Professional Growth and
Effectiveness System
Certified Evaluation Plan Training
5
•
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 Voice
Lunch
• Student Growth
• Overall Rating
• Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness
• Next Steps






Current CEP
PGES Model CEP
PGES Checklist
Expertise of 50/50 Committee
PGES Consultants
KLA/ISLN
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
5
Teacher Professional Growth and
Effectiveness System
5
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
KENTUCKY PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFECTIVENESS MODEL
SOURCES OF
EVIDENCE TO
INFORM
PROFESSONAL
PRACTICE
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
DOMAIN RATINGS
Observation
Student Voice
Professional Growth
Plans and Self
Reflection
Other: DistrictDetermined
PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT &
INSTRUMENTS
STUDENT GROWTH
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT
GROWTH
State Contribution – Student Growth Percentiles
(SGPs)
• State-Defined High/Expected/Low
• 3 Year of Data
AND
DOMAIN 1: Planning and Preparation
DOMAIN 2: Classroom Environment
DOMAIN 3: Instruction
DOMAIN 4: Professional responsibilities
GROWTH
PLAN AND
CYCLE
PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT &
STATEDETERMINED
DECISION RULES
GROWTH
PLANNING
MATRIX
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & DISTRICTDETERMINED DECISION RULES
Local Contribution – Student Growth Goals
(SGGs)
• District-Defined High/Expected/Low
• 3 Year of Data
KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814
PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE
RATING
PERCENT (%)
EFFECTIVE
TEACHERS
PROFESSIONAL
JUDGEMENT AND
STATEDETERMINED
DECISION RULES
STUDENT
GROWTH TREND
RATING (H/E/L)
OVERALL
PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY
9
Informing
Professional Practice
5







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



Realistic
Focused
Measurable
Multiple Sources of Data
 Classroom
Observation Feedback
 Student Growth/Achievement
 Self-Assessment
 Reflection
• Instructional
Planning
• Lesson
Implementation
• Content
Knowledge
• Beliefs
• Dispositions
Monitored
through
Pre-determined
Methods
Articulated as
Specific Goals
Organized
PGP
Outcomes of
Self-Reflection
Contextualize in a
Support
Framework
(pg. 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?
5
5



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)
OPTION A
OPTION B
OPTION C


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.


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.
 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)
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?

5
 Districts
will provide
conferencing
requirements for their teachers
and observers.
◦ 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

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)

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

Evaluators must complete the
Teachscape Proficiency Observation
Training

Three sections:
Framework for Teaching Observer Training
Framework for Teaching Scoring Practice
Framework for Teaching Proficiency
Assessment
 Test
divided into two stages
 If a stage is not passed on the first
attempt, must wait 24 hours before
retaking
Year 1
Certification
Year 2
Calibration
Year 3
Calibration
Year 4
Certification
Teachscape, the current approved technology platform, must be used for
certification and calibration.
 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
 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)

Discuss with your team how the district will
support Observation Certification and
procedures to maintain certification.
5

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.
 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
Selection/Assignment at the
District Level
Examples include:
 NBCT Cadre
 Content Specialists
Selection/Assignment
at the School Level
Examples include:
 Teacher Leaders
Selection/Assignment
at the Teacher Level
Examples include:
 Trusted Peers
 PLC Team Members
 pool selected at the district  pool selected at the  pool self-selected at
level,
school level,
the school level,
 assigned to
 assigned to teachers  teachers select their
teachers/schools at the
at the school level,
own Peer Observer
district level, or
or
 may simply be a pool of
 may simply be a
Peer Observers from which
pool of Peer
schools/teachers may
Observers from
choose
which teachers may
choose




Talk about Peer Observers
* Selection and Training
* Number of Peer Observations
* Peer Observation Model
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
5
Student Voice Survey Guide
Please refer to Student Voice Survey
Guide for complete details.
5

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.

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.

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.
District Decisions
Identify the Point of Contact
Determine the number of sections per
teacher
Develop a plan to provide
accommodations to students for equal
access.
5
Student Growth
5
Student 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 Goals
The 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.
of Student Growth Goals

Rigor means congruency to the standards.
Sources
of
Evidence
True
intent of
the
Standards



Congruent with KCAS grade level and content
Enduring skills, understandings, processes or
concepts
Allows all students to demonstrate knowledge
and growth

The district must include the degree to which the
goal and the assessments meet the SGG criteria.
OPTION A: Rigor Rubric
OPTION B: Peer-Review and/or Jury Process
OPTION C: District-Defined Option

The [peer-review] [jury] process will be used by all
teachers prior to final approval of the SGG.
Vertical content-area PL Teams
Grade-level PL teams
District-Level Content Coaches
Multi-District Content-Area Teacher Teams

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.
Discuss with your team the required number
of SGGs for teachers .
 Describe the process for determining rigor of
SGG.

5
Student Growth Goals

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.


Administration
Protocol
Scoring Process
SAMPLE
Assessment
Design Process
Professional Learning
Teams—
Analyze
◦ standards
◦ assessments
◦ student work and
other student data

Work with your team to describe how
comparability of SGG and Assessments will
be met.
5
Single Student Growth Goal


SMART process for goals
Options for rating low, expected or high growth:
 Pre-Test/Post-Test
 Repeated Measures Design
 Holistic Evaluation
Assessment
over
content
standards
Assessment
over
content
standards
Same
assessment
over
content
standards
Identical Assessments
Comparable
Assessment
over
content
standards
Comparable Assessments
Assessment
Assessment
Assessment
Assessment Assessment
Assessment
over content
over content
Assessment
over content Assessment
over content over content
Assessment
over
content
standards
standards
Assessment standards
over content
standards over content
standards
over content
standards
Assessment
over content
standards
standards
standards
over content
standards
standards
Teacher & Principal
analyze formative assessment data
Trends and
patterns
Determine growth over time



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.
• Pre-Test/Post-Test
• Repeated Measures Design
• Holistic Evaluation
Collaborative process of data analysis using
aCalculation
district-developed
rubric
Collaborative
process
data
analysis using
usingofcut
scores
a district-developed rubric & calculated cut
scores
This process must be applied across all teachers and schools
within the district.

