HART COUNTY SCHOOLS2014-2015Certified Evaluation Plan

August 4, 2014

Presented by Wesley Waddle, Ed.D.

QUICK HISTORY OF PGES . . .

• KDE/KBE Directive: PGES shall serve as the foundation of evaluation system (or develop an alternative plan which meets the same requirements)

• 2012-2013: pilot of PGES in selected districts• 2013-2014: state-wide pilot of PGES in every district• 2014-2015: “Full Implementation” of “Professional Practice, ”

meaning a “hybrid” approach in which all elements are implemented BUT only observation data will be used for personnel decisions

• Our 50/50 Committee: see page iii• 2015-2016: revisions based on 2014-2015 implementation and

additional updates for other certified staff

WHAT IS PGES?• Professional Growth & Effectiveness System• Customized for Various Staff:

TPGES (Teacher) PPGES ( Principal) OPGES (Other Professionals) SPGES (Superintendent)

• Based on the four domains of Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FfT): Planning & Preparation Classroom Environment Instruction Professional Responsibilities

Domain 1:Planning & Preparation

Domain 2: Classroom

Environment

Domain 3:Instruction

Domain 4:Professional

Responsibilities

A. Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy

i. Knowledge of Content and the Structure of the Discipline

ii. Knowledge of Prerequisite Relationships

iii. Knowledge of Content-Related Pedagogy

B. Demonstrating Knowledge of Students

i. Knowledge of Child and Adolescent Development

ii. Knowledge of the Learning Process

iii. Knowledge of Students’ Skills, Knowledge, and Language Proficiency

iv. Knowledge of Students’ Interests and Cultural Heritage

v. Knowledge of Students’ Special Needs

C. Selecting Instructional Outcomes

i. Value, Sequence, and Alignment

ii. Clarityiii. Balanceiv. Suitability for Diverse

LearnersD. Demonstrating Knowledge of

Resourcesi. Resources for

Classroom Useii. Resources to Extend

Content Knowledge and Pedagogy

iii. Resources for StudentsE. Designing Coherent Instruction

i. Learning Activitiesii. Instructional Materials

and Resourcesiii. Instructional Groupsiv. Lesson and Unit

StructureF. Designing Student Assessment

i. Congruence with Instructional Outcomes

ii. Criteria and Standardsiii. Design of Formative

Assessmentsiv. Use for Planning

A. Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport

i. Teacher Interaction with Students

ii. Student Interactions with One Another

B. Establishing a Culture for Learning

i. Importance of the Content

ii. Expectations for Learning and Achievement

iii. Student Pride in WorkC. Managing Classroom

Proceduresi. Management of

Instructional Groupsii. Management of

Transitionsiii. Management of

Materials and Supplies

iv. Performance of Non-Instructional Duties

v. Supervision of Volunteers and Paraprofessionals

D. Managing Student Behaviori. Expectationsii. Monitoring of Student

Behavioriii. Response to Student

MisbehaviorE. Organizing Physical Space

i. Safety and Accessibility

ii. Arrangement of Furniture and Use of Physical Resources

A. Communicating with Studentsi. Expectations for

Learningii. Directions and

Proceduresiii. Explanation of

Contentiv. Use of Oral and

Written LanguageB. Using Questioning and

Discussion Techniquesi. Quality of Questionsii. Discussion

Techniquesiii. Student Participation

C. Engaging Students in Learningi. Activities and

Assignmentsii. Grouping of Studentsiii. Instructional

Materials and Resources

iv. Structure and PacingD. Using Assessment in Instruction

i. Assessment Criteriaii. Monitoring of Student

Learningiii. Feedback to Studentsiv. Student Self-

Assessment and Monitoring of Progress

E. Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

i. Lesson Adjustmentii. Response to Studentsiii. Persistence

A. Reflecting on Teachingi. Accuracyii. Use in Future Teaching

B. Maintaining Accurate Recordsi. Student Completion of

Assignmentsii. Student Progress in

Learningiii. Non-Instructional Records

C. Communicating with Familiesi. Information About the

Instructional Programii. Information About

Individual Studentsiii. Engagement of Families in

the Instructional ProgramD. Participating in a Professional

Communityi. Relationships with

Colleaguesii. Involvement in a Culture

of Professional Inquiryiii. Service to the Schooliv. Participation in School

and District ProjectsE. Growing and Developing

Professionallyi. Enhancement of Content

Knowledge and Pedagogical Skill

ii. Receptivity to Feedback from Colleagues

iii. Service to the ProfessionF. Demonstrating Professionalism

i. Integrity and Ethical Conduct

ii. Service to Studentsiii. Advocacyiv. Decision Makingv. Compliance with School

and District RegulationsAppendix A

ELEMENTS OF OUR CEP:

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH & EFFECTIVENESS SYSTEM

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE STUDENT GROWTH GOAL

PGP & Self-Reflection

Evaluator Observations

(3)

Student Voice Survey

Peer Observation

Staff Data Notebook

Local Growth Goal

State Growth Goal

Basis for 2014-2015 personnel decisionsImplemented but not used for personnel decisionsImplemented for formative use only; never evaluative

THEREFORE . . . For the 2014-2015 school year, all

procedures that apply to teachers will be based on their current evaluation cycle to promote professional growth and comprehension of the PGES. However, decisions related to employment for teachers shall be based solely on results of the primary evaluator’s rating of “Professional Practice” using supervisor observation data. All other certified professionals shall be evaluated under the prior CEP as described in the “Other Certified Professionals” section.

