At the Assistantship level, each candidate will be evaluated by the Mentor and Supervisor, using the Mentor Teacher Evaluation Form and Supervisor Observation Form (see Assistantship Appendix). These forms will be submitted and kept on file in the Office of Clinical and Field Experience. At Internship I, evaluation of performance will be documented in the Internship Performance Rating at the end of the experience (See OFCE handbook). The candidate will conduct a self-evaluation of their performance in the domains and relevant indicators. The Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor will also evaluate the intern on these same items and this information will be shared with the candidate at a three-way conference. The Mentor and Supervisor’s consensus rating will serve as the Evaluation Council (EC) rating. This form will be used for evaluation of Internship II, at a mid-point and final evaluation conference. In both internships, an intern’s progress will be rated on the following scale:
Intern II’s must receive Developing or better on each item in order to receive a Pass for the ELED 495. If a student receives an Ineffective rating (I) for any criteria at the evaluation point for the field experience, the following procedures will be followed:
This rating form with the required signatures, along with other required paperwork, is submitted to the Office of Clinical and Field Experiences at the end of each internship. The final EC score will also be submitted electronically to Taskstream by the University Supervisor.
When a Teaching Assistant(s) or Intern is not performing at an expected level on teaching or other professional responsibilities, the following steps will be taken:
The mentor teacher communicates the identified concerns with the university supervisor. The mentor teacher and the assistant(s)/intern meet to discuss the problem(s) and generate a list of concerns, evidence and improvement actions A short- term deadline for improvement would be identified and a review meeting would be scheduled. (see Improvement Plan form in this Appendix) . The supervisor would be present at this meeting and all parties should sign and receive a copy of the improvement plan. This communication at this point in the process may be through email.
The mentor teacher, university supervisor and assistant/intern will meet to review the improvement plan. If sufficient improvement has been shown on all listed items, the process ends. If any of the identified concerns persist after the probationary period outlined in the plan, a formal contract delineating behavior goals is developed and signed by the assistant(s)/intern, supervisor, and mentor teacher. The contract language, length of term, and timeline for improvement will depend on the circumstances and the severity of the problem. Active contracts will require regular review with the mentor, supervisor and candidate. A copy of the contract will be signed by and provided to the candidate, mentor teacher and supervisor. The Clinical Coordinator and PreK-9 Program Coordinator are contacted and informed about the concerns and the stipulations of the contract. A contract template is included in this handbook.
If there is not sufficient improvement and/or the written stipulations in the contract are not followed: