HART
COUNTY
SCHOOLS
2014-2015
Certified 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 2:
Classroom
Environment
Domain 1:
Planning &
Preparation
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Demonstrating Knowledge of Content
and Pedagogy
i.
Knowledge of Content and
the Structure of the
Discipline
ii.
Knowledge of Prerequisite
Relationships
iii.
Knowledge of ContentRelated Pedagogy
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
Selecting Instructional Outcomes
i.
Value, Sequence, and
Alignment
ii.
Clarity
iii.
Balance
iv.
Suitability for Diverse
Learners
Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
i.
Resources for Classroom
Use
ii.
Resources to Extend
Content Knowledge and
Pedagogy
iii.
Resources for Students
Designing Coherent Instruction
i.
Learning Activities
ii.
Instructional Materials and
Resources
iii.
Instructional Groups
iv.
Lesson and Unit Structure
Designing Student Assessment
i.
Congruence with
Instructional Outcomes
ii.
Criteria and Standards
iii.
Design of Formative
Assessments
iv.
Use for Planning
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Creating an Environment of Respect
and Rapport
i.
Teacher Interaction with
Students
ii.
Student Interactions with
One Another
Establishing a Culture for Learning
i.
Importance of the Content
ii.
Expectations for Learning
and Achievement
iii.
Student Pride in Work
Managing Classroom Procedures
i.
Management of
Instructional Groups
ii.
Management of Transitions
iii.
Management of Materials
and Supplies
iv.
Performance of NonInstructional Duties
v.
Supervision of Volunteers
and Paraprofessionals
Managing Student Behavior
i.
Expectations
ii.
Monitoring of Student
Behavior
iii.
Response to Student
Misbehavior
Organizing Physical Space
i.
Safety and Accessibility
ii.
Arrangement of Furniture
and Use of Physical
Resources
Domain 4:
Professional
Responsibilities
Domain 3:
Instruction
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Communicating with Students
i.
Expectations for Learning
ii.
Directions and Procedures
iii.
Explanation of Content
iv.
Use of Oral and Written
Language
Using Questioning and Discussion
Techniques
i.
Quality of Questions
ii.
Discussion Techniques
iii.
Student Participation
Engaging Students in Learning
i.
Activities and Assignments
ii.
Grouping of Students
iii.
Instructional Materials and
Resources
iv.
Structure and Pacing
Using Assessment in Instruction
i.
Assessment Criteria
ii.
Monitoring of Student
Learning
iii.
Feedback to Students
iv.
Student Self-Assessment
and Monitoring of Progress
Demonstrating Flexibility and
Responsiveness
i.
Lesson Adjustment
ii.
Response to Students
iii.
Persistence
Appendix A
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Reflecting on Teaching
i.
Accuracy
ii.
Use in Future Teaching
Maintaining Accurate Records
i.
Student Completion of
Assignments
ii.
Student Progress in Learning
iii.
Non-Instructional Records
Communicating with Families
i.
Information About the
Instructional Program
ii.
Information About Individual
Students
iii.
Engagement of Families in the
Instructional Program
Participating in a Professional Community
i.
Relationships with Colleagues
ii.
Involvement in a Culture of
Professional Inquiry
iii.
Service to the School
iv.
Participation in School and
District Projects
Growing and Developing Professionally
i.
Enhancement of Content
Knowledge and Pedagogical Skill
ii.
Receptivity to Feedback from
Colleagues
iii.
Service to the Profession
Demonstrating Professionalism
i.
Integrity and Ethical Conduct
ii.
Service to Students
iii.
Advocacy
iv.
Decision Making
v.
Compliance with School and
District Regulations
ELEMENTS OF OUR CEP:
PROFESSIONAL GROWTH & EFFECTIVENESS SYSTEM
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
PGP &
Self-Reflection
Student Voice
Survey
Peer Observation
Staff Data
Notebook
STUDENT GROWTH GOAL
Local Growth
Goal
State Growth
Goal
Evaluator
Observations (3)
Basis for 2014-2015 personnel decisions
Implemented but not used for personnel decisions
Implemented 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*
MOTTO:
“Try to live in
Accomplished
but visit
Exemplary.”
 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
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 ACCOMPLISHED
domains are rated ACCOMPLISHED
Two domains are rated DEVELOPING AND two
domains are rated EXEMPLARY
ACCOMPLISHED
Two domains are rated ACCOMPLISHED AND EXEMPLARY
two domains are rated 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.)
Appendix B: Student Growth Goal Development Protocol
STRUCTURE:
Focus on student standards
Acceptable
Focuses on a standards-based enduring skill
Needs Revision
Focuses on a standards-based skill that is not enduring OR
does not address a standards-based skill
Identifies an area of need pertaining
to current students’ abilities
Identifies a specific area of need supported by current
student data
Fails to address a specific need OR identifies a specific area
of need without the support of current student data
Includes clear, specific and separate
targets for growth and proficiency for
ALL students
Includes a growth target for the desired level of
individual progress for ALL students and an overall
proficiency target for the student group
Does not include separate targets for growth and proficiency
or fails to include expected levels of performance
Uses appropriate data collection
methods for base line, mid-point, and
end of goal measurements
All three measures included and methods appropriately
align with the skill being assessed
Does not include provisions for three measurements or
methods not aligned with skill being assessed
Specifically states appropriate
interval of instruction
Specifies year-long/course-long interval of instruction
Specifies less than a year-long/course-long interval of
instruction or interval not included
RIGOR:
Congruent to the KCAS
Acceptable
Consistent with the KCAS and is appropriate for the
grade level and content area
Needs Revision
Not consistent with the KCAS or not appropriate for the
grade level and/or content area
Valid and reliable measures for
student performance
Intended measures enable students to validly
demonstrate skill attainment or performance over time
Intended measures enable students to demonstrate
attainment or performance of only part of the standard(s)
being assessed; or measures lack validity or reliability
Growth and proficiency targets
appropriately challenge students
Includes growth and proficiency targets that are
challenging but attainable with appropriate support
Fails to include both growth and proficiency targets that
adequately challenge students
DATA COMPARABILITY:
Data collection methods enable
comparison of student progress
across similar classrooms
Acceptable
Consistent measures/rubrics will be used to measure
student performance on the standard(s) being addressed
across similar classrooms
Needs Revision
Does not reflect the use of consistent measures/rubrics to
measure student performance on the standard(s) being
addressed across similar classrooms
SO, HOW DO I GET A RATING FOR
STUDENT GROWTH?
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.
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).
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:
State Growth
Goal (Percentile)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Average
62
69
75
68.7
Local Growth Goal
(Percentage of Proficiency and Growth Averaged
Together)
69
72
81
74
Three-Year State Average (68.7) x 40% = 27.48
Three-Year Local Average (74) x 60% = 44.4
27.48 + 44.4 = 71.88 (Developing)
SO, HOW DO I GET A RATING FOR
OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY?
WITH A
Professional Practice Rating
of …
Exemplary
Accomplished
Developing
Ineffective
AND A
Student Growth Goal
Rating of…
THE
Overall Performance
Category is…
Exemplary or Accomplished
EXEMPLARY
Developing or Ineffective
ACCOMPLISHED
Exemplary
EXEMPLARY
Accomplished or Developing
Ineffective
ACCOMPLISHED
Exemplary
ACCOMPLISHED
Accomplished, Developing or
Ineffective
DEVELOPING
Exemplary
DEVELOPING
Accomplished, Developing or
Ineffective
INEFFECTIVE
NOTE: For 2014-2015, only
the “Professional Practice
Rating” column shall be used
for evaluation purposes.
DEVELOPING
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