EMPLOYEE NAME

SCHOOL YEAR

EVALUATION
ANNUAL

Melissa Neilson
EMPLOYEE ID NUMBER

2011/12
SCHOOL/SUBJECT/GRADE LEVEL

MIDYEAR

OTHER GENERAL

COMPREHENSIVE

Bradley Middle School

REFLECTIONS OF PROGRESS TOWARD GOAL(S) AND EVIDENCE REVIEW

Melissa Neilson Student Academic Achievement Goal: All students who passed the 5 grade MSP in mathematics will not make negative growth from the winter to spring on the MAP. Professional Learning Goal: Design easy to use, appropriate, and fair standards based grading assessments Reflection What I did, What I learned, What I will do next What I did How well did I achieve my goal(s)? What data/evidence did I collect that my show my efforts have had an impact on student learning? Did I complete all the actions that I planned to do? I provided a lot more challenge opportunities by offering differentiated homework sets. I used certain class period to break students into those who needed to review learning targets and those who were ready for the next step based on exit tickets and skill check quizzes. I do not yet have spring MAP data, so I cannot assess how well I met my student goal at this time. This year I invested a lot of time into designing good mathematics assessments and feel the system I have works pretty well. After attending the grading conference in AZ, I realize there are a few things that I should alter on the tests, however since students have become comfortable with this system I do not plan to make any MAJOR changes at this time. I am adjusting some things to help making them more valid and reliable without completely changing the format, such as reducing the number of questions, using the KRISP (Knowledge, Reasoning, Skill, Product) guidelines to assess skills at a higher level learning (more reasoning and skill in particular in mathematics). I have begun using Self Checks after direct instruction, guided practice, independent practice, and review (so usually after reviewing homework the next day) I put one problem up and allow a few minutes for students to solve it. After that time, I put up the final answer and give them 2 minutes to identify their error if its incorrect. After 2 minutes I put up various sub-answers (such as the area of the circle or the circumference of the circle or area of the rectangle as subanswers in surface area of a cylinder). I ask students to see if they can identify the step where they went wrong. At the end of that step theres usually only 1-2 that still cannot identify their error and so I review with them individually. All nd students are supposed to fix their error and see if they can then come up with the correct answer. I then give a 2 selfcheck problem to allow students to see if theyve improved. Students have told me they really value these self checks and Ive found that almost every time I use this at least 60-70% of students who miss it the first time around get it correctly on their second check. The students that I think are not benefiting from this as much are my IEP students and select students that are significantly (3-4) grade levels behind in their skills. Those students often dont know where to start so Im working on developing something tied into these self-checks that could allow them to possibly write out the steps they think they have to use rather than solving the problem, but Im not sure yet how I will implement that. Im also working on creating better science assessments. So far those that Ive designed to align to the standards have not been very successful. I received a few tools at the conference in AZ that will allow me to assess my own assessments for vaidity and reliability, which I plan to use this spring and summer to improve the assessments for next year. Most importantly Ive learned to use more formative assessments that directly mirror what will be on the summative. Also I know I need to reduce the number of questions on any given exam. More recently, Im assessing less of the homework and classwork but rather using that work to review with students and then giving short quizzes that allow me to see if students get the basic knowledge, if theyve mastered the learning target, and if they are able to apply or analyze it beyond what was directly taught. For select formative assessments in science, I have been having students pass papers around and assess their peers based on criteria we talk about together. We review each question and together decide what would earn a (+). Then if students show partial understanding or have a few small errors or missing key points they mark with a () and if there are major errors or missing major key points they give a (-). I then have them return the papers and students have the option to disagree with a mark given. I them give them a few minutes to make notes on the page about how they could get their grade to a (+) if it wasnt already. I then remind them that they will be asked these same
th

