teacher and principal evaluations: - dysart high school · negron stierlen, melinda teacher null,...

June 6, 2012 Governing Board Meeting

NEW HIRE

CERTIFIED STAFF NAME ASSIGNMENT Adrian, Laura Teacher Ausburger, Amy Teacher Banghart, Katie Teacher Becko, Ashley Teacher Boatright, Kassi Teacher Bonner, Stacy Teacher Bowers, Michelle Teacher Bray, Stephanie Teacher Bryant, Amanda Teacher Bush, Jennifer Teacher Conner, Jessica Teacher Deadman, Lindsey Teacher Denny, Charleen Teacher Estep, Lynn Teacher Fernandez, Kimberly Teacher Folger, Selina Teacher Fraker, Aleea Teacher Franklin, Cristen Teacher Gerlick, Emily Teacher Greer, Laura Teacher Guthrie, Mark Teacher Haddad, Megan Teacher Hice, Jennifer Teacher Huntington-Miller, Katherine Teacher Jennings, Julianne Teacher Jones, April Teacher Jones, Lisa Teacher Karvis, Ray Teacher Kennedy, Angela Teacher Klumb, Amy Teacher Kuhn, Sarah Teacher Mass, Michelle Teacher McCleery, Samantha Teacher McDowell, Aaron Teacher McKinney, Aubree Teacher Mitchell, Mary Teacher

APPENDIX A


Molett, Charles Teacher Montes, Zully Teacher Murphy, Karen Teacher Navarro, CJ Teacher Negron Stierlen, Melinda Teacher Null, Ashley Teacher Orona, Adrian Teacher Otto, Melissa Teacher Parker, Bradford Teacher Porchini, Sandy Teacher Pulliam, Shane Teacher Rankin, Melissa Teacher Ridley, Toni Teacher Romero, Kaseylyn Teacher Runyon, Paul Teacher Seifert, Alysia Teacher Shernicoff, Jennifer Teacher Skok, Tracie Teacher Smith, Allycia Teacher St. Bernard, Stacey Teacher Stuart, Sarah Teacher Taylor, Karla Teacher Vince, Francine Teacher Weare, Danielle Teacher

SUPPORT STAFF SUBS The following Support Staff Subs will be paid by M&O per Board Policy. Clark, Melony

CHANGE IN FTE

CERTIFIED STAFF NAME OLD FTE NEW FTE Munoz, Kathryn 1.0 .5

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH

CERTIFIED STAFF NAME DATES ASSIGNMENT Slonina, Sally 2012 -2013 School Year Teacher


REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY

CERTIFIED STAFF NAME DATES ASSIGNMENT Avery, Wendy 07/01/2012 – 06/30/2013 Teacher

RESIGNATION

CERTIFIED STAFF NAME REASON EFFECTIVE

Neumann, Brandi Personal/Administration Supports Waiver of Liquidated Damages 05/25/2012

Reichard, Marla Relocation/Administration Supports Waiver of Liquidated Damages 05/25/2012

Wilson, Laura

Professional Advancement/ Administration Supports Waiver of Liquidated Damages 05/25/2012

LICENSED PROFESSIONAL STAFF NAME REASON EFFECTIVE Bartram, Heather Other Employment 06/01/2012 GUEST TEACHER NAME REASON EFFECTIVE Albert, Michelle Other Employment 05/24/2012 Black, Deeann Other Employment 05/28/2012 Blum, Mary Retirement 05/24/2012 Brutman, Felice Relocation 05/24/2012 Thurman, Breanna Relocation 05/24/2012 SUPPORT STAFF NAME REASON EFFECTIVE

Avina, Robert Did Not Return Notice of Employment 05/24/2012

Boelter, Sandra Personal (Crossing Guard Position Only) 05/24/2012

Bordt, Darlene Personal 05/24/2012 Brehen, Nikolaus Relocation 05/24/2012 Dunn, Grace Professional Advancement 05/24/2012


Early, Victoria Did Not Return Notice of Employment 05/24/2012

Guzman, Brandy Relocation 05/24/2012 Jojola, Cynthia Personal 05/24/2012 Kwiat, Peter Personal 05/14/2012

Martinez, Rosa Did Not Return Notice of Employment 05/24/2012

McCormick, Melissa Personal 05/24/2012 Miller, Lance Personal 05/17/2012 Peck, Debra Relocation 05/24/2012 Pollard, Jacob Relocation 05/24/2012 Richards, Oliver Retirement 05/24/2012 Shea, Sharon Personal 05/24/2012 Sherwood, Linda Personal 05/24/2012 Torres, Chantell Personal 05/24/2012 SUPPORT STAFF SUBSTITUTES NAME REASON EFFECTIVE Ancell, Mary Personal 05/16/2012 Clark, Melony Other Employment 05/24/2012 Owens, Lauralyn Relocation 05/17/2012 Williams, Jan Personal 05/24/2012

RESCISSION OF RESIGNATION

CERTIFIED STAFF NAME ASSIGNMENT Hall-Sims, Jacqueline Teacher

TERMINATION

GUEST TEACHER NAME REASON EFFECTIVE

Adrian, Laura Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Agostinelli, Harriet Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Albert, Larisa Inactive Status 05/24/2012 Angier, Cordell Inactive Status 05/24/2012

Arcan, Florica Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012


Arismendez, Elizardo Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Babbitt, Jason Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Bell, Michael Inactive Status 05/24/2012