EVENTUALLY . . . Tentatively in 2015-2016, teacher

effectiveness will be measured by . . .

AN OVERALL RATING FOR

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

AN OVERALL RATING FOR

STUDENT GROWTH

+ =OVERALL

PERFORMACE RATING:

Ineffective, Developing,

Accomplished, Exemplary

A CLOSER LOOK @ PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Supervisor Observations (2 mini and one full per cycle) Peer Observation

One mini in summative year of cycle Trained prior to observation *non-evaluative*

Professional Growth Plan & Reflection This year PGP is due September 1st in CIITS (Please update Appendix E) Developed with principal based on survey of FfT Reflections due in CIITS by October 1st and December 1st

Student Voice (student perception survey) One per year for K-8; Two per year for HS (of ONE student group) *non-evaluative*

Teacher Collection of Professional Work Samples (Staff Data Notebook)

RATING LEVELS: Ineffective Developing Accomplished Exemplary

MOTTO: “Try to live

in Accomplished but visit Exemplary.”

MORE ABOUT OBSERVATIONS: Must be documented in CIITS Tenured Teachers (Three-Year Cycle)*

3 supervisor observations (2 mini by March 15 and 1 full by April 30) 1 peer observation by March 15 in summative year (non-evaluative)

Non-Tenured Teachers Same as above except occurs in one year:

Mini observations by October 15 & December 15 (supervisor) and March 15 (peer)

Full supervisor observation by April 30

Intern teachers shall be evaluated using KTIP for 2014-2015

Pre-conference required for full observation but only recommended for mini’s (may be conducted by email, phone, or in-person)

Post-conference required for all observations within 5 working days (in person for full; email, phone, or in-person for mini’s)

*NOTE: Beginning in 2015-2016, a tenured teacher’s observation cycle and/or professional growth plan process may change based on the overall ratings for Professional Practice and Student Growth Goals.

MORE ABOUT STUDENT VOICE: ONE class (or group) of students in grades 3-12

At least 10 students to be considered statistically significant Selected by principal after consultation with teacher Must provide equal access to all students

NON-EVALUATIVE Grades 3-8: one survey per year 9-12: two surveys per year Timeline to be determined by state window (not yet

announced but goal is March 15 for Grades 3-8 and October 15 and March 15 for high school)

Given during the school day

MORE ABOUT STAFF DATA NOTEBOOK: Addresses what the state calls “Other Products of

Professional Practice” Three-ring binder organized according to the four domains

of FfT NO REQUIRED ELEMENTS Select your best artifacts to support each domain

(think quality, not quantity) The purpose is to provide evidence of a teacher’s progress

within a given domain which may not be evident through the observation process, which is especially important for Domains 1 and 4.

Should be included as part of post-observation conferences and PGP discussions

SO, HOW DO I GET A RATING FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE?

Decision Rules for Teacher’s Overall Professional Practice Domain Ratings Overall Professional Practice Rating

Domains 2 AND 3 are rated INEFFECTIVE INEFFECTIVE

Domains 2 OR 3 are rated INEFFECTIVE INEFFECTIVE or DEVELOPING

Domains 1 OR 4 are rated INEFFECTIVE INEFFECTIVE or DEVELOPING or ACCOMPLISHED

Two domains are rated DEVELOPING AND two domains are rated ACCOMPLISHED

ACCOMPLISHED

Two domains are rated DEVELOPING AND two domains are rated EXEMPLARY

ACCOMPLISHED

Two domains are rated ACCOMPLISHED AND two domains are rated EXEMPLARY

EXEMPLARY

A CLOSER LOOK @ STUDENT GROWTH GOAL

Two Types of Goals: State: 4-8 Teachers of Reading and/or Math (percentile goal assigned by KDE) Local: All teachers (developed by teacher—collegial process encouraged—and

approved by principal)

Local Student Growth Goal (SGG) Must have a clear purpose, clear targets, sound design, be effectively

communicated, and student centered Should be SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound Based on an “enduring skill” and include targets for GROWTH and PROFICIENCY Be rigorous and comparable (“Rule of Goldie Locks”)—See Appendix B Entered into CIITS according to the following timeline:

Year-long course: within four weeks of start of school year

Semester course: within three weeks of start of semester

Nine-week course: within one week of start of course

Data should also be entered into CIITS (pre-test/post-test, repeated measures, etc.)

