Faculty+Review+and+Evaluation


 * Faculty Review and Evaluation Plan**
 * Revised January 20, 2011**

This evaluation plan has been developed building on the 2010 evaluation model already in place and in response to **Long-Range Planning Goals 6.1.2 and 6.1.4: “Create measurable performance objectives for faculty” and “Institute an annual review process.”** Because we believe that a faculty needs and benefits from **a flexible evaluation tool** meant to serve a range of teachers at different stages of their careers, we have developed a **four-tiered approach** to faculty review and evaluation at Chinquapin. All four approaches focus **on mastery of content, instructional effectiveness, and professional growth.** In addition, we wish to articulate a **“best practices”** philosophy for **teaching in the 21st century** and hope that all of our faculty regularly model our school’s emphasis on collaboration, hard work, and life-long learning as we **strive for excellence** in every aspect of our common purpose: preparing our students to be successful college graduates and promoting a spirit of giving back to the wider community.
 * Introduction:**

We also believe that the faculty benefits from **clearer articulation of expectations** regarding teaching performance and professional growth. We strongly feel the best faculty is one that constantly re-evaluates itself, revises, and improves – essentially, the **best faculty is comprised of learners** in every sense of the word.

In addition to learning from experiences in the classroom, the faculty is **expected to explore and develop a broader knowledge** of content areas, best teaching practices*, and 21st-century learning skills * in order to meet the needs of their students. They may do this by pursuing graduate study, acquiring outside credentialing (for example National Board Certification), attending (or speaking at) relevant education workshops or discipline-affiliated conferences, and drawing upon an extensive professional/personal learning network (PLN). When appropriate funding allows, faculty compensation may ultimately reflect professional growth and documented gains in teaching effectiveness. Ultimately, we hope that at Tier Four, some faculty may benefit from “endowed chairs” funded by our donors.


 * Our evaluation goals are two-fold:** to stimulate discussion about effective teaching **and** to move faculty as quickly as possible from being evaluated to being coached to being a colleague and co-creator of effective programs **for our students.**


 * Any tool for effective evaluation of faculty should be developed with** input from members of the faculty itself, and should evolve over time as the demands of teaching our students also change and evolve. Key leaders of next year’s faculty will be invited to provide feedback on the Y1 process implemented by this plan in the summer of 2011 and beyond.


 * Tier One: Novice Independent School Teachers**

Following a traditional model of feedback that includes both evaluative and non-evaluative components, this review process provides opportunities for teachers to create a professional portfolio and to pursue conversations about best practices based on direct observation. The T1 teacher possesses a minimum of a bachelor’s degree and fulfills professional development at a minimal level (16 hours or less). Typically, these are teachers who have taught in an independent middle school or high school for **fewer than five years,** though this may be adjusted based on other factors.

Step 1: Non-evaluative informal feedback from the Director or Dean of Faculty. Step 2: Formal evaluation by Dean of Faculty, including consultation, observation, and discussion. · Teacher's command of content area; · Teacher's application of best teaching practices* for 21st century learning * · Teacher’s demonstration of organized and effective progression of lesson; · Teacher's effectiveness in engaging all students and addressing various learning styles; · Dean of Faculty’s and/or Director’s observation of teacher’s professional disposition**.** · Detailed reflection on one course from the Fall semester (best if written prior to receiving student course evaluations – see below); · Follow-up reflection on any course from a previous review; · “Best lesson” description and handouts (can be videotaped on request); · Statement of goals for improvement and action plan designed to increase student learning; · Review of professional development hours and implementation; · Reflection on student course evaluations (fall semester).
 * Criteria for Review:**
 * Step 3: Submission of a professional portfolio in the spring semester (prior to spring break).** The portfolio should include:
 * Step 4: Professional Evaluation by the Director and Re-Contracting (March/April).**

This process is designed to facilitate review of experienced educators.
 * Tier Two: Experienced Independent School Teachers, Part-time Teachers**

T2 teachers typically have taught in an independent middle school or high school **no fewer than 5 years.** They demonstrate emerging expertise in a specific teaching specialty by making effective use of professional development supported by faculty enrichment funds. Usually, their professional development pursuits go beyond the 16-hour requirement. This includes attending affinity group organizations’ conferences, school visits, and other training.