Discuss with your team how the district will
determine high/expected/low growth
5
District Decisions
Determine the number of SGGs for
teachers.
Ensure rigor and comparability of SGG
and Assessments
Determine high/expected/low growth
5
Overall Performance Rating
5
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 Practice
Scenario 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 Practice
Scenario for Mr. Thomas
Teacher
Domain
Ratings
Domain 1: Prep and Planning
A
Domain 2: Classroom Environment
D
Domain 3: Instruction
D
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
A
• 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.
Decision Rules for Determining
Professional Practice
Domain
Ranking
Domain 1
Accomplished
Domain 2
Developing
Domain 3
Developing
Domain 4
Accomplished
Domain
Ranking
Domain 1
Domain 2
Domain 3
Domain 4
Exemplary
Exemplary
Accomplished
Ineffective
Domain
Ranking
Domain 1
Exemplary
Domain 2
Exemplary
Domain 3
Accomplished
Domain 4
Ineffective
Domain
Ranking
Domain 1
Domain 2
Domain 3
Domain 4
Ineffective
Developing
Developing
Ineffective
Option:
You could leave the
chart as is and leave
to the discretion of
the principal.
Domain
Ranking
Domain 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.
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 Judgment
C) A combination of both A and B
Overall Student Growth Rating
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
KENTUCKY PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFECTIVENESS MODEL
SOURCES OF
EVIDENCE TO
INFORM
PROFESSONAL
PRACTICE
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
DOMAIN RATINGS
Observation
Student Voice
Professional Growth
Plans and Self
Reflection
Other: DistrictDetermined
PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT &
INSTRUMENTS
STUDENT GROWTH
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT
GROWTH
State Contribution – Student Growth Percentiles
(SGPs)
• State-Defined High/Expected/Low
• 3 Year of Data
AND
DOMAIN 1: Planning and Preparation
DOMAIN 2: Classroom Environment
DOMAIN 3: Instruction
DOMAIN 4: Professional responsibilities
GROWTH
PLAN AND
CYCLE
PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT &
STATEDETERMINED
DECISION RULES
GROWTH
PLANNING
MATRIX
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & DISTRICTDETERMINED DECISION RULES
Local Contribution – Student Growth Goals
(SGGs)
• District-Defined High/Expected/Low
• 3 Year of Data
KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814
PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE
RATING
PERCENT (%)
EFFECTIVE
TEACHERS
PROFESSIONAL
JUDGEMENT AND
STATEDETERMINED
DECISION RULES
STUDENT
GROWTH TREND
RATING (H/E/L)
OVERALL
PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY
81
Rating Student Growth
Ratings will fall into one of the
following three categories
Low
Expected
High
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 Growth
Sample Set of Growth Data
What level would this teacher rate? Why?
Ms. Gilpin’s Student Growth Data
State Test
Local Goal
2015-2016
2014-2015
Expected
Low
High
Expected
2013-2014
Expected
Expected
How Would You Rate Ms. Hoskins?
Why?
Ms. Hoskin’s Student Growth Data
2015-2016
2014-2015
2013-2014
State Test
Low
Low
Low
Local Goal
Expected
Expected
Expected
How Would You Rate Ms. Lee? Why?
Ms. Lee’s Student Growth Data
2015-2016
2014-2015
2013-2014
Local Goal
High
High
Low
Questions to Consider
• 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?
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 Example
Mr. Watts’ Student Growth Data
State Test
2015-2016
2014-2015
2013-2014
Low=1
Local Goal
Yearly
Averages
Expected=2
2/1= 2
Expected=2
3/2 = 1.5
Low=1
1/1 = 1
.50(Y1A) + .30(Y2A) + .20(Y3A) = GT
.50(2) + .30(1.5) + .20(1) = GT
1 + .45 + .20 = 1.65
Final Rating?

