Average (33%) Rating (HE,E,NI/D,U) Employee Signature* Date Administrator's Signature Date Total Summative Score Employee Signature* Administrator's Signature Numerical Average: Rating: Date Date *My signature on this document acknowledges that I have received a copy of the evaluation. It does not imply agreement. I understand that the Instructional Practice and Student Growth will be COMBINED to create a final evaluation score. COMPLETED FORM DISTRIBUTION: Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) ORIGINAL: ESD COPY: EMPLOYEE An Equal Opportunity Employer - COPY: SCHOOL FILE 2. RATING DESCRIPTIONS: Instructional personnel are rated in 4 distinctly different categories for instructional performance according to the descriptions on the rubric(s). These categories are: Highly Effective, Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory as described on the rubric(s) for instructional performance. Teachers classified as Category 1 (first year instructional personnel are rated using a Developing level rather than Needs Improvement as it is the underlying philosophy of the evaluation system that with support, these instructional personnel will develop to Effective practice. Mid-term (Category 1 only) and Final evaluations will consist of a rating based on the collection of evidence in the 4 Instructional Practice domains; this will be 67% of the final evaluation rating. Ratings are given a numeric value to calculate summative score as follows: HE=4, E=3, NI/D=2, U=1. The total score of ratings in each domain are added and divided by the number of ratings in the domain in order to determine the domain score. The final evaluation instrument is an electronic instrument that automatically adds evidence collected and assigns a rating based on percentage weight of each domain. The four domains are weighted according to District determined impact to quality practice as listed below: Domain Title Weighting 1 Planning and Preparation 20% 2 Classroom Environment 30% 3 Instruction 40% 4 Professional Responsibilities 10% Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 3. Instructional personnel are rated in 4 distinctly different categories for instructional performance according to the descriptions on the rubric(s). These categories are: Highly Effective, Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory as described on the rubric(s) for instructional performance. Teachers classified as Category 1 (first year instructional personnel are rated using a Developing level rather than Needs Improvement as it is the underlying philosophy of the evaluation system that with support, these instructional personnel will develop to Effective practice. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 4. Additional Requirements Directions: The district shall provide: 1. Confirmation that the district provides instructional personnel the opportunity to review their class rosters for accuracy and to correct any mistakes [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)1., F.A.C.] 2. Documentation that the evaluator is the individual who is responsible for supervising the employee. An evaluator may consider input from other personnel trained in evaluation practices. If input is provided by other personnel, identify the additional positions or persons. Examples include assistant principals, peers, district staff, department heads, grade level chairpersons, or team leaders [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)2., F.A.C.]. 3. Description of training programs and processes to ensure that all employees subject to an evaluation system are informed on evaluation criteria, data sources, methodologies, and procedures associated with the evaluation before the evaluation takes place, and that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities and those who provide input toward evaluation understand the proper use of the evaluation criteria and procedures [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)3., F.A.C.]. 4. Description of processes for providing timely feedback to the individual being evaluated [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)4., F.A.C.]. 5. Description of how results from the evaluation system will be used for professional development [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)5., F.A.C.]. 6. Confirmation that the district will require participation in specific professional development programs by those who have been evaluated as less than effective as required by s. 1012.98(10), F.S. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)6., F.A.C.]. 7. Documentation that all instructional personnel must be evaluated at least once a year [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)7., F.A.C.]. 8. Documentation that classroom teachers are observed and evaluated at least once a year [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)8., F.A.C.]. 9. Documentation that classroom teachers newly hired by the district are observed and evaluated at least twice in the first year of teaching in the district pursuant to s. 1012.34(3)(a), F.S. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)8., F.A.C.]. 10. Documentation that the evaluation system for instructional personnel includes opportunities for parents to provide input into performance evaluations when the district determines such input is appropriate, and a description of the criteria for inclusion, and the manner of inclusion of parental input [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)9., F.A.C.]. 11. Identification of teaching fields, if any, for which special evaluation procedures and criteria are necessary [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)10., F.A.C.]. 12. Description of the district’s peer assistance process, if any. Peer assistance may be part of the regular evaluation system, or used to assist personnel who are placed on performance probation, or who request assistance, or newly hired classroom teachers [Rule 6A5.030(2)(f)11., F.A.C.]. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 1. Email text sent for each roster verification to administrators: To: Elementary Assistant Principals for Curriculum Secondary Assistant Principals for Discipline Cc to School Principals, Mr. Tomyn, and District Personnel Roster Verification Coordinators at the schools for this year will be: Assistant Principals for Curriculum at the ELEMENTARY level and Assistant Principals for DISCIPLINE at the SECONDARY level (note that this is a shift from last year!) This email is to provide directions for School Coordinators and District Coordinators for the roster verification for Survey 2 student verification. Please forward to Supervisors in your department that need to know this information and did not get included in the email distribution. The Department of Education has once again provided a way for Florida teachers to verify the accuracy of enrollment data for students in their classes in compliance with Florida Statute 1012.34 which states that the State Board of Education will “permit instructional personnel to review the class roster for accuracy and to correct any mistakes relating to the identity of students for whom the individual is responsible.” At this time, we have the opportunity to verify rosters for the FTE reported in OCTOBER, 2014. Submission of the Roster Verification Tool provides teachers with access to a secure DOE website where they can view lists of students enrolled in their classes as of OCTOBER 18, 2014. (These are the students reported for enrollment for FTE Survey 2.) Please note: There is a report on SMS (described in the FAQ) which lists the students on rosters for the Survey 2 reporting. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) As Assistant Principal for Curriculum and Discipline, you have been designated as your school’s coordinator for the Roster Verification Tool. Step-by-step directions and a document with Frequently Asked Questions for the school coordinator and teachers are attached. If desired, more detailed directions are available for both school coordinators and teachers after logging into the site. As the school coordinator, you will have the ability to add more school coordinators if you want to share this task with others on your staff. Timelines: During December 11-15, you will review the directions and roster tool. ON December 15, the DISTRICT coordinator will open access for all teachers at all schools. When the tool is opened for your school, please make teachers aware that it is open and that they should verify their rosters within the time frame. On December 15, I will send teachers an email telling them that the roster tool is open and I will attach documents and directions. You should communicate with them or meet with them prior to this email. During December 15-January 20, teachers may review their class rosters and note any changes that they think should be made. (There should be very few requested changes, since the teachers will be viewing DOE Survey 2 enrollment data for their classes which was submitted to DOE.) Between January 21-26, you will review any roster changes requested by teachers, and you will decide whether or not those changes should be approved. Final deadline for you to submit your school’s data is close of day on MONDAY, January 26. It will not be necessary to review every teacher’s roster(s) to look for their requested changes. After January 20 , we suggest that you use the “Roster Changes” link within the Roster Verification Tool to review requested changes from all teachers. You or your designated coordinator may then search SMS for those students’ individual schedules and “View Change History” to confirm any schedule changes in SMS that didn’t appear in the Roster Verification Tool. Even though we believe there will be very few changes requested by teachers, there will be value in teachers having an opportunity to verify the accuracy of their class rosters. Now that everyone is acquainted with VAM, it is important to the teacher to verify those students that will be included in the VAM calculation by DOE. I apologize for having to present this information to you via email. For first steps, I suggest that you read the three attachments, then login to the site to set up your account and take a look around. Next you’ll want to decide who (if anyone) on your staff you’ll set up as additional school coordinator(s), and determine what role each of you will play. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) I particularly need the help of Principals and Assistant Principals this year in encouraging or requiring your teachers to log in and complete the roster verification as it will impact VAM and is our only change to correct any errors in student assignment. It doesn’t matter what grade level or subject the teacher teaches as every teacher is going to have student data attributed to them and we’d like to be sure it is accurate. If you have questions, or I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Attachments included: -Roster Verification Timeline for Coordinators -Roster Verification Timeline and Directions for Teachers -FAQ sheet with information -Copy of DOE important text from their memo -School Coordinator Guide -Teacher Coordinator Guide 2. EVALUATORS: Only trained and certified evaluators are authorized to observe and evaluate instructional personnel. Evaluators include: Principals, Assistant Principals, School-based Coordinators, and District administrators. Primary evaluators are school based administrators given evaluation authority by Statute and with supervisory responsibility for the employee being evaluated. Secondary evaluators are trained and available to provide support to school administrators as needed. All evaluators will be certified in the training process outlined below. Evaluator performance and consistency of results will be monitored by the District Executive Director and Director for School Evaluation and Development. Consistency of results will be insured through regular PLC sessions, video observations and collaborative calibration, and feedback conferences with the Executive Director and Director for School Development and Evaluation. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 3. TRAINING: All administrators who evaluate must complete 3 days of training; training will be offered annually to include newly appointed administrators and to provide re-fresher training. Training for evaluators in order to become certified consists of: Phase 1 Part 1: Philosophical overview, foundational beliefs of the system, core goals Part 2: Rubrics, detailed understanding and examples, practice Part 3: System logistics (time and number of observations), technology, forms Phase 2: On-going in regularly scheduled administrative meetings Topics/Content: 1. Book Study 2. Inter-rater reliability, problems with rubric and forms, system review and revision, practice with rubrics using teacher videos, revisit core goals and foundational beliefs Phase 3: Enhancement/Enrichment/Revisions as needed yearly Part 1: Revisions to systems, problem solving, inter-rater reliability practice Part 2: Data collection, reports, trends, using data to impact quality teaching 4. Pursuant to MEA contract, all instructional employees are evaluated at least once per year and are observed according to the recommended timeline for observation included in section 2 of this template. MEA contract language currently in effect and Board Approved: Section 6.22 – Performance Assessment of Employees Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) (a) A performance evaluation of each employee shall be completed by a certified Administrator trained in the Marion County Instructional Evaluation System (MCIES). Information received, but not directly observed, by the Administrator shall be verified by the Administrator and discussed with the employee prior to including the information in any assessment. (b) (1) During an annual employee orientation, the supervising administrator will orient employees to the instrument used to document any instructional practice observations completed pursuant to this section, rubrics outlining successful performance, and any information regarding process and policy. All such information shall be made available to the employee electronically on the District’s School Development and Evaluation sites or other appropriate means within the first 20 work days after the beginning of each school year. (2) Any observation made pursuant to the MCIES shall be made in a candid and open manner in accordance with the approved rubrics defining performance aligned to the job code of the employee. Results of such observations will be accessible electronically to the employee not later than ten (10) work days after the observation was conducted, unless prevented from doing so due to unforeseen circumstances. The employee is responsible for addressing any perceived discrepancies with the observing administrator within five work days of the posting of the observation results, unless prevented from doing so due to unforeseen circumstances. Employees may submit documentary evidence in rebuttal of a specific rating for reconsideration by the supervising administrator within this specified time frame. (3) The annual summative evaluation shall be weighted with 67% of the rating based on Instructional Practice observed and documented and 33% of the rating based on the identified Student Growth data. (4) A copy of the Instructional Practices portion of the Annual Summative Evaluation shall be provided to the employee no later than the last teacher workday of the school year. Employees may request a meeting with supervising administrators to discuss the Summative Evaluation for clarification. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 5. OBSERVATION RESULTS/RATINGS USE FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: How information from the observations and evaluation system is given in feedback to teachers for the purpose of individual professional improvement Timeline for gathering evaluation result data July Electronic post-observation documents Trend data reports from walkthroughs Administrator conferences (formal or informal) Reflection conference IPDP reviews and modifications Self -assessments Collect previous year data Disaggregate evaluation data Create reports in electronic evaluation Create district Professional Development Catalog for the upcoming school year based on data August Prepare results for dissemination September Enter formal observation or self- assessment data into electronic evaluation data base September – October Review data and past year evaluation (if available) for creation of current year IPDP October Create IPDP October – May Engage in on-going observations with feedback Participate in selected professional development opportunities Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) District use of evaluation data Collect school, grade level, and content trend data for planning professional development offerings Correlate evaluation results with goals in SIP and ASSESSMENT (State and local) results to determine success of professional development offered and to plan subsequent professional development needed Collect data to report to State and for State Staff Development Protocol Review 6. Section 6.225 – Consequences of Performance Assessment (a) Administrators are encouraged to employ Instructional Leadership strategies and mentoring to develop teachers who are new to the job. (b) In cases where such routine developmental strategies are not successful, the administrator will follow the procedures outlined in Section 6.23 – Employee Discipline for Performance. (c) First-year teachers are subject to a probationary year in accordance with F.S. 1012.335. (d) All second and subsequent year annual contract teachers who have been assessed as “Highly Effective” on the Teaching Practices portion of the Marion County Instructional Evaluation System (MCIES) for the current year will have their contracts renewed for the following year, provided that Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) they have not been placed on Step 2 or higher of the Progressive Discipline System, and have not been given punishment under Section 6.235 – Employee Discipline for Misconduct. The provisions of this paragraph are waived in the event that the District has declared a reduction in force. In that case the provisions of Article 7 – Layoff and Recall will be followed. (e) Because instructional