Constructed Responses Week 7: State Teacher Evaluation Processes
- University :
A university Exam Question Bank is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
Constructed Responses Week 7: State Teacher Evaluation Processes
For this constructed-response assignment, you will:
Review the constructed-response writing prompt with your site supervisor, asking them for their advice or what they would do in the given situation.
Review the rubric, reflect on your prior course experiences, and conduct state and national-focused research in the constructed-response focus area to better understand the requirements of the response.
Complete a constructed response of no less than 500 words (or approximately one page) fulfilling each aspect of the constructed-response writing prompt.
Ensure the constructed response reflects evidenced-based practices and scholarly writing strategies, adhere to APA formats, and include any attachments (if necessary) in the upload area.
Submit the constructed response per the due date.
A supplemental resource that provides support is the NASSP Support Site:Leading Success Learning Modules.
As an instructional leader, a primary responsibility will be evaluating teachers in your school. Different states have different processes. What are the processes for teacher evaluations in your state? Who conducts evaluations? When? How often? How are performance expectations determined and measured? Does student performance impact teacher evaluations?
Veteran teachers are typically familiar with evaluation processes, but the process can be a mystery for new teachers.
As principal, you intend to cover the teacher evaluation process in your state during your new teacher orientation. Create a one-page guide (in the format of your choice) that provides an overview of the teacher evaluation process in your state. You will use this guide as a handout in your new teacher orientation. APA formatting is not required.
Rubric
EL Standards Assignment Rubric
EL Standards Assignment Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAbility to employ research-based strategies and apply best practices. 2to >1.5pts
Mastery
Identifies detailed and specific that will be highly effective in addressing the performance assessment scenario to demonstrate and overall in-depth understanding of the situation. 1.5to >1.0pts
Margin
Identifies generally appropriate strategies that may contain minor errors but demonstrates an overall general understanding of the performance assessment scenario. 1to >0.5pts
Needs Improvement
Identifies limited or flawed strategies that may contain misconceptions and demonstrates an overall limited understanding of the performance assessment scenario. 0.5to >0.0pts
Minimal
Identifies weak or ineffective strategies that contain severe misconceptions to demonstrate an overall weak understanding of the performance assessment scenario. 0pts
No Submission
2pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAbility to prioritize actions. 2to >1.5pts
Mastery
When and where required, provides detailed and/or prioritized actions taken in response to an identified critical need that are appropriate, significant and clearly demonstrates a thorough understanding. 1.5to >1.0pts
Margin
When and where required, provides actions taken in response to an identified critical need that are mostly appropriate and demonstrate a general understanding. 1to >0.5pts
Needs Improvement
When and where required, provides actions taken in response to an identified critical need that are partially accurate and demonstrates gaps or misconceptions in understanding. 0.5to >0.0pts
Minimal
When and where required, fails to provide actions taken in response to an identified critical need or provides actions that are inappropriate and demonstrate little or no understanding. 0pts
No Submission
2pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAbility to provide and apply evidence-based documentation. 2to >1.5pts
Mastery
Provides specific and convincing evidence, including specific citations of associated documents provided and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the critical issues presented in the materials. 1.5to >1.0pts
Margin
Provides basic evidence that generally references the associated documents to demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the critical issues presented in the materials. 1to >0.5pts
Needs Improvement
Provides limited evidence that may vaguely reference the associated documents to demonstrate a flawed understanding of the critical issues presented in the materials. 0.5to >0.0pts
Minimal
Provides inappropriate evidence or little or no evidence to demonstrate weak understanding of the critical issues presented in the materials. 0pts
No Submission
2pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAbility to provide rationale. 2to >1.5pts
Mastery
Provides a detailed and insightful explanation, rationale, justification for the response. 1.5to >1.0pts
Margin
Provides a general explanation, rationale, justification for the response. 1to >0.5pts
Needs Improvement
Provides a simplistic explanation, rationale, justification for the response. 0.5to >0.0pts
Minimal
Provides little or no explanation, rationale, justification for the response and may contain severe misconceptions. 0pts
No Submission
2pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAbility to demonstrate alignment. 2to >1.5pts
Mastery
Shows complete alignment within the response to different parts of the assessment. 1.5to >1.0pts
Margin
Shows general alignment within the response to different parts of the assessment. 1to >0.5pts
Needs Improvement
Shows partial alignment within the response to different parts of the assessment. 0.5to >0.0pts
Minimal
Shows misalignment within the response to different parts of the assessment. 0pts
No Submission
2pts
Total Points:10
PreviousNext
