eq-ees-teacher-evaluation

Recommendations

Info

Links to Research and Resources Introduction Numerous sources and bodies of research informed the development of Missouri’s teacher and leader standards, professional continuum, professional frames and the model Educator Evaluation System. Examples of the research and some of the resources are provided. These may serve as a foundational understanding of the Educator Evaluation System, as well as provide further development regarding an understanding of effective evaluation processes. National Standards Missouri’s teacher standards have been informed by the CCSSO’s Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards through a gap analysis conducted by McREL. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards also informed the development of Missouri's Teacher Standards. The leader standards have been closely aligned to the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008. References and Research Many bodies of research and theory were used to guide the development of Missouri’s standards, professional continuum, and professional frames and the initial version of the model Educator Evaluation System. Some of these with appropriate links are provided. Mentoring There are seven Essential Principles of Effective Evaluation. One of the seven addresses the importance of the probationary period. Missouri’s Mentor Standards provide guidance in creating successful mentor programs. The Administrator Mentor Program is a DESE sponsored initiative to support new principals, assistant principals, career education directors, special education directors and superintendents. Missouri's educator evaluation systeM
Links to Research and Resources Missouri's Standards were informed by and aligned to the following national standards references. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011, April). Interstate teacher assessment and support consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.ccsso.org/InTASC Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. Washington, DC: Beacon Printing, Inc. http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved June 2012, from http://www.nbpts.org/the_standards The following references some of the articles and research which informed the development of Missouri’s Teacher and Leader Standards and the Educator Evaluation System. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching, 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). http://shop.ascd.org/Default.aspx?TabID=55&ProductId=755 Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/creating-comprehensive-systemevaluating-and-supporting-effective-teaching.pdf Fullan, M. (2011, April). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. East Melbourne, VIC: Centre for Strategic Education. http://www.michaelfullan.ca/home_articles/SeminarPaper204.pdf Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge. http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415476188/ Lemov, Doug. (2010) Teach Like a Champion: 49 Techniques that put students on the path to college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. http://www.douglemov.com Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project. (2012, January). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Practioner_Brief.pdf Missouri's educator evaluation systeM
Page 1 and 2:
Teacher Evaluation Missouri’s Edu
Page 3 and 4:
Teacher Evaluation Protocol Introdu
Page 5 and 6:
principal, has identified Indicator
Page 7 and 8:
Alignment Of Evidence In this illus
Page 9 and 10:
learning goals based on their own r
Page 11 and 12:
Also provided is a document called
Page 13 and 14:
GOAL - Mrs. Johnson describes her g
Page 15 and 16:
Example On several occasions, Mrs.
Page 17 and 18:
Follow-up Score - 4 Growth Score -
Page 19 and 20:
The first 1 ½ pages of the summati
Page 21 and 22:
Example Mrs. Johnson’s administra
Page 23 and 24:
Step 7: Reflect and Plan Rationale
Page 25 and 26:
New Teacher Protocol The entry into
Page 27 and 28:
Baseline data, observed and gathere
Page 29 and 30:
New Teacher Feedback and Evaluation
Page 31 and 32:
Growth Opportunity - checking this
Page 33 and 34:
Growth Guide Missouri’s Educator
Page 35 and 36:
Teacher Growth Guide 1.1 Standard 1
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Standard 2: Student Learning, Growt
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Standard 3: Curriculum Implementati
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Standard 4: Critical Thinking Teach
Page 55 and 56:
Standard 4: Critical Thinking Possi
Page 57 and 58:
Standard 5: Positive Classroom Envi
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Standard 6: Effective Communication
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Standard 7: Student Assessment and
Page 67 and 68: Standard 7: Student Assessment and
Page 73 and 74: Standard 8: Professionalism Quality
Page 75 and 76: Standard 8: Professionalism Possibl
Page 77 and 78: Standard 9: Professional Collaborat
Page 79 and 80: Standard 9: Professional Collaborat
Page 81 and 82: Sample Student Survey Questions (fo
Page 83 and 84: Sample Survey Question Alignment Mi
Page 85 and 86: 8. My child’s teacher regularly g
Page 87 and 88: Growth Plan Missouri’s Educator E
Page 89 and 90: Professional Growth Plan for Identi
Page 91 and 92: Improvement Plan for: Identify Indi
Page 93 and 94: Missouri's educator evaluation syst
Page 95 and 96: Summative Evaluation Form Missouri
Page 97 and 98: Standard 8: Self-Assessment and Imp
Page 99 and 100: New Teacher Feedback Forms Missouri
Page 101 and 102: 1 st Year Teacher Practices - Augus
Page 103 and 104: 1 st Year Teacher Practices - Novem
Page 105 and 106: 1 st Year Teacher Practices - Febru
