Kankakee School District #111
Performance Evaluation Plan
Table of Contents
Evaluation Committee Process and Members…………………………………….………..…..3
Section 1: Introduction and Overview……………………………….………..….………..…..3
Section 2: Seven Common Themes, Beliefs and Commitments…………………………….…6
Section 3: Evaluation Instruments for Providers…………………………………………….…6
Section 4: Professional Practice Levels of Performance……………………………………….7
Section 5: Evaluation Summative Rating System………….................................................…..7
Section 6: Roles of Evaluators and Teachers in the Evaluation Process..……………………...8
Section 7: Glossary……………………………………………………………….…….………8
Section 8: Performance Evaluation Process……………………………………………..……12
Observation Documentation and Conference Steps………………………….…..…...14
Professional Development Plans and Remediation Plan…………...………….….…..17
Guide for Creating a Professional Development Plan…………………….....………..18
Guide for Creating a Remediation Plan……………………………………..……..….19
Phase-In Process for Kankakee……………………………………………….……….21
Section 9: RIF & Recall Teacher Groupings…………..…………………………….…….…..22
Appendix: Forms
Pre-Conference Form (Optional)…………………………………….………………………..24
Conversation Starters (Optional)………………………………….…………………………..26
Reflective Conversation Form (Optional)……………………….…………………………....27
Midpoint Conference Form……………………………………………………………………28
Performance Evaluation Summative Form for Non-Tenured Teachers…………………....…29
Performance Evaluation Summative Form for Tenured Teachers……………………….....…30
SMART Goals…………………………………………………………………………………35
SMART Goal Form…………………………………………………………………..38
Evidence of Completion of Goals ………………………………………………..….36
SMART Goal Form – Sample 1……………………………………………………...37
SMART Goal Form – Sample 2……..…………………………………………….…38
Suggested Forms of Evidence.………………………………………………………………..39
Evidence Tag (Optional)……………………………………………………………………...40
Professional Development Plan Form……………………..……………………………….…41
Remediation Plan Form………………………………………………………...……….……43
References:
PERA Statute: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/96/PDF/096-0861.pdf
PERA Implementation Guidance from ISBE:
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/PEAC/default.htm?col10=open#pera
Growth Through Learning: ISBE’s FAQs on PERA:
http://www.isbe.net/PERA/pdf/pera-faqs.pdf
Senate Bill 7 statute:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/97/097-0008.htm
2
Performance Evaluation Advisory Council
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/peac/html/faqs.htm
EVALUATION COMMITTEE PROCESS and MEMBERS
The Teacher Evaluation Instrument Revision Committee (TEIRC), which included leadership of the Kankakee
Federation of Teachers staff and school administration, developed this Teacher Evaluation Plan in 2011 and 2012.
The development process included ongoing communication with certified staff and professional development of both
certified staff and administration in order to be able to implement the plan with fidelity and transparency during the
2012-13 school year. Revisions were made in the 2013-14 school year by mutual consent.
Original Members of the Teacher Evaluation Instrument Committee:
Lisa Brown, Jeff Cox, Priscilla Dwyer, George Harris, Chuck Hensley, Michele Keiser, Mary Kilbride, Greg Merrill, Linda
Mitchell, Kathy Patchett, Matt Rusek, Sandy Schario, Christy Strole, and Beth Yacobi.
Kankakee School District #111 is grateful for the work of this committee. The committee will gather feedback and revise
the Performance Evaluation Tools and this manual as needed, together with administrators and teachers.
Section 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Quality performance evaluation is a collaborative, supportive effort. The purpose is not to inspect and criticize but to help
teachers hone their craft so that our students learn more, faster and better. This requires mutual trust. Just as students
improve when they have a trusting relationship with their teacher, teachers improve when they have a positive, trusting
relationship with their evaluator. It is therefore the evaluators’ responsibility to approach evaluation in a positive, helpful
and supportive manner, and the teachers’ responsibility to approach evaluation with the intention to improve instruction. If
the evaluator is critical and the teacher is defensive, there is less chance of improvement of outcomes for our students.
Healthy teamwork, where the evaluator is open and willing to help and the teacher is open and willing to improve,
improves the chances for success for all involved.
The Kankakee Performance Evaluation Plan focuses on evidence collected on the four domains of teaching as set forth in
Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, 2nd Edition, by Charlotte Danielson (see description
below). The TEIRC recognizes the role student growth plays in the evaluation process. The Committee reviewed recent
legislation enacted by the State of Illinois calling for student growth to be included in our teacher evaluation by 2015.
At this time, student growth is not part of the Kankakee Performance Evaluation Plan. Pursuant to the Performance
Evaluation Revision Act, during the 2013-14 school year, our PERA joint committee has developed the rules for measuring
growth and for how growth will be factored into teacher and provider evaluations. During the 2014-15 school year, our
plan will be piloted. During the 2015-16 school year, the new student growth model will be used for teacher and provider
evaluations.
“Bargaining unit members shall be evaluated according to the Teacher Evaluation Plan developed by the Teacher
Evaluation Instrument Revision Committee (TEIRC). The Plan shall be jointly reviewed at the request of either the Union
or the Administration.” (KFT Agreement, 2012-15)
Purposes of Evaluation


Promotes student learning through the highest quality of teaching, which includes a commitment to
continuous professional development, shared understanding of learning (professional growth) and collective
inquiry.
Develops each individual’s capacity for professional contribution to the team, building and district levels
3





Supports KSD #111 culture, vision and mission
Supports new teacher growth through a formative process within clearly defined expectations
Supports tenured teacher growth through a formative process that promotes collaborative inquiry and
examination of practice
Builds and fosters collaborative relationships among teachers and administrators
Validates the hiring/selection process during the probationary (non-tenure) period
Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching
nd
Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, 2 Edition, by Charlotte Danielson is the basis for the
Kankakee Performance Evaluation Plan. This framework for teaching is a research-based set of components of instruction
that are grounded in a constructivist view of learning and teaching. The framework is an invaluable tool to be used as the
foundation for professional conversations among practitioners as they seek to enhance their skill in the complex task of
teaching. Starting with the 2014-15 school year, we will use Charlotte Danielson’s 2013 versions of evaluation instruments
for all teachers and providers.
The framework will serve as the foundation of Kankakee’s recruitment and hiring, mentoring, coaching, professional
development, and teacher evaluation processes, thus linking all these activities together and helping teachers become more
thoughtful practitioners.
The actions teachers can take to improve student learning are clearly identified and fall under four domains of teaching
responsibility: Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities. Within
the domains are 22 components and 76 descriptive elements that further refine our understanding of what teaching is all
about, with four levels of performance for each element.
The Framework for Teaching is based on the Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessment criteria developed by
Educational Testing Service, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and is compatible with
INTASC standards.