Bowers, Michelle Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Colby, Marilyn Inactive Status 05/24/2012 Eichler, Tiffany Inactive Status 05/24/2012

Garcia-Glenn, Chela Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Garrett, Timothy Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Halik, Laura Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Hardison, Dexter Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Herke, Larry Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Jacobs, Jeff Inactive Status 05/24/2012 Johnson, Cameron Inactive Status 05/24/2012

Kundrot, Joseph Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Leal, James Inactive Status 05/24/2012 Luna, Jennifer Inactive Status 05/24/2012

Marinaro, James Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Marquardt, Laura Inactive Status 05/24/2012

Meeks, Carolyn Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Mendoza, Elizabeth Inactive Status 05/24/2012 Mercado, Manuel Inactive Status 05/24/2012 Miller, Katherine Inactive Status 05/24/2012

Morris, Sharon Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Morse, Miriam Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Moss, Holli Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Ohannessian, Dikran Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Pederson, Eric Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Portz, Raylene Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Rincon, Amanda Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Robbins, Kyle Inactive Status 05/24/2012


Samaniego, Jeffrey Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Smolinski, Delbertta Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Sommer, Sharon Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Steill, Sean Inactive Status 05/24/2012

Stevenson, Richard Did Not Return Notification of Reasonable Assurance 05/24/2012

Steward, Kimberlee Inactive Status 05/24/2012 Tamburino, Randall Inactive Status 05/24/2012 Wray, Richard Inactive Status 05/24/2012 Zato, Dianne Inactive Status 05/24/2012

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPENSATION

Staff will be paid per MOU for Curriculum Writing. Adame, Jeremy Akita, Dale Allen, Angela Also, Larry Aranda, Martha Attilio, Mario Ballou, Amanda Barkasy, Jennifer Barkley, Sarah Barndt, Maureen Bell, Matthew Bennett, Eric Bernard, Kamyle Blume, Samantha Bojko, Alissa Bolitho, Jonathan Borland, Tricha Brady, Kathy Briggs, Leslee Brown, Christina Brussman, Janet Butler, Terrence Campbell-Hernandez, Kelley Chamberlain, Bonnie Chambers, Katharine Chantarojwong, Thasanee Chase, Michelle Chavez, Danielle Chezick, Allen Christians, Tanya Christie, Denise Christoffel, Jacqueline

Conant, Ginger Copenhagen, Carol Corley, Melani Costa, Kevin Crow, Amy Cultum, Eric Darney, Jessica Daub, Melissa Daurio, Nicole Davis, Paige Day, John Day, Michelle Debattista, Matthew Dore, Jennifer Dudo, Matthew Duncan, Ian Eaton, Angela Elston, Heather Elton, Veronica Encarnacion, Maria Enders, Sean Evans, Jeff Fair, Samantha Fleming, Julie Flesher, William Franco, Kristie Ann Frenning, Jillian Fuhs, Sarah Fussell, Mollie Galindo, Edgar Garcia, Christina Garcia, Maricela

Gettys, Amy Gierish, Kristen Gonda, Michael Gonzalez, Elena Gray, John Graze, Scott Green, Stacy Grossnickle, Effie Hall, Starlah Halleck, Julie Hamende, Melissa Hancock, Jeff Hart, Barbara Hays, Sandra Hein, Jessica Heinrich, James Herrington, Kristy Hess, Dayna Hiller, Joanne Hinde, Casey Hoffman, Mary Hoskins, Ryan Hoskins, Stacie Hout, Susan Hudnutt, Dawn Hughes-Polk, Heather Ibach-Gunsauls, Becky James, Robin Marie Johnson, Dennis Jones, Jaimi Kargol, Amanda Kaye-Smith, Valerie


Kellner, Judith Kemper, Holly Keough, Tracee Kieran, Kimberly Killeen, Aaron Kinane, Tracy Knutson, Susan Kolesar, Thomas Kramer, Amilee Kramer, Samantha Kujawa, Kara Laursen, Jay Law, Breanne Leblanc, Michael Lee, Alice Lee, Tonya Lewandowski, Nicole Locken, Lynn Lopez, Carlos Lopez, Madelaine Lujano, Eric Lump, Stefanie Lynch, Erin Maki, Elizabeth Malic, Jennifer Maslyn, Melissa McCleary, Randal McKnight, Castonia McTague, Amy Mekhail, Erin Mendez, Mario Merrill, Julie Merzak, Dawn Mills, Kathleen Milobar, Rebecca

Moon Dyke, Alyssa Moore, Rodney Morris, Jennifer Morrow, Karin Murphy, Lori Murray, Rachel Nelson, Candice Neumann, Brandi Newell, Tiffany Nicholas, Alicia Nichols, Jennifer Obrecht, Nathan Olson, Karissa Orcutt, Laura Ornstein, Leonard Orona, Adrian Palmer, Justean Palombo, Leslie Parachini, Lisa Parnell, Danielle Partida, Marci Perla, Juan Pierce-Charles, Karen Piper, Geri Platzbecker, Eileen Portela, Melissa Prokow, Maryann Renyer, Jeri Ritchie, Stacey Ruebsamen, Holly Rust, Krista Rutkowski, Helen Salazar, Michelle Satacasa, Rochelle Schiff, Emilie

