New Jersey State Educator Evaluation System
New Jersey State Educator Evaluation System is the overarching, integrated system in New Jersey of all processes and components of educator evaluation that are used to generate an annual summative evaluation rating for teaching staff members. This new system will encompass measures of professional practice, measures of student performance and all aspects of implementation, including training and calibration. It will Use four levels of annual summative evaluation ratings, align to professional standards, link to professional development, involve District Evaluation Advisory Committees of stakeholders, and includes district educator evaluation rubrics.
The district educator evaluation rubric is a set of criteria, measures and processes to evaluate educators. The district teaching evaluation rubric is specific for teachers. This rubric consists of teaching practice measures and student performance measures. The teaching practice measures are measures assessed by a teaching practice evaluation instrument that includes a scoring guide and is evidence-supported and other measures of teaching practice. The student performance measure are based on Student Growth Percentiles and other measures of student performance.
The teaching practice evaluation instrument is a specific teaching practice tool used to assess the observable competencies of teaching practice. The instrument consists of the rubrics and accompanying definitions and descriptions of the ratings used in assessing teaching practice. Competencies are the specific indicators of teaching practice that are assessed by a given teaching practice evaluation framework. These may vary between frameworks, but generally they are similar. Some examples include classroom management, questioning, and/or professional responsibility.
The evidence-supported teaching practice evaluation instrument provides (1) scales or dimensions that capture multiple and varied aspects of teaching performance which must be attested by knowledgeable practitioners or experts in the content prior to use in observation of a teacher's practice; (2) differentiation of a range of teaching performance as described by the score scales which must be shown in practice and/or research studies; and (3) objective validation on the aspects of both concurrent and construct validity. Concurrent validity as applied to the instrument means that higher observed instructional quality as measured by the instrument is related to higher student learning achievement or gains. This relationship must be shown through provided data sets or study results. Construct validity as applied to the instrument means that the measure actually assesses the dimension of teaching effectiveness it claims to measure. The establishment of such claim must be attested by knowledgeable practitioners or experts in the content.
Districts must choose an evaluation framework from The four identified models:
- Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching.
- Dr. Robert Marzano’s Casual Teacher Evaluation Model.
- Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning’s McREL Teacher Evaluation System.
- James Stronge’s Teacher Evaluation System.
Dr. Marzano’s Teacher Evaluation
A research-based teacher evaluation model which which identifies the direct cause-and-effect relationship between teaching practices and student achievement. With this model, a district can transform its teacher evaluation system from an exercise in compliance into an effective engine of incremental growth, one that reflects parallel gains between teacher assessment and student performance. The Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model is founded on both historical studies and contemporary research to offer the most inclusive look at teacher effectiveness and development of expertise.
The Marzano teacher evaluation is based on four domains that contain 60 elements that define a knowledge base for teaching and a framework for the systemic development of expertise.
Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors
This domain addresses what teachers do in the classroom, actions that have a direct effect on student achievement.
Domain 2: Planning and Preparing
Effective planning and preparing facilitates better decisions in the classroom in order to produce the greatest gains in student learning.
Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching
This Domain describes teachers’ awareness of their own instructional practices and the ability for the to translate this self-awareness into professional growth plans.
Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism
This domain describes the school characteristic and the individual responsibly of all teachers and administrators.
The Danielson Group Framework for Teaching
The Danielson Group Framework for Teaching is a research-based set of components of instruction, aligned to the INTASC standards, and grounded in a constructivist view of learning and teaching. The complex activity of teaching is divided into 22 components (and 76 smaller elements) clustered into four domains of teaching responsibility:
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Domain 2: Classroom Environment
Domain 3: Instruction
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
This framework is used as the foundation of a school or districts’s mentoring, coaching, professional development, and teacher evaluation processes.
Mcrels Personnel Evaluation
Mcrel’s personnel evaluation systems improve teacher and principal performance by focusing on what matters most in teaching and leadership practices. The evaluations include multiple indicators and Web-based tracking and reporting of results. The teacher evaluation system is aligned with the national standards for teachers, identifies opportunities for improvement and provides a map for professional growth, is scientifically validated measurement instrument, and provides clear measures of competencies so that evaluations are consistent.
The Stronge Teacher Evaluation System
The Stronge Teacher Evaluation System is based on seven Performance Standards. This evaluation system uses a four-point rating scale including Exemplary, Proficient, Developing/Needs Improvement, and Unacceptable. This evaluation is based on Stronges Qualities of Effective Teachers. these qualities include Teacher Background Qualities and Teacher Skills and Practices.
Performance Standard 1: Professional Knowledge
The teacher has an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, pedagogical knowledge, and the developmental needs of students
Performance Standard 2: Instructional Planning
The teacher plans using the state standards, district curriculum, effective strategies, resources, and data.
Performance Standard 3: Instructional Delivery
The teacher uses a variety of effective instructional strategies in order to meet individual learning needs.
Performance Standard 4: Assessment of/for Learning
The teacher uses a variety of formative and summative assessment strategies and data.
Performance Standard 5: Learning Environment
The teacher provides a well-managed, safe, student-centered, academic environment that is conducive to learning.
Performance Standard 6: Professionalism and Communication
The teacher maintains a commitment to professional ethics and professional growth and effective communication with all stakeholders.
Performance Standard 7: Student Progress
The instructional efforts of the teacher result in acceptable, measurable student progress based on established standards and goals.
http://www.njea.org/news-and-publications/njea-review/november-2011/comparing-teacher-evaluation-models/stronge
No comments:
Post a Comment