4
Domain 1- Planning and Preparation
1a. Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
Knowledge of content and the structure of the discipline
Knowledge of prerequisite relationships
Knowledge of content-related pedagogy
1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
Knowledge of child and adolescent development
Knowledge of the learning process
Knowledge of students’ knowledge, and language proficiency
Knowledge of students’ interests and cultural heritage
Knowledge of students’ special needs
1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes
Value, sequence, and alignment
Clarity
Balance
Suitability for diverse learners
1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
Resources for classroom use
Resources to extend content knowledge and pedagogy
Resources for students
1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
Learning activities
Instructional materials and resources
Instructional groups
Lesson and unit structure
1f: Designing Student Assessments
Congruence with instructional outcomes
Criteria and standards
Design of formative assessments
Use for planning
Domain 4 – Professional
Responsibilities
4a: Reflecting on Teaching
Accuracy
Use in future teaching
4b: Maintaining Accurate Records
Student completion of assignments
Student progress in learning
Non-instructional records
4c: Communicating with Families
Information about the instructional program
Information about individual students
Engagement of families in the instructional program
4d: Contributing to the School District
Relationships with colleagues
Involvement in a culture of professional inquiry
Service to the school
Participation in school and district projects
4e: Growing and Developing Professionally
Enhancement of content knowledge and pedagogical skills
Receptivity to feedback from colleagues
Service to the profession
4f: Showing Professionalism
Integrity and ethical conduct
Service to students
Advocacy
Decision making
Compliance with school and district regulations
Domain 2-Classroom Environment
2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
Teacher interaction with students
Student interactions with other students
2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning
Importance of the content
Expectations for learning and achievement
Student pride in work
2c: Managing Classroom Procedures
Management of Instructional groups
Management of transitions
Management of materials and supplies
Performance of non-instructional duties
Supervision of volunteers and paraprofessionals
2d: Managing Student Behavior
Expectations
Monitoring of student behavior
Response to student misbehavior
2e: Organizing Physical Space
Safety and accessibility
Arrangement of furniture and use of physical resources
Domain 3 - Instruction
3a: Communicating with Students
Expectations for learning
Directions and procedures
Explanations of content
Use of oral and written language
3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Quality of questions
Discussion techniques
Student participation
3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Activities and assignments
Instructional materials and resources
Grouping of students
Structure and pacing
3d: Using Assessment in Instruction
Assessment criteria
Monitoring of student learning
Feedback to students
Student self-assessment and monitoring of progress
3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
Lesson adjustment
Response to students
Persistence
5
Section 2: SEVEN COMMON THEMES, BELIEFS & COMMITMENTS
Equity:
Creating a positive and respectful environment where ALL students feel valued will encourage open participation.
This includes creating enhanced opportunities for those who have been traditionally underserved to access stimulating
academic achievement. Teachers will not accept lower standards because of background or gender.
Cultural Competence:
A culture for learning is one in which the teacher has high expectations for students, believes all students have the
ability to learn and demonstrates confidence in them. Students internalize the teachers’ belief in them and develop
respect and rapport where they can feel safe to take risks. Students’ cultural background impacts their readiness to
learn, patterns of interaction and their behavior in school. Awareness of and respect for these cultural differences is
essential.
High Expectations:
Each student is capable of achieving high levels of learning based on his or her unique characteristics. Teachers are
committed to ensuring that each student will reach his or her full individual potential. Commitment, hard work,
dedication and perseverance are embedded in this concept for both students and teachers.
Developmental Appropriateness:
Students’ cognitive, social and emotional development affects how they engage in learning. The teacher differentiates
questions, strategies, and expected outcomes to address each individual student’s level of development.
Attention to Individual Students Including Those with Special Needs:
Teachers design learning experiences that challenge all students simultaneously at their individual levels. Embedded in
these experiences is sensitivity to the student with special needs; whether the special need be intellectual, physical or
emotional. Attention is given to modifications and interventions to accommodate all students.
Appropriate Use of Technology:
Technology is a tool to support and enhance learning. It does not replace learning or learning concepts, but is vital in our
efforts to engage students and staff in the development of new skills. It is the school’s responsibility to provide access to a
variety of technology for all students and continual professional development for staff.
Student Assumption of Responsibility:
Effective learning requires both the teacher and student to be highly engaged and invested in the endeavor. A highly
effective learning environment can shift from being completely managed by the teacher to one in which teachers and
students share the responsibility for learning. Students are encouraged to suggest instructional outcomes and evaluative
criteria.
Section 3: EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS FOR PROVIDERS
Under this evaluation plan, the professional teaching standards to which each teacher is expected to conform are set forth in
Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching. In addition to the teacher performance evaluation, Danielson 2013
evaluations instruments are provided for:







Counselor
Instructional Specialist (Instructional Coaches and PBIS Coaches)
Library/Media Center Specialist
Nurse
School Psychologist
Social Worker
Therapeutic Specialist (Speech Pathologist, Occupational Therapist, Physical Therapist)
All of the Danielson evaluation instruments are organized around levels of performance that represent an educator’s growth
and development throughout his/her career. The Danielson model is focused on accountability for all aspects of the
6
profession. Just as educators work to meet the needs of each student learner, this model addresses the needs of each
individual certified staff member.
