122
Certified Evaluation Plan 5
5
Professional Growth and Effectiveness System
Certified Evaluation Plan Training
Today’s Learning Target
• Understand how to guide the district evaluation committee (50/50 committee) in revising the current district Certified Evaluation Plan (CEP) to assure the plan meets the requirements of the Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES).
FOCUS:
PROCESS PROCEDURE
Agenda
Introduction• Professional Growth Plan/Self-Reflection• Observation• Student VoiceLunch• Student Growth• Overall Rating• Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness• Next Steps
5
Current CEP PGES Model CEP PGES Checklist Expertise of 50/50 Committee PGES Consultants KLA/ISLN
Resources
5
Model Certified Evaluation Plan
• Guidance provided for 50/50 committee to revise CEP and fulfill requirements of PGES
• Required and Local Decisions are stated • Examples are provided in the Appendix
5
Evaluation Committee (50/50 Committee)
Personnel Decisions for the 2014-15 school year
Preschool, Other Professionals, and KTIP Pilot Systems
Capacity Building Connect TPGES to PPGES throughout
the day CEP Submission
Considerations
5
Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System
ObservationStudent VoiceProfessional Growth Plans and Self ReflectionOther: District-Determined
OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
PRO
FESS
ION
AL P
RACT
ICE
STU
DEN
T GR
OW
TH
KENTUCKY PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFECTIVENESS MODEL
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & INSTRUMENTS
DOMAIN RATINGS
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO
INFORM PROFESSONAL
PRACTICE
State Contribution – Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs)• State-Defined High/Expected/Low• 3 Year of Data
AND
Local Contribution – Student Growth Goals (SGGs)• District-Defined High/Expected/Low• 3 Year of Data
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT GROWTH
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & DISTRICT-DETERMINED DECISION RULES
STUDENT GROWTH TREND RATING (H/E/L)
PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT AND
STATE-DETERMINED
DECISION RULES
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
PERCENT (%) EFFECTIVE TEACHERS
DOMAIN 1: Planning and PreparationDOMAIN 2: Classroom EnvironmentDOMAIN 3: InstructionDOMAIN 4: Professional responsibilities
GROWTH PLAN AND
CYCLE
GROWTH PLANNING
MATRIX
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT &
STATE-DETERMINED
DECISION RULES
9KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814
5
Professional Growth Plan and Self-Reflection
Informing Professional Practice
AnIterative Process
Reflects on current growth needs Collaborates with administrator to develop the
PGP and action steps Implements the plan Regularly reflects on progress and impact Modifies the plan as appropriate Continues implementation and ongoing
reflection Conducts summative reflection
Professional Growth Plans
Realistic Focused Measurable
Professional Growth Plan Development
Multiple Sources of Data
Classroom Observation Feedback
Student Growth/AchievementSelf-AssessmentReflection
Self-Reflection• Instructional
Planning
• Lesson Implementation
• Content Knowledge
• Beliefs
• Dispositions
Self-Reflection
PGPOutcomes of
Self-Reflection
OrganizedContextualize in a SupportFramework
Articulated as Specific Goals
Monitored through
Pre-determined
Methods
PGP and Self-Reflection
(pg. 5 )
5
Explain the expectations for developing a Professional Growth Plan (PGP) and ongoing Self-Reflection.
What is the process for teachers to input the PGP and Self-Reflections into CIITS?
District Decisions
5
Observation
Peer and Supervisor Observations
Use the same instruments
Supervisor observation will provide documentation and feedback for teacher effectiveness (SUMMATIVE RATING)
Peer observation will only provide formative feedback (NO SUMMATIVE RATING)
Observation Model – District Decisions
OPTION A
OPTION B
OPTION C
Option A The Progressive Model (3 &1 )
One full observations by the supervisor that is the final observation in the summative year
Three mini observations with one being by the peer observer during the summative year.
OPTION BThe Traditional Model (2 &2)
Two full observations by the supervisor with one of the full observations being the final observation in the summative year.
Two mini observations with one being by the peer observer during the summative year.
OPTION CDistrict Determined
Provide an explicit description of the observation model
Assure that this option provides at least a minimum of 4 observations in the summative cycle (3 principal/1 peer)
5
Discuss with your team the observation model that would work best for your district.
What changes would need to occur in order for this model to be implemented?