Page 107 and 108: 1 st Year Teacher Practices - June
Page 109 and 110: 2 nd Year Teacher Practices - Augus
Page 111 and 112: 2 nd Year Teacher Practices - Novem
Page 113 and 114: 2 nd Year Teacher Practices - Febru
Page 115 and 116: 2 nd Year Teacher Practices - June
Page 117: Research and Proven Practices Misso
Page 121 and 122: Introduction to the Literature Revi
Page 123 and 124: MO Standard Evaluative Criteria for
Page 125 and 126: feedback, and engage students in di
Page 127 and 128: 1.4 Teacher makes interdisciplinary
Page 129 and 130: Rothstein, P. (1990). Educational p
Page 131 and 132: & Brown, 2005; Tieso, 2003; Tomlins
Page 133 and 134: Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence re
Page 135 and 136: Danielson (1996, 2007) asserts that
Page 137 and 138: 0.61) on student achievement. Accor
Page 139 and 140: Available from http://merc.soe.vcu.
Page 141 and 142: deviations higher than the achievem
Page 143 and 144: Several other studies have demonstr
Page 145 and 146: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Practice
Page 147 and 148: Research and Proven Practices of Dr
Page 149 and 150: Missouri Domain 1 Teaching Routine
Page 151 and 152: Missouri Indicator # of Marzano str
Page 153 and 154: MDQ 2.9 Based on student needs, the
Page 155 and 156: Teacher Growth Guide 1.2 - Marzano
Page 157 and 158: MDQ 5.24 The teacher scans the room
Page 163 and 164: Standard 2: Student Learning, Growt
Page 165 and 166: MDQ 3.18 When content is informatio
Page 167 and 168: Standard 2: Student Learning, Growt
Page 169 and 170:
MDQ 3.18 When content is informatio
Page 171 and 172:
MDQ 2.9 Based on student needs, the
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
MDQ 3.19 When the content involves
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
MDQ 2.11 The teacher asks inferenti
Page 183 and 184:
MDQ 4.22 The teacher engages them i
Page 185 and 186:
MDQ 2.10 During breaks in the prese
Page 187 and 188:
Standard 4: Critical Thinking Teach
Page 189 and 190:
MDQ 3.19 When the content involves
Page 191 and 192:
MDQ 5.24 The teacher scans the room
Page 193 and 194:
MD4.56 The teacher interacts with s
Page 195 and 196:
MDQ 5.25 The teacher uses academic
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
MDQ 4.21 The teacher organizes the
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
MD3.54 The teacher monitors and cha
Page 215 and 216:
Standard 8: Professionalism Teacher
Page 217 and 218:
Standard 9: Professional Collaborat
Page 219 and 220:
Research and Proven Practices of Dr
Page 221 and 222:
Hattie: Visible Learning Rank / Eff
Page 223 and 224:
Direct Instruction (d=0.82) Title D
Page 225 and 226:
Title Description Remediation Feedb
Page 227 and 228:
Title Description Home Factors (d=0
Page 229 and 230:
Computerassisted instruction (d=0.3
Page 231 and 232:
Teacher Growth Guide 1.1 - Hattie R
Page 233 and 234:
Growth Guide 1.2 - Hattie Research
Page 235 and 236:
Standard 1: Content knowledge align
Page 237 and 238:
Growth Guide 1.5 - Hattie Research
Page 239 and 240:
Study Skills (.59 effect size) Deve
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Meta-cognitive strategies (.69 effe
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Standard 4: Critical Thinking Growt
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Standard 6: Utilizing Effective Com
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Standard 8: Professionalism Quality
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Introduction to Teach Like a Champi
Page 275 and 276:
Lemov: Teach Like a Champion ST 1 S
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
18. Check For Understanding 21. Tak
Page 285 and 286:
Building Character And Trust 39 MO
Page 287 and 288:
Growth Guide 1.1 - Teach Like a Cha
Page 289 and 290:
Technique 18: Check for Understandi
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Technique 32: SLANT Key behaviors t
Page 295 and 296:
Technique 13: Name the Steps Subdiv
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Stock Questions Similar sequences o
Page 301 and 302:
Technique 43: Positive Framing Make
Page 303 and 304:
Technique 11: Draw the Map Control
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Technique 33: On Your Mark Show stu
Page 313 and 314:
Technique 45: Warm / Strict At exac
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Teacher Technique 49: Normalize Err
Page 319 and 320:
Technique 44: Precise Praise Use po
Page 321 and 322:
Technique 10: Double Plan It’s as
Page 323 and 324:
Technique 32: SLANT Key behaviors t
Page 325 and 326:
Technique7: 4 Ms A great lesson obj
Page 327 and 328:
Change the Pace Use a variety of ac
Page 329 and 330:
Clear and Concise Used to improve t
Page 331 and 332:
Every Minute Matters Time is water
Page 333 and 334:
Technique 21: Take a Stand Push stu
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Technique 33: On Your Mark Show stu
Page 339 and 340:
Technique 45: Warm / Strict At exac
Page 341 and 342:
Technique 15: Circulate Moving stra
Page 343 and 344:
All Hands Shift rapidly among and i
Page 345 and 346:
Technique 28: Entry Routine Make ef
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Technique 21: Take a Stand Push stu
Page 355 and 356:
Technique 26: Everybody Writes Set
Page 357 and 358:
Technique 18: Check for Understandi
Page 359 and 360:
Technique7: 4 Ms A great lesson obj
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Standard 8: Professionalism Growth
Page 369 and 370:
Standard 8: Professionalism Quality
Page 371 and 372:
Standard 8: Professionalism Growth
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
show all

eq-ees-teacher-evaluation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?