questions at a later date. So far I have only used this system twice but have not repeated the assessments, so I cannot say how effective it will be yet. What I learned What did I learn in carrying out my plan? Did anything unexpected get in the way of the implementation of my plan? How did my practice address equity/impact all of my students? Integrated into the What I did section, sorry. What I will do next What did I learn in carrying out my plan? Did anything unexpected get in the way of the implementation of my plan? How did my practice address equity/impact all of my students? I mention a few things I plan to do in my What I did, already. Additionally, I will continue to focus my professional goal on my science assessments since thats what Ill be teaching next year and currently I think thats where I need the most improvement. I will be aiming to focus each assessment on only 1-2 learning targets but allowing opportunities for students to demonstrate understanding according to the 4 point scale (meaning offering questions so those with only basic knowledge can demonstrate that, offer questions to demonstrate the target learning and opportunities for students to earn a 4 and demonstrate higher level understanding.) This will allow for better grading and will differentiate the assessment to hopefully allow all students to demonstrate what they know at their level. I will also evaluate my success on my student goal once students finish the spring MAP test. I would like to implement something I heard about at the conference, but Im concerned about how I would do it logistically. The concept is called Flex Friday or whatever I decide to call it. The idea is that students at level 1 on the 4 point scale will get review of basics with me, level 2s will get review of the more complex learning from the level 3s to try and bring them up to a 3 and to push the 3s to higher understanding so they can be a 4. Level 4 students will be given a challenge application problem to solve together. My main concern with this is behavior. My students this year have a VERY hard time working independently if Im not monitoring their every move. For example when Ive had to conference with individuals or small groups or help with microscopes the rest of the class easily gets off task. This is why I worry about the logistics of something like this. I have tried differentiated stations in mathematics but I still roam and monitor everyone equally rather than working with one particular group. Ideas of suggestions for implementing this would be great. Next year Id like to do it weekly, the day after formative assessments, in which case hopefully students behavior wont be as much of an issue since it will be more routine, but if I wanted to try it this year Im nervous how well it would work. I would also like to have time with the science department to identify the power standards for each grade level (8-10 per quarter) so we can begin preparing for next year.

Domain 1: Planning & Preparation

1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content/ Pedagogy 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students 1c: Selecting Instructional Outcomes

INNOVATIVE

PROFICIENT

BASIC

UNSATISFACTORY

1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction 1f: Designing Student Assessments

Evidence & Comments

In her second year of teaching, Ms. Neilsons knowledge of mathematics/science curriculum and instruction is deepening. Ms. Neilson displays solid knowledge of the important concepts in both mathematics and science and is grounded in relating her teaching to standards. Her plans and practice reflect accurate understanding of prerequisite relationships among topics and concepts and she is explicit in relating those to her students in writing (clear, up to date, specific teaching points for each class period and subject). Ms. Neilson had clearly planned lessons. She clearly understands the concepts that students must learn and connects them to specific mathematics and science standards. For example in her first observation lesson this year she addressed and planned for science standards 1.2.2 and 1.2.3. Her lesson objective th was linked to 6 grade science standards. At both our pre/post conference Ms. Neilson discussed the spiraling of the skills and content students were currently studying (solutions, surface tension, acids, bases, protons, electrons, neutrons) and what they would be studying next. She is able to clearly communicate to students through instruction and projects. Ms. Neilsons lesson plans, teaching points are detailed. Ms. Neilson displays accurate understanding of the typical developmental characteristics of the age group, as well as exceptions to the general patterns. Ms. Neilson has a solid knowledge of how students learn is accurate and current. An area of improvement for her in this component (1B) would be to increase her knowledge of students skill and language proficiency and make the appropriate accommodations/modifications for students who are ELL, and students with IEPs and 504s. The planning for these students should be intentionally planned with ELL and IEP staff. This knowledge is applied to the class as a whole and to groups of students. The value of understanding students interests and cultural

heritage is recognized and the teacher is aware of special learning and medical needs. In this component her current practice is basic to proficient. Ms. Neilson displays a solid knowledge of the important concepts of mathematics and science and is able to effectively draw connections between the two disciplines. Her planning suggests an accurate understanding of prerequisite relationships among topics and concepts. However, often the planning does not reflect elements of specific planning for all students, for example planning, monitoring, and adjusting lessons for students with IEPs or ELL students. Effective planning for all students in the classroom, including ELL students, students with IEPs and 504s is at the basic to proficient level and will need continued attention into the following school year. Ms. Neilsons learning activities are suitable to students and to her instructional outcomes. Most represent significant cognitive challenge, with some differentiation for groups of students. Materials and resources are suitable to students, support the instructional outcomes, and are designed to engage students in meaningful learning. Groups are appropriately varied. Lessons and units have a clearly defined structure around which activities are organized, and progression is even, with reasonable time allocations. For example, Ms. Neilson provided clear instructional outcomes to students in her formal observations and CatWalks (Today we will shrink ourselves down to the subatomic level in order to explore how atoms can gain and lose electrons creating electrically charged ions.) which she accurately assessed through exit tickets. Ms. Neilson effectively utilized a variety of informal assessments between five different groups. She has done a remarkable job in a short amount of time in changing her mathematics assessments to reflect standards based assessments.