Would the observation model fulfill the criteria for PGES?
District Decisions
District Decisions Observation Conferencing
Districts will provide conferencing
requirements for their teachers and observers.
Observation Conferencing Examples
◦Pre and Post conference after each full observation but not mini
◦Pre conferences may be completed electronically
◦Post conferences may be completed in person
◦May not require pre conferences
Observation Schedule Districts may choose timeline for observation
schedule.
Example only 1st Observation: Begins 30 days after the start
of school 2nd Observation: Begins November 1 3rd Observation: Begins December 15 4th Observation: Begins February 15
(All observations should be concluded by April 1)
WARNING – Consider
Weather Implications
Table Activity At your table , look at your current CEP plan and
discuss with your team
What are you currently doing that would meet the observation requirements?
Conferencing? (PRE/POST)
Timeline?
Plan for 50/50 Committee
Observer Certification
Evaluators must complete the Teachscape Proficiency Observation Training
Three sections:Framework for Teaching Observer TrainingFramework for Teaching Scoring PracticeFramework for Teaching Proficiency Assessment
Proficiency AssessmentTest divided into two stages If a stage is not passed on the first
attempt, must wait 24 hours before retaking
Observer Certification Cycle
Year 1 CertificationYear 2 CalibrationYear 3 CalibrationYear 4 Certification
Teachscape, the current approved technology platform, must be used for certification and calibration.
WHAT IF…? If a supervisor has yet to complete – or does not pass – the proficiency assessment, the district must provide supports:◦Processes/procedures to ensure success during the first assessment administration
◦Supports for those who do not pass
WHAT IF…? (CONTINUED)
If the supervisor is not certified through the proficiency system, the district will use the following processes/procedures:◦May include district-level personnel or principals from another building (certified through the proficiency system)
◦Will conduct the observation with the principal (modeling the process)
5
Discuss with your team how the district will support Observation Certification and procedures to maintain certification.
District Decisions
Peer Observation All teachers will be observed by a
trained Peer Observer during the summative year.
All Peer Observers participating during the summative year observations will complete the state developed training.
PEER OBSERVATION
District decisions:◦Number of peer observations required each evaluation cycle (minimum of 1 during the summative year)
◦Processes and procedures the district will use to ensure all teachers have access to Peer Observers
◦Documentation that Peer Observers have met selection and training requirements
Peer Observation Model Examples
Selection/Assignment at the District Level
Selection/Assignment at the
School Level
Selection/Assignment at the
Teacher LevelExamples include: NBCT Cadre Content Specialists
Examples include: Teacher Leaders
Examples include: Trusted Peers PLC Team
Members pool selected at the
district level, assigned to
teachers/schools at the district level, or
may simply be a pool of Peer Observers from which schools/teachers may choose
pool selected at the school level,
assigned to teachers at the school level, or
may simply be a pool of Peer Observers from which teachers may choose
pool self-selected at the school level,
teachers select their own Peer Observer
Talk about Peer Observers * Selection and Training * Number of Peer Observations * Peer Observation Model
Table Activity
5
Identify an Observation Model Determine Observation pre/post
conference protocol Develop Observation Schedule Observation Certification• Procedures• District Support
Peer Observers• Selection and Training • Number of Peer Observations• Peer Observation Model
District Decisions
5
Student Voice Survey Guide“Just the facts, Ma’am” - Key points.Please refer to Student Voice Survey
Guide for complete details.
Student Voice Survey Guiding Principles
The Superintendent of each district will assign a point of contact to be responsible for overseeing and administering the Student Voice Survey meeting Ethics Requirements
The district point of contact will be responsible for the general and administrative, processes for ensuring Student Voice produces results for teachers in their district.
Guiding Principles The District will determine the number of
sections required per teacher to participate in the survey. Participating teachers must have a minimum of one section respond to the survey
Building Principals will determine the section(s) participating in the Student Voice Survey.
Guiding Principles The student voice survey coordinator will work
to ensure that all classes participating in the survey have computers with Internet access.
For teachers who work in collaborative classrooms, there are several scenarios as to how their students may be surveyed.
Students with ELL, IEPs, 504 Plans will receive requisite supports to ensure equal access.
5
Identify the Point of ContactDetermine the number of sections per
teacher Develop a plan to provide
accommodations to students for equal access.
District Decisions
5
Student Growth
Student Growth MeasuresStudent Growth Percentiles The state contribution for student growth is base on
KDE state assessment data. Teachers of Grades 4-8, reading and
mathematics Rating based on each student’s rate
of change, compared to academic peers
Median SGP for a teacher’s class is compared to that of the state
Measures progress for students at all performance levels
Student Growth GoalsThe local contribution for the student growth measure is a rating based on
the degree to which a teacher meets the growth goal
for a set of students over a specified period of time
as indicated in the teacher’s Student Growth Goal (SGG).
All teachers, regardless of grade level and content area, will develop SGGs for inclusion in the local student growth measure.
Rigorof Student Growth Goals
Defining Rigor Rigor means congruency to the standards. Sources
of Evidenc
e
True intent of
the Standard
s
Student Growth Goal Criteria Congruent with KCAS grade level and
content Enduring skills, understandings, processes
or concepts Allows all students to demonstrate
knowledge and growth
To Ensure Rigor of SGGs The district must include the degree to
which the goal and the assessments meet the SGG criteria.
SGG and
Assessments will
meet these same
4 criteria
OPTION A: Rigor RubricOPTION B: Peer-Review and/or Jury
ProcessOPTION C: District-Defined Option
Option A: Rigor Rubric(The rubric will be used by all principals prior to
approving a teacher’s SGG.)
Sample Rubrics
Option B: Peer-Review and/or Jury
Process The [peer-review] [jury] process will be used
by all teachers prior to final approval of the SGG.
Grade-level PL teamsVertical content-area PL Teams
District-Level Content Coaches
Multi-District Content-Area Teacher Teams
Examples
Option CDistrict-Defined Option
Must include an explanation to ensure rigor.
Processes, procedures, protocols, etc. must include the input of teachers and administrators in the district.
There must be evidence of the research base grounding an instrument.
Literacy Design Collaborative teachers (LDC) (any content area) For the 2011 – 12 school year, 100% of students will make measurable progress in writing. Each student will improve by one performance level in three or more areas of the LDC argumentation rubric. Furthermore, 80% of the students will score a “3” or better overall.
5
District Decisions Discuss with your team the required
number of SGGs for teachers . Describe the process for determining
rigor of SGG.
ComparabilityStudent Growth Goals
Comparability
Teachers agree on what it looks like for students to meet a given standard or group of standards.
Assessments are appropriate for students to show that they meet the intent of the standard
Assessments may be different in structure, even when assessing the same standards.
How will districts ensure comparability of SGGs?
Administration Protocol
Scoring Process
Professional Learning Teams—Analyze ◦ standards◦ assessments◦ student work and
other student data
SAMPLE Assessment
Design Process
5
District Decisions Work with your team to describe how
comparability of SGG and Assessments will be met.
Determining GrowthSingle Student Growth Goal
Determining Growth SMART process for goals Options for rating low, expected or high
growth: Pre-Test/Post-Test Repeated Measures Design Holistic Evaluation
Pre-Test/Post-Test
Identical Assessments Comparable Assessments
Assessment over content
standards
Same assessme
nt over content
standards
Comparable
Assessment over content
standards
Assessment over content
standards
Repeated Measures Design
Trends and patterns
Determine growth over time
Assessment over
content standards
Assessment over
content standards
Assessment over
content standards
Assessment over
content standards
Assessment over
content standards
Assessment over
content standards
Assessment over
content standards
Assessment over
content standards
Assessment over
content standards
Assessment over
content standardsAssessmen
t over content
standards
Teacher & Principal analyze formative assessment data
Holistic Evaluation Combining pre- and post-test model with
repeated measures Use of district-developed “growth rubric” for
a holistic evaluation Districts must explain the processes and
procedures for ensuring quality and inter-rater reliability of the rubrics.
Assessments must meet the district assurance of rigor and comparability.
Determining Levels of Growth:• Pre-Test/Post-Test • Repeated Measures
Design • Holistic Evaluation
Collaborative process of data analysis using a district-developed
rubricCalculation using cut scoresCollaborative process of data analysis using a district-developed
rubric & calculated cut scores
This process must be applied across all teachers and schools within the district.
5
District Decisions Discuss with your team how the district
will determine high/expected/low growth
5
District DecisionsDetermine the number of SGGs for
teachers.Ensure rigor and comparability of SGG
and AssessmentsDetermine high/expected/low growth
5
Overall Performance Rating
Determining the Overall Performance Category
Informed by evidence, the evaluator determines the Overall Performance Category based on Professional
judgment…
Sources of evidence:• Domains• District-Developed Rubrics• Decision rules that establish a common
understanding of performance thresholds to which all educators are held
Rating Professional Practice
Rating Professional PracticeScenario for Mr. Thomas
• Observations• Student Voice Survey• Self Reflections• Professional Growth Plans• Other relevant local data
Teacher Domain Ratings
Domain 1: Prep and Planning A
Domain 2: Classroom Environment D
Domain 3: Instruction D
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities A
Rating Professional PracticeScenario for Mr. Thomas
• The principal must now provide ONE professional practice rating that is inclusive of all domains.
• Please look at the proposed decision rules that you were given today.
Teacher Domain Ratings
Domain 1: Prep and Planning A
Domain 2: Classroom Environment D
Domain 3: Instruction D
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities A
Decision Rules for Determining Professional Practice
Domain RankingDomain 1 Accomplished
Domain 2 Developing
Domain 3 Developing
Domain 4 Accomplished
Domain RankingDomain 1 ExemplaryDomain 2 ExemplaryDomain 3 AccomplishedDomain 4 Ineffective
Rating Professional PracticeUsing the proposed decision rules that were given to
you, what can we conclude about this teacher’s overall rating in performance?
Domain RankingDomain 1 Exemplary
Domain 2 Exemplary
Domain 3 Accomplished
Domain 4 Ineffective
Domain RankingDomain 1 IneffectiveDomain 2 DevelopingDomain 3 DevelopingDomain 4 Ineffective
Rating Professional PracticeUsing the proposed decision rules that were given to
you, what can we conclude about this teacher’s overall rating in performance?
Domain RankingDomain 1 Ineffective
Domain 2 Developing
Domain 3 Developing
Domain 4 Ineffective As a district you could decide to expand the decision rule list and create additional rules for
guidance.
Option:You could leave the chart as is and leave to the discretion of
the principal.
Table Activity
• At your table, discuss your options for the rating of Professional Practice.
A) Add more decision rules?If so, what would they be?
B) Use Evaluator’s Professional JudgmentC) A combination of both A and B
ObservationStudent VoiceProfessional Growth Plans and Self ReflectionOther: District-Determined
OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
PRO
FESS
ION
AL P
RACT
ICE
STU
DEN
T GR
OW
TH
KENTUCKY PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFECTIVENESS MODEL
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & INSTRUMENTS
DOMAIN RATINGS
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO
INFORM PROFESSONAL
PRACTICE
State Contribution – Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs)• State-Defined High/Expected/Low• 3 Year of Data
AND
Local Contribution – Student Growth Goals (SGGs)• District-Defined High/Expected/Low• 3 Year of Data
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT GROWTH
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & DISTRICT-DETERMINED DECISION RULES
STUDENT GROWTH TREND RATING (H/E/L)
PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT AND
STATE-DETERMINED
DECISION RULES
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
PERCENT (%) EFFECTIVE TEACHERS
DOMAIN 1: Planning and PreparationDOMAIN 2: Classroom EnvironmentDOMAIN 3: InstructionDOMAIN 4: Professional responsibilities
GROWTH PLAN AND
CYCLE
GROWTH PLANNING
MATRIX
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT &
STATE-DETERMINED
DECISION RULES
81KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814
Overall Student Growth Rating
Rating Student Growth
Ratings will fall into one of the following three categories
LowExpectedHigh
Rating Student Growth
–Supervisors will look at “trend data” from three years (if available) when determining a teacher’s rating.–Districts will develop their own rubric,
decision rules, or set of guidelines to determine an overall student growth rating of:
Low, Expected, or High.
Rating Student GrowthSample Set of Growth Data
Ms. Gilpin’s Student Growth DataState Test Local Goal
2015-2016 Expected High2014-2015 Low Expected2013-2014 Expected Expected
What level would this teacher rate? Why?
How Would You Rate Ms. Hoskins? Why?
Ms. Hoskin’s Student Growth DataState Test Local Goal
2015-2016 Low Expected2014-2015 Low Expected2013-2014 Low Expected
How Would You Rate Ms. Lee? Why?
Ms. Lee’s Student Growth DataLocal Goal
2015-2016 High2014-2015 High2013-2014 Low
• How does a teacher switching grade levels affect the data? Particularly if they are moving in or out of a testing grade.
• Should the most recent data be weighted more than previous years?
• What if I don’t have three years of data?• Should the state and local goals be weighted
equally in the K-PREP years?
Questions to Consider
Appendix C
• Consider pages 44 & 45 in your Appendix (3.0)• 3 sample decision rules for multi-year SGG
ratings, in order to determine 1 final rating for the cycle– Decision rules chart– Mathematical Average– Mathematical Average with Weighting applied
District C ExampleMr. Watts’ Student Growth Data
State Test Local Goal Yearly Averages
2015-2016 Expected=2 2/1= 22014-2015 Low=1 Expected=2 3/2 = 1.52013-2014 Low=1 1/1 = 1
.50(Y1A) + .30(Y2A) + .20(Y3A) = GT.50(2) + .30(1.5) + .20(1) = GT
1 + .45 + .20 = 1.65Final Rating?
5
As a team, discuss the examples for determining Overall Student Growth Rating and how your district will approach making a decision to assign a rating.
District Decision
ObservationStudent VoiceProfessional Growth Plans and Self ReflectionOther: District-Determined
OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
PRO
FESS
ION
AL P
RACT
ICE
STU
DEN
T GR
OW
TH
KENTUCKY PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFECTIVENESS MODEL
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & INSTRUMENTS
DOMAIN RATINGS
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO
INFORM PROFESSONAL
PRACTICE
State Contribution – Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs)• State-Defined High/Expected/Low• 3 Year of Data
AND
Local Contribution – Student Growth Goals (SGGs)• District-Defined High/Expected/Low• 3 Year of Data
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT GROWTH
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & DISTRICT-DETERMINED DECISION RULES
STUDENT GROWTH TREND RATING (H/E/L)
PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT AND
STATE-DETERMINED
DECISION RULES
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
PERCENT (%) EFFECTIVE TEACHERS
DOMAIN 1: Planning and PreparationDOMAIN 2: Classroom EnvironmentDOMAIN 3: InstructionDOMAIN 4: Professional responsibilities
GROWTH PLAN AND
CYCLE
GROWTH PLANNING
MATRIX
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT &
STATE-DETERMINED
DECISION RULES
91KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814
Overall Performance Category
• Overall Performance Category– This is a combination of the teacher’s Professional
Practice Rating AND Student Growth Rating
• The Teacher Effectiveness Steering Committee (TESC) has proposed a set of MINIMUM criteria when determining the Overall Performance Category.
• Refer to pages 19-21 in Model CEP 3.0
Determining an Educator’s Overall Performance Category
MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
IF… THEN…Domains 2 AND 3 are rated INEFFECTIVE
Professional Practice Rating shall be INEFFECTIVE
Domains 2 OR 3 are rated INEFFECTIVE
Professional Practice Rating shall be DEVELOPING OR INEFFECTIVE
Domains 1 OR 4 are rated INEFFECTIVE
Professional Practice Rating shall NOT be EXEMPLARY
Two Domains are rated DEVELOPING, and two Domains are rated ACCOMPLISHED
Professional Practice Rating shall be ACCOMPLISHED
Two Domains are rated DEVELOPING, and two Domains are rated EXEMPLARY
Professional Practice Rating shall be ACCOMPLISHED
Two Domains are rated ACCOMPLISHED, and two Domains are rated EXEMPLARY
Professional Practice Rating shall be EXEMPLARY
COMPONENTS FOR DETERMINING OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814
STUDENT GROWTH RATING CRITERIA
LOW
EXPECTED
HIGH
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S OVERALL STUDENT GROWTH RATING
DISTRICT DECISION
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
STUDENT GROWTH TREND
RATINGOVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
ExemplaryHigh OR Expected EXEMPLARY
Low ACCOMPLISHED
Accomplished
High EXEMPLARY
Expected ACCOMPLISHED
Low DEVELOPING
DevelopingHigh ACCOMPLISHED
Expected OR Low DEVELOPING
IneffectiveHigh DEVELOPING
Expected OR Low INEFFECTIVE
MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
Overall Rating Category Criteria
Ms. SeagravesProfessional Practice
Rating Student Growth RatingOVERALL
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
Accomplished Expected ???