Sciame, Michelle Sinex, Matthew Sloan, Tabitha Solomon, Carol Soriano, Francisco Swearingen, Rian Syler, Jennifer Szlanfucht, Cynthia Thomas, Carrie Thomas, William Thompson, Jessica Thornell, Kent Tokhi, Sulaiman Van Dam, John Van Pelt, Paula Vargo, Megan Vidales, Melinda Walker, Michael Wallace, Lesley Waller, Robert Walz, Marlene Webb, Alanna West, Ronnie Western, Bethany Whalen, Colleen Wiggins, Seth Wilbert, Arthur Wilfong, Christine Wolcott, Bryce Wolford, Connie Woodard, Daska Woods, Kurt Yopp, Lisa Yuan, Susu Zinter, April

Staff will be paid per MOU for Additional Days for High School Counselor. Bracey, Damien Collett, Flora Hart, Mary Louise Hook, Monica

Luzier, Lori Melling, Mary Peckover, Lydia Scaife, Richard

Seese, Ruthann Soto-Gomez, Gianna Webb, Heather

Staff will be paid per through Grants for Summer Evaluations. Boland, Rebecca Que, Katie

Swanson-Cinader, Dayna Weniger, Trina

Staff will be paid per MOU for Preschool Screening Assignments. Donohue, Rita


Staff will be paid per MOU for Teaching and Tutoring. Allen, Vicki Attilio, Mario Benson, Sue Chantarojwong, Thasanee Christoffel, Jacqueline Dudo, Matthew Dyer, Brian Garcia, Stephanie Gonzalez, Elena Gragg, Kelly Hautz, Jimmi Hughes-Polk, Heather Huth, Catt

Kelley, Leon Kelly, Jennifer Kinane, Tracy Knutson, Susan Larsen, Marisa LeBlanc, Michael McKnight, Castonia MeGee, Michael Merrill, Julie Miller, Patrick Mills, Kathleen Moghina, Christian Myers, Jill

Neese, Tammy Nevarez, Mayra Pyle, David Rhodes, Belinda Scott, Megan Smith, Tracy Sue, Jessica Syler, Jennifer Walz, Marlene Wegner, Keri Wellbrock, Kristen Young, Amy

Staff will be paid per MOU for Attendance at a Staff Development Class. Beard, David Bohon, Michelle Brewer, Melodie Darby, Sunshine Davis, Paige Deokielal, Kara

Downs, Noelle Gerhart, Kristine Hays, Sandra Hess, Dayna Jewett, Sharla Kramer, Amilee

Pulbratek, Jennifer Rose, Shara Russo-Prunier, Josephine Schooler, Kathryn Waters, Julie Wellbrock, Kristen

Staff will be paid through Grants for Professional Development Team Planning Assignments. Cooley, Donald Eaton, Angela Girone, Laura Gonzalez, Laura

Kucherman, Ronda Lytle, Trisha Minette, Gabrielle Ockenfels, Rebecca

Schrader, Susan Short, Zachary

Staff will be paid through Grants for Safe and Supportive Schools for Additional Training. Arroyo, Gina Bohon, Michelle Brekke, Melissa Chagolla, Monica

Di Nello, Jennifer Kramer, Samantha Krienitz, Monika Linderman, Laura

Lopez Jr., Ricardo Rasset, Katie Renyer, Jeri

Staff will be paid per MOU for K-8 Extended Day Activity. Allen, Vicki Benson, Sue Kelley, Leon

Merrill, Julie Miller, Patrick Rhodes, Belinda

Roach, Darlene Syler, Jennifer Wellbrock, Kristen

Staff will be paid through Grants for Summer School ELL. Bodevin, Denise Cano, Elvira Cluney, Linda Conklin, Amber

Contreras, Bertha Dabney, Michelle Damon, Edward Flores, Esperanza

Fousel, Cecilia Gonzales, Maria Matiana Gonzalez, Ivan Gragg, Kelly


Grossenbacher, Kimberly Hansen, Teresa Hughes-Polk, Heather Jessen, Eileen Jones, Anthony Linster, Kyle Mills, Kathleen

Morton, Heidi Munoz, Jose Musser-Mariano, Melissa Nevarez, Mayra Osburn, Tricia Pellerin, Courtney Pfeiffer, Juliane

Rodriguez, Sharon Salgado, Sandra Scott, Jessica Sobarzo, Julia Vasquez-Conklin, Jessica Vignoli, Cheryl

Staff will be paid through Grants for Instructional Assistants for Summer School ESY. Bregenzer, Elizabeth Einhorn, Mary Marhenke, Mary Staff will be paid through M&O for Additional Hours. Carl, Sean Staff will be paid through Community Ed for CPR Training Instruction. Goulet, Saundra Snider, Margaret

APPENDIX B

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS (HB 2823)

TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EVALUATIONS: Allows school districts to pilot instrument in 2012-2013 with Board vote by

September 30, 2012 Instrument to be adopted by Board by December 1, 2012 for full

implementation beginning 2013-2014 Requires instrument to use four categories: Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective


TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EVALUATIONS: Includes performance and achievement components Requires adoption of a plan to include incentives for teachers and

principals in the two highest classifications Includes provisions for teachers and principals in the lowest performance

classification Allows for a teacher’s and principal’s evaluation to be shared with other

school districts for hiring purposes Includes provisions for aligned professional development