Other Pertinent Evidence and Artifacts: Classroom routines Incorporates instructional strategies from a variety of frameworks Effective Use of High Leverage Teaching Moves, Clear Teaching Points, Public Records Observations/CatWalks Ad Hoc Committee Work
Based upon observations, artifacts, and conferences, this performance is deemed to be proficient overall in this domain.

Domain 2: Classroom Environment

2a: Evidence of Respect and Rapport 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning 2c: Managing Classroom Procedures

INNOVATIVE

PROFICIENT

BASIC

UNSATISFACTORY

2d: Managing Student Behavior 2e: Organizing Physical Space

Evidence & Comments

The interactions between Ms. Neilson and students are positive, caring and appropriate. She is firm and fair with her students. She smiles often and has a good sense of humor which she shares with her students often. She clearly knows her students and wants them all to be successful. Ms. Neilson has high expectations for her students in how they treat each other. Students exhibit respect for her and each other and respond to Ms. Neilson consistently and positively. Ms. Neilson has created clear systems and routines for students which minimizes transition times. For example, between classes Ms. Neilsons students self-manage the classroom store. 4/4 students could tell me how the store was used and why they got certain amounts on their classroom checks. Most students are ready for class before the bell rings. When students are given a specific time to do something Ms. Neilson sets the timer and adheres to the stated time, We have 10 minutes to complete this. Ms. Neilson conveys genuine enthusiasm for teaching mathematics and science and conveys that to students. Instructional outcomes, activities, and assignments, convey high expectations for most students. Students accept the teachers insistence on work of high quality and demonstrate pride in their work. Small group work is well organized and most students are productively engaged in learning. Transitions occur smoothly, with little loss of instructional time. Routines for handling materials and supplies occur smoothly, and there are efficient systems in place for performing noninstructional duties (books put away, handouts handed out, assignments turned in efficiently and routinely). The ELL IA that is in the classroom works independently and actively engages students. Standards of conduct are clear to all students, Ms. Neilson is alert to student behaviors at all times, and her response to inappropriate behavior is appropriate, successful, and respects the students dignity. Since her first observation, Ms. Neilson has improved immensely not using shhhhh as a way to get students attention and/or a classroom management tool. For example, based on her second formal observation and various CatWalks since the first observation, Ms. Neilson has effectively implemented some of the suggestions given to her (use the bell, wait for students to get quiet before

talking, being explicit in her expectations and following through). There has been marked improvement in her development of using alternative ways to get students attention without saying shhhh. Ms. Neilson has improved waiting for quiet before proceeding with the instruction or teaching. Other Pertinent Evidence and Artifacts: Formal Observation/CatWalks Teaching Points Teacher Referrals/Opt Outs Use of Chime/bell, wait time Based upon observations, artifacts, and conferences, this domain is deemed to be proficient overall in this domain.

Domain 3: Instruction
3a: Communicating with Students 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques 3c: Engaging Students in Learning

INNOVATIVE

PROFICIENT

BASIC

UNSATISFACTORY

3d: Using Assessment in Instruction 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