Applying the Criteria…
Mr. HolteProfessional Practice
Rating Student Growth RatingOVERALL
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
Developing Low ???
5
Growth Planning Matrix
Growth Planning Matrix
• Non-Tenured: –A yearly directed growth plan.
• Tenured Teachers: –Growth plans and summative cycle will be
based on the Growth Planning Matrix
TYPE AND LENGTH OF EDUCATOR PLAN FOR TENURED TEACHERSRATING
LOW EXPECTED HIGH
THREE-YEAR CYCLESELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Goal set by educator with evaluator
input One goal must focus on low outcome Formative review annually
ONE-YEAR CYCLEDIRECTED GROWTH PLAN• Goal Determined by Evaluator• Goals focus on low
performance/outcome area• Plan activities designed by evaluator
with educator input• Formative review at mid-point• Summative at end of plan
THREE-YEAR CYCLESELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN• Goals set by educator with evaluator
input; one must address low performance or outcomes.
• Plan activities designed by educator with evaluator input.
• Formative Review annually.
UP TO 12-MONTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN• Goal Determined by evaluator• Focus on low performance area• Summative at end of plan
INEF
FECT
IVE
DEVE
LOPI
NG
ACCO
MPL
ISHE
DEX
EMPL
ARY
STUDENT GROWTH TREND RATING
THREE-YEAR CYCLESELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN• Goals set by educator with evaluator input• Plan activities are teacher directed and implemented with colleagues.• Formative review annually• Summative occurs at the end of year 3.
PRO
FESI
ON
AL P
RACT
ICE
RATI
NG
THREE-YEAR CYCLESELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN• Goal set by educator with evaluator input• One goal must focus on low outcome• Formative review annually
ONE-YEAR CYCLE DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN• Goal Determined by Evaluator• Goals focus on low performance/outcome area• Plan activities designed by evaluator with educator input• Formative review at mid-point• Summative at end of plan
KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814 98
5
District Decisions Determine method for combining local student
growth goal and state student growth percentile to rate overall growth as low, expected, and high
Your district must establish how a teacher’s Student Growth Rating will be determined. (e.g. rubrics, decision rules, quantitatively, etc.)
The decision rules that have been established are the MINIMUM requirements by the district. Your district may add additional criteria if desired.
5
Principal & Assistant Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System
(PPGES)
CEP Committee Essential Tools
The CEP Model PlanThe PPGES Guide (Draft)The District Current CEP Plan (Confirm Plan Assurances)
Administer Formative Val-Ed
Site-Visit by Superintendent
Mid-Year Review with Superintendent
Site-Visit by Superintendent
End-of-Year Review with Superintendent
2013/14
Where Are you In the Cycle?
2013-14
Administer Summative Val-Ed
Review Accountability and ASSIST Goal Results
& Set SGG/PGP/Working Conditions 2-year Goal
Two Year Cycle of the PPGESWhere are we now?
Site-Visit by Superintendent
Mid-Year Review with Superintendent
Site-Visit by Superintendent
End-of-Year Review with Superintendent
Thinking Ahead to 2014/15
2014-15
Administer TELL SURVEY
Review Accountability and ASSIST Goal Results & Set SGG/PGP/ & Update Working Conditions 2-year
Goal
Two Year Cycle of the PPGES
14/15
Roles and Definitions-Requires additional district action
As you work through the Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness section of the Model CEP, determine if there are additional definitions that your district needs to add.
Principal Performance Standards
1. Instructional Leadership
2. School Climate
3. Human Resources Management
4. Organizational Management
5. Communication and Community Relations
6. Professionalism
How Does It All Fit? Searching for Trends and Patterns
Sources of Evidence to Inform Professional Practice (Standards Rating)
TELL Kentucky Survey (WC GOAL)VAL-ED 360 SurveyProfessional Growth Plan & Self-ReflectionSite Visits
State Contribution –(SGGs ) ASSIST/NGL Goal Local Contribution-Based on School Needs-May parallel state contribution.