TEACHER EVALUATIONS: Requires that teachers make learning the primary focus of professional

time Requires provisions and policies for teacher transfer processes Includes provisions for intervention and dismissal policies Requires that persons conducting teacher evaluations be trained to do so Requires teachers be observed at least twice per year for a full lesson,

separated by at least 60 calendar days

DYSART PILOT PRINCIPAL EVALUATION INSTRUMENT

Performance Component Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards – model allowed

by ADE Principal will be evaluated based on the ISLLC Standard objectives to determine an

overall performance score (Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective) Performance score will account for 67% of the evaluation total (achievement will

account for 33% of evaluation total) Professional Development School administrators received initial information regarding the ISSLC Standards in

July, 2011 Extensive professional development to be provided to principals regarding the ISSLC

Standards and objectives in July, 2012 Administrative focus groups to be held throughout 2012-2013 to gather feedback

DYSART PILOT TEACHER EVALUATION INSTRUMENT

Performance Component -Danielson’s Framework for Teaching Rubric Aligned to the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Core

Teaching Standards Adopted by Arizona in 2011 as state teaching standards

Identifies 22 complex components of teaching in 4 Domains • Planning and Preparation • The Classroom Environment • Instruction • Responsibilities

Provides a common vocabulary for professional conversations Grounded in research (Hunter, MET project, Gage, Wittrock) Provides accountability and a process for enhancing practice Performance score will account for 67% of the evaluation total (achievement will account

for 33% of evaluation total)


Performance Component –Documents and Processes Danielson’s Framework for Teaching Rubric Self - Evaluation Individual Professional Development Plan Pre - Conference Protocol Post - Observation Lesson Reflection Formal Evaluation Format Reflection on Professional Development Plan End of Year Conference Effectiveness Rating Report


Professional Development School administrators received ongoing inter-rater reliability training through 2011-

2012 academic year Approved evaluators will complete a 25+ hour training program and pass a

proficiency assessment in summer of 2012 to ensure inter-rater reliability Professional development for administrators will be provided in July at summer

leadership academy trainings Professional development for teachers will be provided through prepared training

plans and a video in August Professional development on the four domains in the rubric will be provided in

Monday professional development in the first two months of school Ongoing professional development will be provided throughout the year for

administrators and teachers

June 6, 2012

Presented by: Edward F Sloat, Director

Office of Research and Accountability Dysart Unified School District

Computational Framework for the DUSD Teacher and Principal Evaluation System

Measured Components: Teacher & Principal Evaluation System

Professional Practice Student Achievement

Basic Formula:

Professional Practice + Student Achievement = Teacher Evaluation Score

Two primary Components:

Assigning Performance Evaluation Standards:

Low TE Score

High TE Score

Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective

Teacher A

Teacher B

Teacher C

Teacher D

Evaluation Score

Computational Tasks 1. Determine the numerical representations for measuring PP and Achievement 2. Express PP and Achievement (Growth) on the same scale 3. Combined the two measures into a total evaluation score

Danielson’s framework is composed of four domains

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Domain 2: Classroom Environment Domain 3: Instruction Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

18 pts.

15 pts.

15 pts. 18 pts.

Danielson’s total score point scale range: 0 ≤ PP ≤ 66

Computational Steps: Assign PP points to each teacher based on the Danielson framework Express the PP points on a common scale that may be combined with the

test score measures

The ‘common scale’ is the percent of total possible PP points

66 pts. Total PP Points:

Part I: Measures of Teacher Professional Practice (PP) - Danielson Framework

Next Step: Express the Adjusted PP Score as percent of total PP points (%PP)

20 Pts.

30.3%

53 Pts.

80.3%

30 Evaluation pts. 80 Evaluation pts.

Part II: Student Achievement (Growth) Component

1st derive an achievement ‘growth score’ for every student (Value-Added Model)

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

AIMS Prior Reading Scale Score

AIM

S Cu

rren

t Rea

ding

Sca

le S

core

Scatterplot of AIMS Prior to AIMS Current scale scores

Current = 121.77 + .7707(Prior) R2 = .6899

500

507: Predicted Level

Students Above Predicted

Exceeded Expectation

Students Below Predicted

Below Expectation

Value-Added Instructional Impact

Why Value-Added (Growth)? • Methodical Foundation • Computational Precision • Transparency and Deconstruction • Fairness Across Groups

Student Growth1 202 193 124 155 10…30 831 632 1033 934 7…50 151 352 153 254 0

Teacher/Class #1

Teacher/Class #2

Teacher/Class #3

67 %’ile

49 %’ile

30 %’ile

16

Classroom Classroom

Growth Percentile

8

2

Derive an achievement ‘growth score’ for every student (Value-Added Model)

Compute the growth taking place within each classroom Transform the Growth Scores to a common scale: Percentile

Next Step: Compute Classroom Level ‘Growth Score’

Pts.

Pts.

Pts.

Pts.

Pts.

Composite Growth Scores

Percentile Location of Growth Scores

Student Achievement (Growth) Component

Place the classroom ‘Growth Scores’ onto the percentile scale

8 Growth Pts.

49th %’ile

15 Growth Pts.

67th %’ile

Data are for example purposes only


Teacher B Teacher A

Composite (Weighted) Evaluation Score

The composite (Total) evaluation score needs to reflect a weighted combination of Professional Practice and Achievement Growth where:

and (0 ≤ WES ≤ 100)

Category Weight Example

Professional Practice .67 80 Pts.

Achievement Growth .33 71 Pts.

Weighted Evaluation Score (WES): 1.00 77 Total Pts.

(.67)*80 + (.33)*71 = 77 WES

Professional Practice = 67% Achievement Growth = 33%


Group A Teachers All three Components: Articulated Learning Objectives Fidelity of Classroom Implementation Reliable and Valid Measurement

Method A

Group B Teachers

May or May not: Articulated Learning Objectives Fidelity of Classroom Implementation Reliable and Valid Measurement

Method B

Recall: Classroom teachers are assigned to two evaluation groups

Classroom-specific Growth Scores

School/Grade Specific Growth Scores

Adjustments for Group B (School-Based) Evaluations • The same basic formulation holds for Group B teachers

• Sixty-seven percent of the evaluation score is based on Professional Practice, 33 percent on achievement measures

• The achievement component cannot be computed at the individual level (due to lack of suitable measures)

1st: Compute individual student growth scores

2nd: Compute aggregate growth scores at the grade & school level

3rd: Place the aggregate growth scores on the common scale: Percentile

Process



Process: Group B Achievement Rating

Test Score Residuals (median per school per grade) School 3 4 5 6 7 8 HS Mean

1 4.6 -1.1 3.1 1.6 4.7 6.2 4.2 2 2.1 0.5 3.1 2.2 4.9 6.0 3.6 3 … … … … … … 3.1 3.1 4 10.2 9.4 6.3 7.0 9.5 11.0 8.7 … … 24 9.8 6.4 12.1

62nd %’ile

8.7

62 Evaluation pts.


All Group B teachers at this location receive 62 evaluation points

Principal Evaluations

The principal evaluation system mirrors the framework adopted for Group B Teachers

Each Principal attains a Professional Practice Score The achievement component is based on school-level measures Final Evaluation scores are a weighted combination of PP & Achievement

Principal Professional Practice

Standard 1 3 Pts. Vision of Learning

Standard 2 3 Pts. Culture of Learning and Improvement

Standard 3 3 Pts. Safe & Effective Environment

Standard 4 3 Pts. Collaboration

Standard 5 3 Pts. Integrity, Fairness, and Ethics

Standard 6 3 Pts. Managing political, social, legal, and cultural contexts

Total PP Points: 18 Pts.

18 Pts. 0 Pts.




8 Pts.

44 %

15 Pts.

83 %


and (0 ≤ WES ≤ 100)

Category Weight Example

Professional Practice .67 72 Pts.

Achievement Growth .33 62 Pts.

Weighted Evaluation Score (WES) 69 Total Pts.

(.67)*72 + (.33)*62 = 69 WES

Principal: Achievement Component (School-Level)

Principal: Final Combined Weighted Evaluation Score (WES)

62 Evaluation pts.

Performance Level Descriptors:

• The above method constructs a vector of weighted evaluation scores attributed to teachers* , grades, & schools

• The final distribution of WES scores still requires interpretive description

• Example: What WES signifies ‘Highly Effective’ versus ‘Not Effective’

Weighted Evaluation Scores (WES)

0 Pts. 100 Pts.

Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective

Questions and Comments

Non-Equal Segmentation

Equal Segmentation

Final Step: Assignment of Descriptive Performance Rating

Next Step: Student Achievement (Growth) Component

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Value-Added Framework of Effectiveness Modeling

Scatterplot of AIMS Prior to AIMS Current scale scores

AIMS Prior Reading Scale Score

AIM

S Cu

rren

t Rea

ding

Sca

le S

core

500

R2010 = 121.77 + .7707(R2009) R2 = .6899

507: Predicted Level

Students Above Predicted

Students Below Predicted

Exceeded Expectation

Below Expectation

Value-Added

Transforming Data into Teacher (Classroom) Effectiveness Metrics Student Class Actual Predicted Difference

1 A 562 539 23 4 A 408 441 -33 7 A 457 463 -6

10 A 582 576 6 13 A 525 515 10 16 A 539 539 0 19 A 511 457 54 22 A 561 548 13 25 A 522 509 13 28 A 516 505 11 31 A 545 530 15 34 A 580 527 53 37 A 623 581 42 40 A 552 523 29 43 A 591 581 10 46 A 545 539 6

2 B 403 401 2 5 B 503 515 -12 8 B 523 530 -7 11 B 474 492 -18 14 B 489 498 -9 17 B 433 436 -3 20 B 495 498 -3 23 B 499 496 3 26 B 477 483 -6 29 B 553 554 -1 32 B 523 523 0 35 B 492 492 0 38 B 568 566 2 41 B 636 636 0 44 B 637 636 1 47 B 503 509 -6

3 C 449 457 -8 6 C 445 470 -25 9 C 568 582 -14

12 C 495 509 -14 15 C 490 559 -69 18 C 392 437 -45 21 C 523 530 -7 24 C 432 443 -11 27 C 466 486 -20 30 C 418 433 -15 33 C 513 523 -10 36 C 432 443 -11 39 C 637 636 1 42 C 540 544 -4 45 C 518 527 -9 48 C 600 607 -7

Student Class/Teacher Actual Score Predicted Score Difference (Actual – Predicted) Gain/Loss Indicator

Teacher/Classroom A

Teacher/Classroom B

Teacher/Classroom C

Average Gain/Loss: -4

Average Gain/Loss: -17

Average Gain/Loss: +15

Relative Effectiveness

More ‘Effective’

Less ‘Effective’

Expected Performance



Next Step: Student Achievement (Growth) Component

Derive an achievement ‘growth score’ for every student (Value-Added Model)

Compute the growth within each classroom

Multiple achievement measures will be equally weighted when forming the single composite classroom score

Example: Reading & Math growth scores are combined to create a Composite Growth Score for that classroom.