Evidence & Comments

Even though this is Ms. Neilsons second year of teaching and she is required to be proficient in the first two domains, there is substantial feedback which will help her in determining and setting goals in order to be proficient in domain three by the end of next school year. At this time Ms. Neilsons practice is at a level of basic to proficient in this domain. Ms. Neilsons strength in this domain is Communicating with Students (3A), Using Questions and Discussion Techniques (3B). For example, Ms. Neilson has clearly posted learning targets and the daily agenda at the front of the room (to the left of the doorway). She consistently refers to them with students and briefly discusses what students will be doing, and how it is connected to previous work and/or standards. Ms. Neilson is aware of the types of questions she is asking and is aware of trying to press students for justification. Three areas, which are at a basic/proficient level of performance, which will need to be proficient at the end-of-next year, are 3c, 3d, and 3e. In 3c, Engaging students in learning, the elements of this component are activities and assignments, grouping of students, instructional materials and resources, and structure and pacing. The level of proficiency in this component is defined as, Most activities and assignments are appropriate to the students, and almost all of them are cognitively engaged in exploring content. Instructional groups are productive and fully appropriate to the students. Materials and resources are suitable, the lesson has a clearly defined structure and pacing is appropriate. In 3d Assessment of Instruction, Ms. Neilson will need to provide evidence of assessment criteria for all students, monitoring of student learning in science (conferring, data collection), feedback to students, and student self-assessment and monitoring of progress. The level of proficiency in this domain is defined as the following, Students are fully aware of the criteria and performance standards by which their work will be evaluated. The teacher monitors the progress of groups, and provides timely and high quality feedback. Students frequently assess and monitor the quality of their own work. Finally, in 3e Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness, Ms. Neilson will need to show evidence of lesson adjustment, response to students, and persistence. Proficiency in this component is defined as, When the teacher needs to make an adjustment to a lesson, it occurs smoothly. They successfully accommodate students questions and interest, and persist in utilizing a variety of strategies for students who are having difficulty learning. Those adjustments, assessments, and instruction will need to include ELL, IEP, and 504 students as well as students who are not meeting standard. Other Pertinent Evidence and Artifacts: Creation of Instructional Materials for science

Incorporate instructional strategies from a variety of frameworks, including high leverage teaching moves and complex instruction Mathematics Assessments Various Classroom based assessments (formative/summative) which feature authentic accommodations/modifications for ELL/IEP/504 students

Based upon observations, artifacts, and conferences, this performance is deemed to be Basic overall in this domain. It is my expectation that with continued progression and attention to goal setting, Ms. Neilson will be able to provide evidence of proficiency in this domain at the conclusion of the 2012/13 school year.

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

4a: Reflecting on Teaching 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records 4c: Communicating with Families

INNOVATIVE

PROFICIENT

BASIC

UNSATISFACTORY

4d: Participating in a Professional Community 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally 4f: Showing Professionalism

Evidence & Comments

Ms. Neilson will need to be proficient in this domain by the end of her fourth year. Based on my evaluation, Ms. Neilson is marked at the basic to proficient level in this domain. At this time, some of the areas which are at a proficient level, are 4a Reflecting on Teaching (see detailed reflection), 4b Communicating with Families, and 4d Participating in a Professional Learning Community. As an example, Ms. Neilson is a full participant in a higher functioning Study Team who are working to align curriculum and assessments in mathematics that are standards based. Her Study Team is starting to create formative assessments, which are based directly to current mathematics and/or science standards. An area in which she needs to continue to grow is 4e Growing and Developing Professionally. In this component the following sub elements are defined as: enhancement of content knowledge and pedagogical skill, receptive to feedback from colleagues, service to the profession. Ms. Neilson will need to improve her practice of being open and receptive to feedback from her administrators and peers in order to improve her practice. At this time she accepts, with some reluctance, feedback on her teaching performance from both supervisors and professional colleagues. Yet, in other instances she welcomes feedback (i.e. non-fiction reading strategies implemented from first formal observation) from colleagues, supervisors, or when opportunities arise through professional collaboration (standards based grading evolution). At this time that would rate her between basic and proficient in her level of performance. Ms. Neilson is a positive, self-reflective teacher who is passionate about teaching and learning. This school year she has implemented many elements of standards based grading and evaluation into her classroom. She has fully participated in Bradley Middle Schools Study Teams and attended a national conference on Standards Based Grading in Arizona this spring. She is a part of Bradleys Grading/Evaluation ad Hoc Committee and helped plan and present a presentation on standards based grading to her peers at the May staff meeting. Ms. Neilson displays high standards of honesty, integrity, and confidentiality in interactions with colleagues, students, and the parents. When there have been frustrations with colleagues she has been professional and proactive in trying to address the issues and the person in a professional, productive fashion. th In addition to serving as the 6 grade team leader, Ms. Neilson also coaches soccer and track. Based upon observations, artifacts, and conferences, this performance is deemed to be basic overall in this domain. It is my expectation that Ms. Neilson will meet or exceed proficiency in this domain at the end of the 2012/13 school year.