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.
5
Overall Performance Category
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
KENTUCKY PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFECTIVENESS MODEL
SOURCES OF
EVIDENCE TO
INFORM
PROFESSONAL
PRACTICE
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
DOMAIN RATINGS
Observation
Student Voice
Professional Growth
Plans and Self
Reflection
Other: DistrictDetermined
PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT &
INSTRUMENTS
STUDENT GROWTH
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT
GROWTH
State Contribution – Student Growth Percentiles
(SGPs)
• State-Defined High/Expected/Low
• 3 Year of Data
AND
DOMAIN 1: Planning and Preparation
DOMAIN 2: Classroom Environment
DOMAIN 3: Instruction
DOMAIN 4: Professional responsibilities
GROWTH
PLAN AND
CYCLE
PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT &
STATEDETERMINED
DECISION RULES
GROWTH
PLANNING
MATRIX
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & DISTRICTDETERMINED DECISION RULES
Local Contribution – Student Growth Goals
(SGGs)
• District-Defined High/Expected/Low
• 3 Year of Data
KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814
PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE
RATING
PERCENT (%)
EFFECTIVE
TEACHERS
PROFESSIONAL
JUDGEMENT AND
STATEDETERMINED
DECISION RULES
STUDENT
GROWTH TREND
RATING (H/E/L)
OVERALL
PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY
See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY
91
Determining an Educator’s 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
COMPONENTS FOR DETERMINING OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN
EDUCATOR’S PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING
IF…
Domains 2 AND 3 are rated
INEFFECTIVE
THEN…
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
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S OVERALL STUDENT
GROWTH RATING
STUDENT GROWTH
RATING
LOW
EXPECTED
HIGH
KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814
CRITERIA
Overall Rating Category Criteria
MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S OVERALL
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE RATING
STUDENT
GROWTH TREND
RATING
OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
High OR Expected
EXEMPLARY
Low
ACCOMPLISHED
High
EXEMPLARY
Expected
ACCOMPLISHED
Low
DEVELOPING
High
ACCOMPLISHED
Expected OR Low
DEVELOPING
High
DEVELOPING
Expected OR Low
INEFFECTIVE
Exemplary
Accomplished
Developing
Ineffective
Applying the Criteria…
Ms. Seagraves
Professional Practice
Rating
Student Growth Rating
OVERALL
PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY
Accomplished
Expected
???
Mr. Holte
Professional Practice
Rating
Student Growth Rating
OVERALL
PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY
Developing
Low
???
Growth Planning Matrix
5
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 TEACHERS
THREE-YEAR CYCLE
SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN
 Goal set by educator with evaluator
input
 One goal must focus on low outcome
 Formative review annually
THREE-YEAR CYCLE
SELF-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.
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
THREE-YEAR CYCLE
SELF-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.
ACCOMPLISHED
DEVELOPING
INEFFECTIVE
PROFESIONAL PRACTICE RATING
EXEMPLARY
RATING
UP TO 12-MONTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN
• Goal Determined by evaluator
• Focus on low performance area
• Summative at end of plan
LOW
THREE-YEAR CYCLE
SELF-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
EXPECTED
HIGH
STUDENT GROWTH TREND RATING
KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814
98
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)
5
 The
CEP Model Plan
 The PPGES Guide (Draft)
 The District Current CEP Plan
(Confirm Plan Assurances)
Two Year Cycle of the PPGES
Where are we now?
Review Accountability and
ASSIST Goal Results & Set
SGG/PGP/Working Conditions
2-year Goal
End-of-Year Review with
Superintendent
2013/14
Administer Summative Val-Ed
Where Are you
In the Cycle?
Administer Formative Val-Ed
2013-14
Site-Visit by Superintendent
Site-Visit by Superintendent
Mid-Year Review with
Superintendent
Two Year Cycle of the PPGES
14/15
Review Accountability and
ASSIST Goal Results & Set
SGG/PGP/ & Update Working
Conditions 2-year Goal
End-of-Year Review with
Superintendent
Administer TELL SURVEY
Thinking Ahead
to 2014/15
2014-15
Site-Visit by Superintendent
Site-Visit by Superintendent
Mid-Year Review with
Superintendent
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.
1. Instructional Leadership
2. School Climate
3. Human Resources Management
4. Organizational Management
5. Communication and Community Relations
6. Professionalism
Sources of Evidence to Inform Professional
Practice (Standards Rating)
TELL Kentucky Survey (WC GOAL)
VAL-ED 360 Survey
Professional Growth Plan & Self-Reflection
Site Visits
Sources of Evidence to Inform Student Growth
(Student Growth Ratings)
State Contribution –(SGGs ) ASSIST/NGL Goal
Local Contribution-Based on School Needs-May
parallel state contribution.
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














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.
Exemplary
Accomplished
Developing
Ineffective
“Shall” have
a minimum
of a self“Shall” have a
directed
minimum of a
growth plan
directed growth plan “Shall” have
a minimum
of a selfdirected
growth plan
“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
“Shall”
have a minimum of a Corrective Action Plan
(Evaluator Directed)
Low Growth
Expected
Growth
High Growth
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
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
Did 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?
Did your table address these
ISSUES?






TELL SURVEY
# 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?
Did 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?


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.
District Decisions
Site Visits
Administration of Val-Ed 360
Working Conditions Goal based on TELL
Survey
Student Growth
5
Follow-Up Opportunities
Monday, March 10– ISLN; CEP Work Session
Friday, March 21— CEP Work Session
On-going CEP Plan Electronic Review
Considerations
• 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
5
Certified Evaluation Plan
Submission
teacherleader@education.ky.gov
5
5