Sources of Evidence to Inform Student Growth (Student Growth Ratings)
Professional Practice Professional Growth Planning and Self-Reflection
(No additional district action required) Site Visits (Plan Requires additional District
Action) Val-ED (Plan Requires additional District Action) Working Conditions Goal (Plan Requires
additional District Action) Products of Practice/Other sources of Evidence
(Self-Explanatory)
Assistant Principal Requirements• Professional Growth Plan and Self Reflection– Completed independent of the principal
• Working Conditions Goal– Inherited from the principal
• Student Growth Goals – State & Local– Inherited from the principal
• Mid-Year Reviews completed by Principal• Evaluated by the Principal annually– Principal Performance Standards & Student Growth– Same summative Overall Performance Category
Sources of Evidence SBDM Minutes Faculty Meeting Agendas and Minutes Department/Grade Level Agendas and Minutes PLC Agendas and Minutes Leadership Team Agendas and Minutes Instructional Round/Walk-through documentation Budgets EILA/Professional Learning experience documentation Surveys Professional Organization memberships Parent/Community engagement surveys Parent/Community engagement events documentation School schedules Other
Student Growth State Contribution-Assist/NGL Goal Based on Trajectory Local Contribution-Based on School Need
--may parallel state contribution
At least one (1) of the Student Growth Goals set by the Principal must address gap populations. Assistant Principals will inherit the SGGs (both state and local contributions) of the Principal.
NOTE: Districts will develop a rubric to measure high/expected/low growth on both goals.
Overall Performance Category
Exemplary
“Shall” have a minimum of a
directed growth plan
“Shall” have a minimum
of a self-directed
growth plan
“Shall” have a minimum of a self-directed growth plan
Accomplished
“Shall” have a minimum
of a self-directed
growth plan
Developing
“Shall” have a minimum of a directed growth plan
“Shall” have a minimum of a self-directed growth plan
Ineffective
“Shall” have a minimum of a Corrective Action Plan
(Evaluator Directed)
Low Growth Expected Growth
High Growth
Table ActivityYou are the Expert!
The Model Professional Growth and Effective System Plan should be used in conjunction with the existing Certified Evaluation Plan to meet the assurances of the Professional Growth and Effectiveness System.
For the purpose of today’s activity we will discuss the critical areas of flexibility around the following PGES components:
Site Visits VAL-ED TELL/Working Conditions Student Growth
Site Visits Did your table discuss how districts might define the protocol that will be used with Site Visits ?
How many site visits will occur in your district each year (Min. 2)? If the number of site visits vary, how will the superintendent determine the number of visits per principal.
How will your district address Scheduling (Process & Procedures)
What is the procedure for conducting site visits? Did you include protocols for guiding
discussions/questioning? Are all required criteria addressed.
VAL-ED 360Did your table address these issues?
Who is responsible for seeing to the administration (organization and management ) of the survey?
Windows? When will your district administer VAL-ED?
Are there more than one window? Will VAL-ED be more than every other year? How will your district use VAL-ED results? Who will see the results?
VAL_ED
Working Conditions Goal (Based on Most Recent TELL SURVEY)Did your table address these ISSUES?
# of WC Goals? How the WCG will added to ASSIST? Process for establishing the WCG Rubric? Criteria for High, Expected, or Low Growth
within the Rubric? How a mid-point review will be conducted? Additional evidence that might be used?
TELL SURVEY
Student GrowthDid your table address:
How many local student growth goals will the principal be required to develop?
Is there a clearly defined criteria for helping principals select goals.
How will district develop a plan to identify criteria for rating high/expected/low growth?
If more than one goal is required how will use multiple goals to determine high/expected/ low growth )? How do you arrive at a single local SGG result?
Rating Student Growth Result from a combination of professional
judgment and district developed rules/rubrics
Must include data form both state and local contribution
Districts must describe the process and/or instrument to be used and include as an attachment to their CEP.
5
District Decisions
Site VisitsAdministration of Val-Ed 360Working Conditions Goal based on TELL
SurveyStudent Growth
Follow-Up Opportunities
Monday, March 10– ISLN; CEP Work Session Friday, March 21— CEP Work Session
On-going CEP Plan Electronic Review
5
• Evaluation Committee (50/50 Committee) • Personnel Decisions for the 2014-15 school
year• Preschool, Other Professionals, and KTIP
Pilot Systems• Capacity Building• Connect TPGES to PPGES throughout the
day• CEP Submission
Considerations