Section 4: PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE LEVELS of PERFORMANCE
These levels of performance are included in this plan to support teacher self-reflection, inform and structure professional
conversations between teachers and evaluators, and suggest areas for further learning. These levels contribute to a teacher’s
summative rating system found in Section 5.
“Excellent” refers to professional teaching that innovatively involves students in the learning process and creates a
true community of learners. Classroom functions as a community of learners with student assumption of responsibility for
learning.
“Proficient” refers to successful, professional teaching that is consistently at a high level. Teaching shows
evidence of thorough knowledge of all aspects of the profession. Students are engaged in learning. This is successful,
accomplished, professional, and effective teaching.
“Needs Improvement” refers to teaching that has the necessary knowledge and skills to be effective, but its
application is inconsistent. Teaching shows evidence of knowledge and skills related to teaching, but performance may be
inconsistent due to lack of experience.
“Unsatisfactory” refers to teaching that does not convey an understanding of the concepts underlying the
component. This level of performance is doing harm in the classroom. Teaching shows evidence of not understanding the
concepts underlying the component. This may represent practice that is harmful, and this situation requires intervention.
Section 5: EVALUATION SUMMATIVE RATING SYSTEM
Kankakee School District uses a numeric score to rank teachers in the four categories of "Excellent, Proficient, Needs
Improvement" and "Unsatisfactory".
Points: For each component on which a teacher is rated "excellent", three points will be assigned. This rank corresponds
with the Danielson rating of four. For each component on which a teacher is rated "proficient", two points will be
assigned. This would be equivalent to Danielson's rating of three. For each component rated "Needs Improvement," one
point will be assigned. For each component rated "Unsatisfactory", no points will be given. There are 22 components in
the teacher evaluation. A teacher who is rated "excellent" on each component would be assigned 66 points. A teacher
who is rated "unsatisfactory" on each component would be assigned 0 points.
Provider evaluations have different numbers of components but the method of calculation is the same as it is for teachers.
Weighting: Domain One (planning) and Three (instruction) are each weighted at 35% of the total score. Domains Two
(environment) and Four (professionalism) are each weighted at 15% of the total score. The TEIRC joint committee believe
that how well one plans and how well one teaches contribute more to student achievement than the classroom environment
or professionalism, although all four are important. For each domain, the total number of points assigned will be
multiplied by these percentages and the totals combined to give a final score. When this score represents 80% or more of
the total points possible, a rating of "Excellent" will be assigned. When this score represents 59 - 79% of the total points
possible, a rating of "Proficient" will be assigned. When this score represents 31 - 58% of the points possible, a rating of
"Needs Improvement" will be assigned. When this score represents 30% or less of the points possible, a rating of
"Unsatisfactory" will be assigned.
80 - 100%
59 - 79%
31 - 58%
0 - 30%
Excellent
Proficient
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
7
For non-tenured teachers, a minimum of three observations (at least two formal and at least one informal) will be made
during the evaluation cycle.
For tenured teachers, a minimum of five observations (at least one formal and at least four informal) will be made during
the evaluation cycle. Two of these informal observations will be held before the midpoint conference and two after the
midpoint conference. The formal observation can occur before or after the midpoint conference.
Section 6: ROLES OF EVALUATORS and TEACHERS in EVALUATION PROCESS
Evaluator’s Responsibilities
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Communicate with teachers including Framework for Teaching (FfT) aligned feedback.
Meet with teachers to discuss expectations based on the FfT, district and school goals.
Review school improvement plan and Illinois School Report Card with all teachers.
Provide training in administering relevant standardized testing.