Transform the Growth Scores to a percentile scale

7.68 Pts.

17th %’ile

12.33 Pts.

84th %’ile



Equal Segmentation


• The above method constructs a vector of weighted evaluation scores attributed to individual teachers*

• The final distribution of WES scores across all teachers still requires interpretive description


• Statistical and methodological factors do not explicitly inform where these ‘standards’ should be placed

(*) Additional computation details are required to adjust for Group B teachers based on school-wide RG measures

Adjustments for Group B (School-Based) Evaluations

• The same basic formulation holds for Group B teachers

• Sixty-seven percent of the evaluation score is based on Professional Practice, 33 percent on achievement measures

• The achievement component cannot be computed at the individual level (due to lack of suitable measures)

Computational Issue:

• Any school-level vector of achievement scores will be limited to n=24 (schools)

• This makes transformation to a percentile scale less appropriate

Solution:

Create a norming scale that is based on the same information used for Group A teachers which may be used to place school-level achievement

Equalizing Adjustment Factors by Domain Score

Table 1. Equal-Weighting Adjustments to Danielson’s Professional Practice (PP) Domain Scores

Domain Raw

Score Raw

Percent Desired Percent

Desired Raw

Adj. Factor

D1 18 0.273 0.25 16.5 -0.083 D2 15 0.227 0.25 16.5 0.100 D3 15 0.227 0.25 16.5 0.100 D4 18 0.273 0.25 16.5 -0.083

66 1.00 1.00 66.00

X-Domain Avg.: 16.5 Derivation of PP domain adjustment factors: D1 & D4: 18 + 18 (x) = 16.5 ⇒ x= -0.083 D2 & D3: 15 + 15 (x) = 16.5 ⇒ x = +0.100

Scoring Adjustment equation: [D1 + D1 (-.083)] + [D2 + D2 (.100)] + [D3 + D3 (.100)] + [D4 + D4 (-.083)] = Adjusted PP Score

D1 D2 D3 D4


Equal Segmentation


• The above method constructs a vector of weighted evaluation scores attributed to teachers* , grades, & schools

• The final distribution of WES scores still requires interpretive description


• Statistical and methodological factors do not explicitly inform where these ‘standards’ should be placed

(*) Additional computation details are required to adjust for Group B teachers based on school-wide RG measures

Special Education Presented to Dysart Unified School District Governing Board June 6, 2012

APPENDIX C

Law and Policy • Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

• IDEIA, first passed as Public Law 94-142 in 1975, governs all processes and procedures for Special Education.

• Reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEIA) in 2004.

• Current written regulation can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 34 CFR 300

• FAPE/LRE • General provisions of IDEIA require that Local Education Agencies

(LEAs) provide a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

• As an LEA, the IDEIA guides Dysart’s policy and processes • Dysart Special Education Handbook may be found at

http://intranet.dysart.org/EdServices/sped.html

Identification Processes • Response to Intervention

• First step to identification • Tiered interventions in general education

• Multidisciplinary Teams • When RtI process indicates possible need for additional support • Decisions about when students will be evaluated for identification and what

assessment tools will be used are made through a multidisciplinary team process. Parents may request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) if they are not satisfied with the district evaluation.

• The Multidisciplinary Team is made up of individuals with knowledge of the child and qualifications to conduct evaluations and determine eligibility under one of the 16 categories of disability within the IDEIA.

• The Team must consist of not less than one general education teacher, not less than one special education teacher, someone to interpret testing results, an LEA representative and the parent. Other members of the team are included as needed. Parents may invite others who have knowledge of the child including outside agency representatives and advocates.

IEP Processes • Once a student is determined to be eligible, the same

multidisciplinary team meets to develop an IEP (Individual Education Plan).

• The plan identifies the present levels of performance, learning goals, accommodations, special considerations and services for the student and Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).

• The IEP is reviewed and revised at least annually. The review includes the student progress and new goals and services as needed.

• The student’s case manager coordinates services. • Parents may decide to employ the services of an advocate for

various reasons. Advocates may remain with the parent for a period of time or may only be present briefly. We do not track the number of parents utilizing the services of an advocate.

Special Education Staff • Staff who are specifically designated as “Special Education

Staff” who provide services to students are: • Special Education Teacher/Instructional Assistants: Includes

Teacher of the Hearing Impaired, Teacher of the Visually Impaired and Adaptive P.E. Teachers

• Speech Language Pathologist/Speech Language Pathology Assistant

• Occupational Therapist/Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant • Physical Therapist/Physical Therapy Assistant • School Psychologist • Audiologist • Social Worker

Certified/Licensed Staff by the Numbers Special Education Teachers

135.5

Special Education Teachers

128.0

Teacher of the Hearing Impaired

1.0

Teacher of the Visually Impaired

1.0

A.P.E. Teachers 5.0

Homebound Teacher

.5

Preschool Teachers

20.0

Total 135.5

Related Services

Occupational Therapists

9.0

Physical Therapists

6.0

Speech Language Pathologists

30.0

Social Workers 3.0

School Psychologists

17

Audiologist 1.0

Special Education Numbers • Total Number of students receiving Special Education Services

in Dysart District Schools and Programs.