personnel have their summative evaluation based in part on student growth measured by new, unvetted assessments including, but not limited to the new Florida Standards Assessments (FSA) or other standardized assessments, including certification examinations and Districtdeveloped end-of-course assessments (LEOCE), the District will hold a PSC/CC employee harmless from termination based on a 2014-15 summative evaluation rating of NI or U so long as the employee’s professional performance portion of that rating was “effective” or higher. Section 6.23 – Employee Discipline for Performance (a) No employee shall be disciplined without Just Cause. (b) Members shall be allowed the presence and representation of an Association Representative during: (1) any investigatory meeting which may result in employee discipline; and (2) any meeting in which employee discipline is imposed, provided there is no undue delay. (c) When job performance is Unsatisfactory the Progressive Discipline System (hereafter referred to as PDS) will be used. The purpose of the PDS is to assist the employee in understanding that a performance problem exists and that there is an opportunity to correct the problem. A “U” may not be given on any component of the Final Assessment Form unless Step 4 of the PDS (see below) has been initiated. (d) Documented progressive steps (warnings, verbal reprimands, and written reprimands shall not be used as the basis for taking the next step of discipline after the end of the next full school year subsequent to the date of imposition of such discipline. (e) The PDS shall consist of the following steps: Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Step 1: The Administrator shall meet with the employee, orally notify the employee regarding the deficiencies in the employee's work performance, discuss the Administrator’s specific expectations for improvement, and inform the employee that the meeting is Step 1 of the PDS. The identification of deficiencies should relate to the MCIES rubrics. The Administrator shall provide the employee with written documentation of Step 1, and the employee shall sign for receipt of such written documentation, provided the documentation specifies that the employee’s signature does not indicate agreement with the contents of the documentation, but only that employee has, in fact, received a copy of the documentation. Step 1 documentation shall not be placed in an employee’s personnel file as maintained by the District’s Employment Services Division. Step 2: If the identified problem persists, the Administrator shall again discuss the problem with the employee and issue a Verbal Reprimand. The Verbal Reprimand shall include the date on which the Step 1 discussion was conducted, the date the Verbal Reprimand was issued, and a summary of the discussion at Step 2. The Administrator shall provide the employee with written documentation of Step 2, and the employee shall sign for receipt of such written documentation, provided the documentation specifies that the employee’s signature does not indicate agreement with the contents of the documentation, but only that employee has, in fact, received a copy of the documentation. Step 2 documentation shall not be placed in an employee’s personnel file as maintained by the District’s Employment Services Division. Step 3: If the identified problem persists, the Administrator shall issue a Written Reprimand. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) The Administrator shall provide the employee with written documentation of Step 3, and the employee shall sign for receipt of such written documentation, provided the documentation specifies that the employee’s signature does not indicate agreement with the contents of the documentation, but only that employee has, in fact, received a copy of the documentation. Step 3 documentation shall not be placed in an employee’s personnel file as maintained by the District’s Employment Services Division. Step 4: If the problem persists, the employee shall be placed on the NEAT Procedure. A formal letter or memorandum is the means of notifying the employee of his/her placement on the NEAT Procedure, which consists of the following: N – Notice: The Administrator shall provide the employee with notice of the identified continuing performance problem. E – Expectation: The Administrator shall provide the employee with notice of the Administrator’s specific expectations for improvement. A – Assistance: The Administrator shall provide the employee with notice of the personnel and the resources available to assist in the improvement of the employee’s performance. T – Time: After discussion with the employee regarding the period of time in which the employee’s performance is expected to be Satisfactory, the Administrator shall provide the employee with notice of a reasonable time frame in which improvement to Satisfactory must occur. The Administrator shall provide the employee with a copy of the required written documentation of Step 4. The employee shall sign for receipt of such written documentation, provided the documentation specifies: 1. That the employee’s signature does not indicate agreement with the contents Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) of the documentation; 2. That the employee has, in fact, received a copy of the documentation, and 3. That the employee’s refusal to sign for receipt of Step 4 documentation may result in additional disciplinary action. Step 4 documentation shall be placed in an employee’s personnel file as maintained by the District’s Employment Services Division. Step 5: If the employee’s performance in the noted areas has not improved to a Satisfactory level by the conclusion of the NEAT Procedure, further remedial and disciplinary action shall be taken in accordance with FS 1012.34. (f) Notification to the Association of any employee discipline shall be at the discretion of that employee. A statement advising the employee of his/her right to notify the Association shall be included in each notice of disciplinary action. 