Conduct informal observations and engage in reflective conversations
Communicate with peer/volunteer mentor to align support for teachers.
Conduct formal observation/s including pre- and post-conferences within specified timeframe.
Provide ongoing feedback to teacher regarding FfT.
Conduct summative evaluation conversation
Teacher’s Responsibilities
o
o
o
o
o
Understand and implement all necessary components of the FfT.
Meet with evaluator and peer/volunteer mentor, if any, to ensure adherence to FfT.
Take personal responsibility for attaining Proficient performance by reflecting on performance.
Provide evidence for Domains 1 and 4. Teachers may provide evidence for other domains as well.
Develop and implement goals, as specified by the Professional Evaluation Plan.
Section 7: GLOSSARY
“Best Practices” are research-based methods that are effective in improving student achievement.
“Collaboration” means a person, other than an evaluator, comes in to do a non-evaluative observation to support best
practices.
“Components” are distinct aspects of a domain as defined by the Framework for Teaching.
“Consulting Teacher” is an educational employee as defined in the Educational Labor Relations Act, has at least five
years teaching experience, a reasonable familiarity with the assignment of the teacher being evaluated and who received an
“Excellent” rating on his or her most recent evaluation. The Consulting Teacher is selected by the evaluator and is used for
the purpose of supporting the teacher during the Remediation Plan. “The bargaining agent may, if it chooses, supply a
roster of at least five qualified teachers within 5 school days of receipt of a written request. The consulting teacher is to be
selected from the list provided or from the names of all teachers qualified if that number is less than five. If the exclusive
bargaining agent does not submit a list of qualified consulting teachers, the District shall develop the list. Release time and
a differential for the consulting teacher shall be negotiated.” (KFT Agreement, 2012-15)
8
“Documentation” is evidence, artifacts, or information that supports or explains a position/point of view
“Domains” are the four main areas of effective teaching: Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction,
and Professional Responsibilities
“Effective Teaching” consists of instructional practices that result in increased student growth, as defined in the practices
outlined in the Proficient and Excellent levels of the Kankakee Performance Evaluation Plan.
“Evaluator” is an administrator who successfully completes an in-service training on the evaluation of licensed personnel
provided or approved by ISBE prior to undertaking any evaluation and at least once during each certification renewal
cycle. The new Reform Act requires Evaluators to complete and pass a pre-qualification Evaluator program that involves
rigorous training.
“Framework For Teaching” (FfT): Charlotte Danielson’s Framework consists of (a) the four domains, components &
elements, (b) the seven common themes, and (c) the four levels of performance.
“Formal observation” means a specific period of time that is scheduled with the teacher to directly observe professional
practices in the classroom or in the school. (PERA rules) Observing classroom instruction is one of the most powerful
practices in which Evaluators engage to improve teaching and learning. Formal observations provide valuable
opportunities for the teacher and Evaluator to discuss the planning process, collect evidence on the teacher’s instruction
and classroom environment and dialogue with the teacher after the observation is complete. Formal Observations shall be
at least 45 minutes in length, or one class period, or one lesson. Formal observations shall be preceded by a pre-conference
and followed by a reflective post-conference. All non-tenured teachers will be formally observed at least two times during
the evaluation cycle. All tenured teachers will be formally observed at least once during the evaluation cycle.
“Formative” assessment is an ongoing, reflective process of observation, data collection, feedback and conversation
between teachers and Evaluators for the purpose of improving teaching and student learning. Formative ratings are
provided on the evaluation instrument throughout the year, representing a preponderance of evidence. This evidence is
summarized at the end of the cycle in a summative assessment.
“Healthy Teamwork” is professional, respectful and collaborative partnership between all staff members at Kankakee
School District #111.