Step 1: Observational Inventory by the Dean of Faculty The Dean will observe a class and use a checklist to provide feedback to the faculty member. The checklist will be based on the criteria listed above and will stress best practice strategies, instructional design for 21st century learning, and professional behavior. (For expediency’s sake and depending upon personnel, **part-time teachers** may also be reviewed using the observational inventory.) Step 2: Report and Reflection To be submitted by the faculty member prior to spring break. This document should include a report of the educator’s professional development and improvements on past performance. Note: Faculty members have the option of choosing a more detailed process (see Tier One above.)

We will employ the “Critical Friends” model, developed by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University (see below) in the review process for those established teachers who have taught at independent schools **for greater than 10 years** or who have demonstrated equivalent teaching expertise. This process engages trusted peers in collaborative inquiry and provides an opportunity for non-judgmental feedback.
 * Tier Three: Long-term Independent School Educators**

T3 teachers possess **at least a graduate degree** and **pursue professional growth through outside credentialing,** as well as act as **teacher-leaders in their fields** (including speaking at conferences or workshops or otherwise actively participating in personal/professional learning networks).

Step 1: The teacher selects and meets with other long-term educators to discuss the “critical friends” process, establish a point of inquiry, and to plan observations. Step 2: Selected reviewers (also T3 or above) observe the teacher’s class and provide feedback on the Critical Friends Rubric (see below). Step 3: Critical friends group meets to discuss and debrief, provide resources, and probe the point of inquiry. Step 4: The teacher writes a reflection on the Critical Friends process to be submitted to the Director and the Dean of Faculty prior to Spring Break.

The teacher-mentor actively develops workshops for faculty, develops learning initiatives, and otherwise provides **effective leadership in all aspects of developing curricula, educating students, and working with faculty.** In this role, the teacher-mentor interacts frequently with administration in ways that grow from his or her role as a leader among the faculty. The teacher-mentor constantly seeks out professional development opportunities related to his or her teaching. The teacher-mentor’s review is ongoing and informal, but may include any or all of the above tools, additionally, at his or her request. When funded, “endowed chairs” may be awarded to Teacher-Mentors.
 * Tier Four: Teacher-Mentor**

The T4 teacher has taught in an independent middle school or high school environment **for at least 10 years (or its equivalent), possesses a master’s degree or highe**r, and has **nationally recognized credentialing,** such as National Board Certification (or its equivalent). The T4 teacher is a “master teacher” and leader who models a professional disposition, shares a vast knowledge of best teaching practices* and promotes 21st century learning***.**

General areas of **Best Teaching Practices*** include:

> > *** Professional disposition** **includes:** > > **A focus on** 21st Century Learning * includes: · learning skills (critical thinking and problem-solving, communication and collaboration, creativity and innovation; reflection and meta-cognition); · core subjects and 21st century themes (such as global awareness, sustainability, etc.); · information, media, and technology literacies; · understanding and using technology in ways that enhance student engagement, promote greater learning, and help prepare students for the future.
 * adopting a clear and common focus on the school’s mission;
 * promoting a student-centered culture of inquiry focusing on higher-order thinking and learning (see Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised in “Bloom’s Taxonomy Blooms Digitally “below);
 * modeling strong leadership and character in all areas of interaction with students;
 * providing supportive, relevant and personalized learning;
 * maintaining appropriate parent/community involvement;
 * monitoring student progress, providing accountability, and determining appropriate assessments;
 * using effective methods of conveying curriculum and instruction.
 * **dedication to professional growth,**
 * **appropriate attention to personal appearance,**
 * **punctuality and dependability,**
 * **communication skills,**
 * **interpersonal relationships,**
 * **adaptability, response to feedback.**

Center for Instructional Innovation and Assessment, [|Best Practices in Learning and Education] State Education Resource Center (CT), [|Best Practices in Education] International Society for Technology in Education, [|Standards for Global Learning in a Digital Age] Partnership for 21st Century Skills, [|Framework for 21st Century Learning] Critical Friends: A Process Built on Reflection (document attached) National School Reform Faculty, [|FAQs on Critical Friends Groups] Sample Critical Friends Rubrics (attached) [|Daily Walkthroughs with Google Apps and the iPad] Observational Inventory (need to create this based on previously used document attached and best practices, etc., outlined above) Andrew Churches, [|“Bloom’s Taxonomy Blooms Digitally”] NBPTS: [|“What is National Board Certification?”]
 * Resources:**