7. SEE ITEM 4 8. SEE ITEM 4 9. See MEA language from current Board Approved contract. See also evaluation timeline applied to all instructional personnel included in ITEM 4 of his template. (c) Probationary employees (i.e., employees during their first year of employment with the District) shall receive a Mid-term Evaluation that shall be reported to the state as mandated by statute. Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) (1) The Mid-Term Evaluation consists of Instructional Practice and Student Achievement. (2) The resulting average of data tabulation for this score shall be communicated to the employee within ten (10) work days of the completed calculation of the Mid-Term score unless the supervisor is prevented from doing so due to unforeseen circumstances. (3) Subsequent observations will be added to the Mid-Term rating and will reflect the extent of the employee’s progress in correcting any deficiencies noted in the Mid-Term Evaluation data. 10. Parent input for the purposes of teacher evaluation are included in several ways: -School Improvement surveys are given annually and data is reviewed by District and school-based leadership teams to identify areas of concern -The School Development and Evaluation Department is the clearing house for teacher and school parent phone calls and concerns. The supervisors of the department take information and document teacher issues to share with administrators for resolution -All parent information is considered, however, is reviewed by a team at the school level which compares it to other known data (observations, performance, relationships, etc.) to determine validity and any appropriate consideration in the evaluation system -Any parent input considered in reflected in Domain 4 rating(s) Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 11. SPECIAL PROCEDURES AND RUBRICS While all instructional employees will use the same timeline, instructional categories 1-4, and instruments, some instructional categories require special rubrics as described earlier in this document. Formal, informal, and walkthrough observations will be consistent among all categories; however, the observation may change based on the work of the individual. Instruction Activities to be al used for Category FORMAL observations School Whole class Counselor instruction, small group, staffing, teacher referral meeting, other observation of delivery of services Activities to be used for INFORMAL observations Part of any formal, structured conversation with employee providing appropriate evidence of work Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Activities to be used for WALKTHROUGH observations Short observation of any regular delivery of service including but not limited to activities listed under formal and informal Media Specialist Whole class instruction, small group guided instruction, supervising a special program, read aloud, directing students on special projects, teacher professional development activities, other observation of delivery of services Instruction Facilitating al professional Support development, Personnel conducting (Academi meetings, supervising c special programs, Coaches, modeling lessons, Deans, Vocationa one-on-one l Program coaching, small or Assistant, large group Instructio lessons, other observation of nal delivery of support services roles) Part of any formal, structured conversation with employee providing appropriate evidence of work Short observation of any regular delivery of service including but not limited to activities listed under formal and informal Part of any formal, structured conversation with employee providing appropriate evidence of work Short observation of any regular delivery of service including but not limited to activities listed under formal and informal Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 12. The District currently has no formal peer assistance program Marion County Public School Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) 13. District Evaluation Procedures Directions: The district shall provide evidence that its evaluation policies and procedures comply with the following statutory requirements: 14. In accordance with s. 1012.34(3)(c), F.S., the evaluator must: 15. submit a written report of the evaluation to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee’s contract [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(g)1., F.A.C.]. 16. submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the evaluation takes place [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(g)2., F.A.C.]. 17. discuss the written evaluation report with the employee [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(g)3., F.A.C.]. 18. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the evaluation and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(g)4., F.A.C.]. 19. The district shall provide evidence that its evaluation procedures for notification of unsatisfactory performance comply with the requirements outlined in s. 1012.34(4), F.S. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(h), F.A.C.]. 20. Documentation the district has complied with the requirement that the district school superintendent shall annually notify the Department of any instructional personnel who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and shall notify the Department of any instructional personnel who are given written notice by the district of intent to terminate or not renew their employment, as outlined in s. 1012.34(5), F.S. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(i), F.A.C.]. 