Goals for the Following Year

An area of improvement for Ms. Neilson is component 1B, to increase her knowledge of students skill and language proficiency and make the appropriate accommodations/modifications for students who are ELL, and students with IEPs and 504s. This will assist her in clearly planning for and providing prescribed accommodations and modified lessons for students with IEPs and 504s. This can be accomplished by communication and planning with the IEP teacher, which could include inviting them to your major unit planning sessions. Continue to plan accommodations/modifications, varied, appropriate assessments for students with IEPs, 504s, and ELL students as she plans science assessments for the upcoming school year. Continue to examine and use MAP data to help inform teaching practice such as examining quartile scores of

students and moving them to the next quartile of preventing students from slipping from one quartile to a lower quartile as it pertains to non-fiction reading strategies and mathematics in relation to science success. Ms. Neilson is aware of and actively seeks out resources and support. For the coming year she will have the opportunity to work with Joan Helper, Bradley Literacy Coach to plan, execute, and reflect on lessons directly related to non-fiction reading strategies. Continue to utilize specific non-fiction reading strategies which require key word strategies/vocabulary introduction (pre-reading), highlighting of words (pre-reading), find the sentence with the word(s) in it and underline/highlight (reading), read the sentence before and after the underlined sentence (reading), and share and/or summarize what you have just read with a partner-A/B partnership (post-reading). Next year, Ms. Neilson, along with her grade level content team members will be formally planning at least once a th week during their preparation time as preps will be structured by grade level content. This time will allow all 6 grade science teachers the opportunities to meet weekly during the school day to plan instruction, create/modify units of study, progress monitor students, create formative and summative assessments, create lessons aligned to state or national science standards. As Bradley moves along in its pursuit of providing a quality education for each and every student, it will be essential for Bradley staff to continue their collective pursuit in providing accurate grades and evaluation, which truly reflects a students progress based on either Washington State Standards or National Common Core Standards. Staff for the 2012/13 school will be collectively reading A Repair Kit for Grading: 15 Fixes for Broken Grades by Ken OConnor. This book will allow staff to have a common framework from which to build a schoolwide policy on grading and evaluation (it is noted she has already read this book as a part of her Study Team work for the 2011/12 school year). Ms. Neilson will need to become more familiar with the Framework for Teaching, which includes four Domains and 22 Components of those Domains. It will also be essential that Ms. Neilson become familiar with the descriptions of the four levels of each component: Innovative, Proficient, Basic, and Unsatisfactory. As a third year teacher next year, Ms. Neilson will be expected to show overall proficiency in domains 1,2, and 3.

Employee Comments

THE EVALUATION OF THIS EMPLOYEE FOR THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR SHALL BE:
General Evaluation Comprehensive Evaluation

RATIONALE FOR PLACEMENT ON COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION

Ms. Neilson will be in her third year of teaching and as defined by the collective bargaining agreement between Seattle Education Association and Seattle Public Schools any teachers with four or less years of experience will be evaluated on the comprehensive cycle.

During the evaluation period documented in this record, it is the evaluators judgment, based upon observation and conferences that the employees overall performance continues to meet the criteria contained in the domains listed in the table below at or above the Proficient level.

During the evaluation period documented in this record, it is the evaluators judgment, based upon observation and conferences that the employees overall performance is no longer proficient in one or more of the following criteria contained in the domains listed in the table below and the following actions will occur:
Has dropped below Proficient but overall performance is Basic and requires a Support

Plan in order to achieve a Proficient rating in all domains. Overall performance is unsatisfactory and requires a Performance Improvement Plan, which may lead to probation.
Overall Satisfactory Performance is determined by meeting the appropriate performance schedule of the collective bargaining agreement between Seattle Education Association and Seattle Public Schools.