•3,499

Special Education Categories • Multiple Disability/Severe Sensory Impairment MDSSI • Multiple Disability MD • Traumatic Brain Injury TBI • Speech Language Impaired SLI • Specific Learning Disability SLD • Severe Intellectual Disability SID • Developmental Delay DD • Preschool Severe Delay PSD • Orthopedic Impairment OI • Other Health Impaired OHI • Visual Impairment VI • Moderate Intellectual Disability MoID • Mild Intellectual Disability MiID • Hearing Impaired HI • Emotional Disability ED • Autism A

256

203

26

117

56

8

213

11

199

280

14

1357

701

12

30

24

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Autism

ED

HI

MID

MOID

VI

OHI

OI

PSD

DD

SID

SLD

SLI

TBS

MD

MDSSI

Number of Students in District per Eligibility Category

Students in district

How are we doing? 2011-2012 Results Indicators

Reading

SPED_Cat_ Reduced 1 2 3 4

Grand Total

A 25% 34% 35% 6% 100%

ED 28% 37% 36% 0% 100%

MD 0% 67% 33% 0% 100%

MIMR 79% 18% 3% 0% 100%

OHI 16% 47% 37% 1% 100%

OTHER 20% 36% 36% 8% 100%

SLD 34% 47% 19% 0% 100%

SLI 1% 22% 60% 17% 100%

Grand Total 29% 42% 26% 2% 100%

SPED_Cat_ Reduced FFB AS MS ES

Grand Total

A 19% 18% 62% 1% 100% DD 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% ED 32% 17% 48% 3% 100% MD 0% 25% 75% 0% 100% MIMR 76% 5% 19% 0% 100% MOMR 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% OHI 19% 25% 53% 3% 100% OTHER 17% 24% 55% 3% 100% SLD 35% 29% 36% 0% 100% SLI 4% 8% 73% 15% 100% Grand Total 28% 23% 46% 3% 100%

AIMS Scores 2011 2012 3d Benchmarks

Math SPED_Cat_ Reduced 1 2 3 4

Grand Total

A 47% 20% 26% 8% 100%

ED 52% 17% 26% 5% 100%

MD 75% 25% 0% 0% 100%

MIMR 91% 6% 3% 0% 100%

OHI 64% 20% 14% 2% 100%

OTHER 46% 19% 19% 15% 100%

SLD 65% 22% 12% 2% 100%

SLI 12% 19% 43% 27% 100%

Grand Total 59% 20% 16% 5% 100%

SPED_Cat_ Reduced FFB AS MS ES

Grand Total

A 30% 19% 27% 24% 100%

DD 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%

ED 49% 15% 19% 16% 100%

MD 50% 25% 25% 0% 100%

MIMR 81% 19% 0% 0% 100%

MOMR 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%

OHI 38% 21% 29% 12% 100%

OTHER 28% 7% 38% 28% 100%

SLD 47% 17% 26% 10% 100%

SLI 9% 8% 34% 50% 100%

Grand Total 40% 16% 26% 18% 100%

AIMS Scores 2011 2012 3d Benchmarks

READ 180 Results

An analysis was performed from data for 21 schools that used READ 180 and System 44 during the 2011-2012 school year.

Evidence of Success: • 170 of 399 READ 180 students (43%) had 2.0 + years of reading gain during the time frame. • 231 of 399 READ 180 students (58%) had 1.0 + years of reading gain. • 17 READ 180 schools had at least 1.0+ years of reading gain. • 31 of 154 System 44 students (20%) had 4.0+ points in SPI fluency gains • 39 of 154 System 44 students (25%) had 1.0+ years of reading gain as measured by SRI

Discussion Items: • Students with the most System 44 Series completed demonstrated the greatest Lexile gains.

Co-Teaching 2011-2012 Elementary Grade levels represented in co-taught classrooms

*1st grade Math & Reading *2nd grade Math & Reading *3rd grade Reading *4th grade Math & Reading *5th grade Math & Reading *6th grade Reading

Developmental Growth Increases • 46% of co-taught classrooms experienced higher levels of growth

than their sites • Average Growth of Co-Taught Classroom 184.5 points

• Average growth of sites

192 points *Growth measured by District Benchmarks

Gifted Education Services

Dysart Program Services • K-8 Individual Learning Plans (ILP’s)

• Identify students’ strengths, needs, interests • Include tiered lessons, compacting, flexible grouping,

social/emotional needs • Cluster Grouping

• Recognized nationally for implementation of the cluster model through NAGC Conference presentations, representation on national experts’ network of leading cluster grouping districts

• Model enfranchises all gifted students • Self-contained Program

• Select students, grades 3-8 • 9-12 Honors, International Baccalaureate, Cambridge,

Dual Enrollment & Advanced Placement

Data on Gifted Students 1. 11,283 students in grade 3- 8 who have valid 2011 AIMS Reading

Scale Scores

2. 448 identified to be in Gifted program in SY2011-12

AIMS Reading • As shown, all of the SY2011-12 gifted students scored in either the

Meets or Exceeds levels of the 2011 AIMS Reading Test

Gifted_SY201112 FFB App Meets Exceeds Grand Total Gifted 192 256 448

Non-Gifted 537 1675 7452 1171 10835 Grand Total 537 1675 7644 1427 11283

Percent distribution of Gifted & Non-Gifted AIMS Reading Performance Levels is provided below:

Gifted_SY201112 FFB APP Meets Exceeds Grand Total Gifted 43% 57% 100%

Non-Gifted 5% 15% 69% 11% 100% Grand Total 5% 15% 68% 13% 100%

As shown, 57% percent of all Gifted students attained the Exceeds level on AIMS Reading, compared to only 11% of non-gifted students. Overall passing rates were 100% for Gifted students and 80 percent for Non-Gifted.