STRUCTURE: Acceptable Needs Revision

Focus on student standards

 

Identifies an area of need pertaining to current students’ abilities 

Includes clear, specific and separate targets for growth and proficiency for ALL students   

Uses appropriate data collection methods for base line, mid-point, and end of goal measurements 

Specifically states appropriate interval of instruction

Focuses on a standards-based enduring skill  

Identifies a specific area of need supported by current student data  

Includes a growth target for the desired level of individual progress for ALL students and an overall proficiency target for the student group 

All three measures included and methods appropriately align with the skill being assessed  

Specifies year-long/course-long interval of instruction

Focuses on a standards-based skill that is not enduring OR does not address a standards-based skill 

Fails to address a specific need OR identifies a specific area of need without the support of current student data

 

Does not include separate targets for growth and proficiency or fails to include expected levels of performance   

Does not include provisions for three measurements or methods not aligned with skill being assessed  

Specifies less than a year-long/course-long interval of instruction or interval not included

RIGOR: Acceptable Needs Revision

Congruent to the KCAS    Valid and reliable measures for student performance    Growth and proficiency targets appropriately challenge students  

Consistent with the KCAS and is appropriate for the grade level and content area  Intended measures enable students to validly demonstrate skill attainment or performance over time  Includes growth and proficiency targets that are challenging but attainable with appropriate support

Not consistent with the KCAS or not appropriate for the grade level and/or content area Intended measures enable students to demonstrate attainment or performance of only part of the standard(s) being assessed; or measures lack validity or reliability  Fails to include both growth and proficiency targets that adequately challenge students

DATA COMPARABILITY: Acceptable Needs Revision

Data collection methods enable comparison of student progress across similar classrooms

Consistent measures/rubrics will be used to measure student performance on the standard(s) being addressed across similar classrooms

Does not reflect the use of consistent measures/rubrics to measure student performance on the standard(s) being addressed across similar classrooms

Appendix B: Student Growth Goal Development Protocol

SO, HOW DO I GET A RATING FOR STUDENT GROWTH?

For summative purposes, SGG evaluations shall be averaged for the three-year evaluation cycle. For teachers with both a state and local SGG contribution in any given year, the results shall be weighted per year (60% local SGG and 40% state SGG).

Decision Rules for Evaluation of SGG* Level of Attainment Rating (1-4)

Less than 60% of students meet both growth and proficiency targets

1—Ineffective

60% of students meet both growth and proficiency targets 2—Developing

80% of students meet both growth and proficiency targets 3—Accomplished

90% of students meet both growth and proficiency targets 4—Exemplary

*The language in the state’s model evaluation plan for SGG is low/expected/high; those levels correlate with the local evaluation plan ratings as follows: low=ineffective, expected=developing or accomplished, and high=exemplary.

SO, CALCULATIONS FOR A SUMMATIVE STUDENT GROWTH RATING WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS . . . For teachers having both a local and state growth goal for a three-year period, the SGG overall rating would be determined by the formula below.

SGG Overall Rating = State Three-Year Average x .40 + Local Three-Year Average x .60

EXAMPLE:

Three-Year State Average (68.7) x 40% = 27.48Three-Year Local Average (74) x 60% = 44.4

27.48 + 44.4 = 71.88 (Developing)

  State Growth Goal

(Percentile)

Local Growth Goal (Percentage of Proficiency and Growth

Averaged Together)Year 1 62 69Year 2 69 72Year 3 75 81Average

68.7 74

SO, HOW DO I GET A RATING FOR OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY?

WITH A Professional Practice

Rating of …

AND A Student Growth Goal

Rating of…

THE Overall Performance

Category is…

ExemplaryExemplary or Accomplished

EXEMPLARY

Developing or Ineffective ACCOMPLISHED

Accomplished

Exemplary EXEMPLARYAccomplished or

DevelopingACCOMPLISHED

Ineffective DEVELOPING

Developing

Exemplary ACCOMPLISHEDAccomplished, Developing

or Ineffective DEVELOPING

Ineffective

Exemplary DEVELOPINGAccomplished, Developing

or Ineffective INEFFECTIVE

NOTE: For 2014-2015, only the “Professional Practice

Rating” column shall be used for evaluation purposes.

BEGINNING IN 2015-16, RESULTS MAY IMPACT OBSERVATION CYCLES & PGP PROCESS:

PLEASE NOTE: • Only the “Professional Practice Rating” will be considered for 2014-2015.

• The language in the state’s model evaluation plan for SGG is low/expected/high; those levels correlate with the local evaluation plan ratings as follows: • low=ineffective• expected=developing or accomplished• high=exemplary

CLOSING THOUGHTS: It is all about GROWTH, GROWTH & GROWTH Integrate PGES with your approach to teaching (the four domains ARE

the core of quality teaching and learning), and the rest will take care of itself

Periodically update the Staff Data Notebook with your best work Remember the motto: “Try to live in Accomplished and visit Exemplary.” Student growth should focus on both students’ PROFICIENCY and

GROWTH in relation to a core concept (enduring skill) For 2014-2015, we are all learning together: there are NO dumb

questions so ask for assistance at any time KDE has recently updated training modules in each part of PGES which

are available at http://education.ky.gov/teachers/PGES/Pages/PGES.aspx It is all about GROWTH, GROWTH & GROWTH