14-19 District/Marion Education Association Contract Section 6.22 – Performance Assessment of Employees (a) A performance evaluation of each employee shall be completed by a certified Administrator trained in the Marion County Instructional Evaluation System (MCIES). Information received, but not directly observed, by the Administrator shall be verified by the Administrator and discussed with the employee prior to including the information in any assessment. (b) (1) During an annual employee orientation, the supervising administrator will orient employees to the instrument used to document any instructional practice observations completed pursuant to this section, rubrics outlining successful performance, and any information regarding process and policy. All such information shall be made available to the employee electronically on the District’s School Development and Evaluation sites or other appropriate means within the first 20 work days after the beginning of each school year. (2) Any observation made pursuant to the MCIES shall be made in a candid and open manner in accordance with the approved rubrics defining performance aligned to the job code of the employee. Results of such observations will be accessible electronically to the employee not later than ten (10) work days after the observation was conducted, unless prevented from doing so due to unforeseen circumstances. The employee is responsible for addressing any perceived discrepancies with the observing administrator within five work days of the posting of the observation results, unless prevented from doing so due to unforeseen circumstances. Employees may submit documentary evidence in rebuttal of a specific rating for reconsideration by the supervising administrator within this specified time frame. (3) The annual summative evaluation shall be weighted with 67% of the rating based on Instructional Practice observed and documented and 33% of the rating based on the identified Student Growth data. (4) A copy of the Instructional Practices portion of the Annual Summative Evaluation shall be provided to the employee no later than the last teacher workday of the school year. Employees may request a meeting with supervising administrators to discuss the Summative Evaluation for clarification. Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 1 (c) (5) The Student Growth portion of the Annual Summative Evaluation, derived from assessment data provided by the State, and other identified sources if required, shall be calculated according to the statistical method and formula agreed upon by the administration and the Association. Employees will be shown the data used in calculating their student growth score upon request. (6) The employee may request a conference with the supervising administrator to discuss the final Annual Summative Evaluation. An appeal may be submitted only in the case of a procedural error in applying the appropriate data for the employee. (7) An employee shall have the right to attach a written rebuttal to any performance assessment placed in the employee’s personnel file (8) An employee shall have the right to inspect, review and copy the contents of his/her personnel file in compliance with Florida Statutes. A representative of the employee’s choice may accompany the employee at such inspection and review. Probationary employees (i.e., employees during their first year of employment with the District) shall receive a Mid-term Evaluation that shall be reported to the state as mandated by statute. (1) The resulting average of data tabulation for this score shall be communicated to the employee within ten (10) work days of the completed calculation of the Mid-Term score unless the supervisor is prevented from doing so due to unforeseen circumstances. Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 2 (2) Subsequent observations will be added to the Mid-Term rating and will reflect the extent of the employee’s progress in correcting any deficiencies noted in the Mid-Term Evaluation data. (d) The Association and the District agree that any change to the existing Marion County Instructional Evaluation System (MCIES) will be collectively bargained. (e) The performance based salary increases reflected on Appendix B for 2014-15 will also be duplicated in SY 2015-16 as long as the District does not declare a financial emergency preventing their fulfillment of the second year of this salary agreement. Section 6.225 – Consequences of Performance Assessment (a) Administrators are encouraged to employ Instructional Leadership strategies and mentoring to develop teachers who are new to the job. (b) In cases where such routine developmental strategies are not successful, the administrator will follow the procedures outlined in Section 6.23 – Employee Discipline for Performance. (c) First-year teachers are subject to a probationary year in accordance with F.S. 1012.335. (d) All second and subsequent year annual contract teachers who have been assessed as “Highly Effective” on the Teaching Practices portion of the Marion County Instructional Evaluation System (MCIES) for the current year will have their contracts renewed for the following year, Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 3 provided that they have not been placed on Step 2 or higher of the Progressive Discipline System, and have not been given punishment under Section 6.235 – Employee Discipline for Misconduct. The provisions of this paragraph are waived in the event that the District has declared a reduction in force. In that case the provisions of Article 7 – Layoff and Recall will be followed. (e) Because instructional personnel have their summative evaluation based in part on student growth measured by new, unvetted assessments including, but not limited to the new Florida Standards Assessments (FSA) or other standardized assessments, including certification examinations and District-developed end-of-course assessments (LEOCE), the District will hold a PSC/CC employee harmless from termination based on a 2014-15 summative evaluation rating of NI or U so long as the employee’s professional performance portion of that rating was “effective” or higher. 20. District routinely submits employee evaluation results in Survey 5. No employee has, to date, received two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations. In the event that this occurs in the future, Marion County will notify the DOE of these personne l and the intent to terminate their contract. Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 4 5. District Self-Monitoring Directions: The district shall provide a description of its process for annually monitoring its evaluation system. The district self-monitoring shall determine the following: Evaluators’ understanding of the proper use of evaluation criteria and procedures, including evaluator accuracy and inter-rater reliability; [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)1., F.A.C.] Evaluators provide necessary and timely feedback to employees being evaluated; [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)2., F.A.C.] Evaluators follow district policies and procedures in the implementation of evaluation system(s); [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)3., F.A.C.] Use of evaluation data to identify individual professional development; [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)4., F.A.C.] Use of evaluation data to inform school and district improvement plans [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)5., F.A.C.]. Commented [OK1]: Please insert the following language at the end of this section: “Marion County will have evaluators follow district policies and procedures in the implementation of the evaluation system. Marion County will use evaluation data to identify professional development and inform school and district improvement plans.” 1. Evaluations results are accessed by school leadership and reviewed. These are provided to District in terms of charts for ea ch school on a quarterly basis and are used for discussion and analysis in administrator observation/evaluation visits as in reg ularly scheduled administrative group meetings in PLC format and other methods. Paired walkthroughs are routinely required for school teams in both the DA walkthrough model, the District walkthrough model, and walkthroughs as a result of the Commissioner’s leadership academy teams. Focus of training and collaborative conversations is inter-rater reliability. Professional consultants have provided training and strategies to K-12 administrators and District personnel who evaluate administrators. Consultants were: Robyn Jackson, Steve Carney, Pete Hall, representatives from Doug Reeve’s organization in training the leadership evaluation system. Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 5 2. As per MEA contract below: Any observation made pursuant to the MCIES shall be made in a candid and open manner in accordance with the approved rubrics defining performance aligned to the job code of the employee. Results of such observations will be accessible electronically to the employee not later than ten (10) work days after the observation was conducted, unless prevented from doing so due to unforeseen circumstances. The employee is responsible for addressing any perceived discrepancies with the observing administrator within five work days of the posting of the observation results, unless prevented from doing so due to unforeseen circumstances. Employees may submit documentary evidence in rebuttal of a specific rating for reconsideration by the supervising administrator within this specified time frame. 3. ADMINISTRATOR HANDBOOK IS PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 3 4 and 5 OBSERVATION RESULTS/RATINGS USE FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: How information from the observations and evaluation system is given in feedback to teachers for the purpose of individual professional improvement Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Electronic post-observation documents Trend data reports from walkthroughs Administrator conferences (formal or informal) Reflection conference DELIBERATE PRACTICE reviews and modifications Self -assessments Page 6 Timeline for gathering evaluation result data July Collect previous year data Disaggregate evaluation data Create reports in electronic evaluation Create district Professional Development Catalog for the upcoming school year based on data August Prepare results for dissemination September Enter formal observation or self- assessment data into electronic evaluation data base September – October Review data and past year evaluation (if available) for creation of current year DELIBERATE PRACTICE October Create DELIBERATE PRACTICE October – May Engage in on-going observations with feedback Participate in selected professional development opportunities Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 7 District use of evaluation data Collect school, grade level, and content trend data for planning professional development offerings Correlate evaluation results with goals in SIP and ASSESSMENT (State and local) results to determine success of professional development offered and to plan subsequent professional development needed Collect data to report to State and for State Staff Development Protocol Review Marion County will have evaluators follow district policies and procedures in the implementation of the evaluation system. Marion County will use evaluation data to identify professional development and inform school and district improvement plans. Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 8 Appendix A – Checklist for Approval Performance of Students The district has provided and meets the following criteria: For all instructional personnel: The percentage of the evaluation that is based on the performance of students criterion. An explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined. At least one-third of the evaluation is based on performance of students. For classroom teachers newly hired by the district: The student performance measure(s). Scoring method for each evaluation, including how it is calculated and combined. For all instructional personnel, confirmed the inclusion of student performance: Data for at least three years, including the current year and the two years immediately preceding the current year, when available. If less than the three most recent years of data are available, those years for which data are available must be used. If more than three years of student performance data are used, specified the years that will be used. For classroom teachers of students for courses assessed by statewide, standardized assessments: Documented that VAM results comprise at least one-third of the evaluation. For teachers assigned a combination of courses that are associated with the statewide, standardized assessments and that are not, the portion of the evaluation that is comprised of the VAM results is identified, and the VAM results are given proportional weight according to a methodology selected by the district. For all instructional personnel of students for courses not assessed by statewide, standardized assessments: For classroom teachers, the district-determined student performance measure(s) used for personnel evaluations. For instructional personnel who are not classroom teachers, the district-determined student performance measure(s) used for personnel evaluations. Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 9 Instructional Practice The district has provided and meets the following criteria: For all instructional personnel: The percentage of the evaluation system that is based on the instructional practice criterion. At least one-third of the evaluation is based on instructional practice. An explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined. The district evaluation framework for instructional personnel is based on contemporary research in effective educational practices. For all instructional personnel: A crosswalk from the district's evaluation framework to the Educator Accomplished Practices demonstrating that the district’s evaluation system contains indicators based upon each of the Educator Accomplished Practices. For classroom teachers: The observation instrument(s) that include indicators based on each of the Educator Accomplished Practices. For non-classroom instructional personnel: The evaluation instrument(s) that include indicators based on each of the Educator Accomplished Practices. For all instructional personnel: Procedures for conducting observations and collecting data and other evidence of instructional practice. Other Indicators of Performance The district has provided and meets the following criteria: Described the additional performance indicators, if any. The percentage of the final evaluation that is based upon the additional indicators. The scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined. Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 10 Summative Evaluation Score The district has provided and meets the following criteria: Summative evaluation form(s). Scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined. The performance standards used to determine the summative evaluation rating (the four performance levels: highly effective, effective, needs improvement/developing, unsatisfactory). Additional Requirements The district has provided and meets the following criteria: Confirmation that the district provides instructional personnel the opportunity to review their class rosters for accuracy and to correct any mistakes. Documented that the evaluator is the individual who is responsible for supervising the employee. Identified additional positions or persons who provide input toward the evaluation, if any. Description of training programs: Processes to ensure that all employees subject to an evaluation system are informed on evaluation criteria, data sources, methodologies, and procedures associated with the evaluation before the evaluation takes place. Processes to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities and those who provide input toward evaluation understand the proper use of the evaluation criteria and procedures. Documented: Processes for providing timely feedback to the individual being evaluated. Description of how results from the evaluation system will be used for professional development. Requirement for participation in specific professional development programs by those who have been evaluated as less than effective. Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 11 All instructional personnel must be evaluated at least once a year. All classroom teachers must be observed and evaluated at least once a year. Newly hired classroom teachers are observed and evaluated at least twice in the first year of teaching in the district. For instructional personnel: Inclusion of opportunities for parents to provide input into performance evaluations when the district determines such input is appropriate. Description of the district’s criteria for inclusion of parental input. Description of manner of inclusion of parental input. Identification of the teaching fields, if any, for which special evaluation procedures and criteria are necessary. Description of the district’s peer assistance process, if any. District Evaluation Procedures The district has provided and meets the following criteria: That its evaluation procedures comply with s. 1012.34(3)(c), F.S., including: That the evaluator must submit a written report of the evaluation to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee’s contract. That the evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the evaluation takes place. That the evaluator must discuss the written evaluation report with the employee. That the employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the evaluation and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file. That the District’s procedures for notification of unsatisfactory performance meet the requirement of s. 1012.34(4), F.S. That district evaluation procedures require the district school superintendent to annually notify the Department of any instructional personnel who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and to notify the Department of any instructional personnel who are given written notice by the district of intent to terminate or not renew their employment, as outlined in s. 1012.34, F.S. Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 12 District Self-Monitoring The district self-monitoring includes processes to determine the following: Evaluators’ understanding of the proper use of evaluation criteria and procedures, including evaluator accuracy and inter-rater reliability. Evaluators provide necessary and timely feedback to employees being evaluated. Evaluators follow district policies and procedures in the implementation of evaluation system(s). The use of evaluation data to identify individual professional development. The use of evaluation data to inform school and district improvement plans. Marion County Public Schools Instructional Evaluation System Template (IEST – 2015) Page 13 rev112316
© Copyright 2025 Paperzz