AIMS Mathematics • There are 11,279 students in grade 3 through 8 who have valid 2011 AIMS

Math Scale Scores • Of those, 448 are identified to be in the DUSD Gifted program in SY2011-12

based on the Master List provided by the Gifted Services Department • The distribution of AIMS Math Performance Levels for Gifted and Non-Gifted

students is provided below:

Gifted_SY201112 FFB APP Meets Exceeds Grand Total Gifted 1 48 399 448

Non-Gifted 1655 1829 4429 2918 10831 Grand Total 1655 1830 4477 3317 11279

As shown, 89% percent of all Gifted students attained the Exceeds level on AIMS Math, compared to only 27% of non-gifted students. Overall passing rates were 100% for Gifted students and 68 percent for Non-Gifted.

Gifted_SY201112 1 2 3 4 Grand Total Gifted 11% 89% 100%

Non-Gifted 15% 17% 41% 27% 100% Grand Total 15% 16% 40% 29% 100%

Gifted Self Contained AIMS Reading There are a total of 22 Grade 3 – 8 students in the database with valid 2011 AIMS Reading Scores compared to 426 Gifted in non-self-contained classrooms (based on student designations provided by the Gifted Services Department)

Count Category Total

Self-Contained 22 Not Self-Contained 426

Grand Total 448

The simple average 2011 Math Scale Score for Gifted students in self-contained settings was 476 compared with 481 for students in non-self-contained settings

Average Category Average Read SS


Grand Total 565

However, the analysis shows that there is no statistical difference between these two means ( t = .654, different variances, reject @ p = .05)

Gifted Self Contained AIMS Math

There are a total of 22 Grade 3 – 8 students in the database with valid 2011 AIMS Mathematics Scores compared to 426 Gifted in non-self-contained classrooms (based on student designations provided by the Gifted Services Department

The simple average 2011 Math Scale Score for Gifted students in self-contained settings was 476 compared with 481 for students in non-self-contained settings

Count Category Total


Grand Total 448

Category Average Math SS Self-Contained 476

Not Self-Contained 481 Grand Total 481

However, the analysis shows that there is no statistical difference between these two means ( t = .574, different variances, reject @ p = .05)

Rationale for changing the Self-contained Program • Low registration

• Lack of appeal

• Transportation cost

• District pays for transportation across the district with no state funding.

• Inequitable class sizes • Program staffing is inconsistent with district-wide class sizes

• AIMS Data indicating no statistical difference in overall scoring.

Some advantages of the Cluster Grouping Model

• Grouping all gifted children in a regular classroom provides social, emotional, and academic advantages to students

• Teachers can focus instruction to better meet all students’ academic needs

• Schools provide full-time gifted services with few additional costs

Gifted teacher support in Dysart

• Gifted specialists at each school • Responsible for developing ILPs and supporting

cluster teachers

• Inservices provided at district and site level • Teachers attend AAGT State Gifted

Conference • Workshops, both in and outside of district

Recommendation Overview for 2012-2013

Transitional program for Canyon Ridge Starting with summer testing – no new

students to self-contained Prepare to change self-contained program for implementation Fall 2013 Self-contained will become

replacement and enrichment pull out in home school

Change the self-contained program (Fall 2013)

• Cluster Grouping Model for students grades 1-3 • Content replacement for mathematics and reading grades 4-

6 on a daily basis for SY 2013-14 • Qualify gifted verbal for reading & writing • Qualify gifted nonverbal/quantitative for math • Qualify both areas for reading, writing and math

• Replacement program attributes • Gifted specialist provides instruction using hybrid model

blending online and direct instruction • Online coursework available from institutions like John

Hopkins, Stanford and Northwestern Universities • Gifted specialists provide replacement instruction and

continue to support ILPs

Strategic Plan Update Safety and Wellness

Goal F: Design and implement a plan to address

school safety issues.

APPENDIX D

Objective 23: Assess and prioritize safety and wellness issues to be addressed

Current Status – Prioritized safety and wellness as follows:

Topic Priority

911 calls Student Illness

Facility Issues/Other

Student Injury

Safe Schools Hotline Bullying

Parent Concerns Administration

Teacher/Staff

Bullying

Customer Service


Current Status – Prioritized safety and wellness as follows:

Topic Priority

Student Discipline (2010 - 2012)

Tardies

Defiance

Dress Code

Attendance/Truancy

Electronic Device

Disruption

Physical Aggression

Disrespect

Insubordination

Fighting


Additional data:

– Athletic injuries – Health office injuries – Health office visits – Parent Concerns – Student Services,

Food Services, Transportation, Community Education, Special Education, Athletics

– Surveys – Bullying, SS/HS, S3 – Insurance Claims – Prevention Counseling Data Program – CPS reports – Bullying reports

Objective 24: Design and implement training opportunities with a focus on prioritized District wellness and safety issues impacting staff, parent/community and students

Current Status – Developed numerous PSAs – Trained Pod Leaders – Developing online video library – Facilitating summer work on

program development – Providing summer training

opportunities – Providing administrator training – Collaborating with other

departments

Objective 25: Implement training on District adopted emergency response National Incident Management System (NIMS) protocol.

• Current Status - 100% of district

staff and 100% of school administration and school ICS personnel trained.

• Current Status – working on plan for the 2012-2013 to train new staff and to design a more comprehensive training plan for school sites.

Questions?