“Informal observation” is an observation of a teacher by a qualified evaluator that is not announced in advance of the
observation. At least one of the informal observations will last at least 30 minutes. (“There will be a minimum of two
observations of at least thirty consecutive minutes,” KFT Agreement, 2012-15). The other informal observations have no
time limit. Informal observations provide the opportunity to reflect on the entire professional performance of a teacher
both inside and outside of the classroom. These may include professional behavior in a variety of settings and interactions
with students, colleagues, parents, administrators or other school staff, as well as involvement in extracurricular functions
or community-sponsored activities.
Informal observations provide valuable opportunities for frequent interaction between the evaluator and the teacher.
Evidence of teaching, aligned with the Framework for Teaching, will be collected by the evaluator and shared with the
teacher via Teachscape, an observation log, a written memo, email or other writing that memorializes the observation and
provides an opportunity for a conversation with the teacher. The informal observations and reflective conversations are
important job-embedded opportunities for individual professional development.
“Joint Committee” means a committee composed of equal representation selected by the district and its teachers or, where
applicable, the exclusive bargaining representative of its teachers, which shall have the duties set forth in this Part
regarding the establishment of a performance evaluation plan (Section 24A-4 of the School Code). Kankakee School
District’s joint committee for the purposes of writing our new evaluation instruments is our Teacher Evaluation Instrument
Revision Committee (TEIRC). Another joint committee has been formed, pursuant to PERA, the Performance Evaluation
Review Act. The function of this second committee is to to write Kankakee School District’s rules for the use of student
growth in professional evaluations. Student growth will be piloted in 2015-16 and implemented in the 2015-16 school
year.
9
“Performance Evaluation Plan” means a plan to measure the teacher’s professional practice, to meet the requirements of
Article 24A of the School Code and this Part. (PERA rules)
“Post-conference” is a reflective conversation held no later than ten school days after the formal observations.
“Professional Development Plan” (PDP) The Performance and Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) includes language
regarding the creation of a Professional Development Plan for a teacher in contractual continued service (tenured) whose
summative rating is “Needs Improvement.” This Professional Development Plan (PDP):

is to be created within 30 days after the completion of an evaluation resulting in the “Needs Improvement” rating

is to be developed by the evaluator in consultation with the teacher and take into account the teacher’s on-going
professional responsibilities including his/her regular teaching assignments

is to be directed to the areas that need improvement and include supports that the district will provide to address
the performance areas identified as needing improvement (if any)

does not have a required minimum or maximum length of time. (The plan can last until the teacher is evaluated in
the next school year.)
“Provider” is an employee who is required to hold a professional educator license but does not teach content directly.
This includes counselors, instructional coaches, media specialists, nurses, occupational therapists, PBIS coaches, physical
therapists, psychologists, social workers, and speech-language pathologists. In this manual, all references to “teachers”
apply to providers as well.
“Qualified Evaluator” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 24A-2.5 or 24A-15 of the School Code and shall be an
individual who has completed the pre-qualification process required under Section 24A-3 of the School Code or Subpart E
of this Part, as applicable, and successfully passed the State-developed assessments specific to evaluation of teachers or
principals and assistant principals. Each qualified evaluator shall maintain his or her qualification by completing the
retraining required under Section 24A-3 of the School Code or Subpart E of this Part, as applicable. (PERA rules)
“Reflective Conversation” is a professional, nonjudgmental conversation involving two or more participants that is
interactive and thought provoking in nature.
“Remediation Plan” The Performance and Evaluation Reform Act includes language regarding the development of a
Remediation Plan for a tin contractual continued service (tenured) who is rated “Unsatisfactory” in order to correct
deficiencies cited, provided the deficiencies can be remediated. The Remediation Plan:
 is to be created within 30 days after the completion of an evaluation resulting in a “Unsatisfactory” rating
 provides for 90 school days of remediation within the classroom
 provides a consulting teacher (see definition) selected by the evaluator who participates in developing the
remediation plan
 provides at least a mid-point and final evaluation during the remediation period with the final evaluation including
a summative rating and any deficiencies in performance and recommendation for correction being identified
 provides a decision within 10 days after the conclusion of the respective remediation plan (although a district does
not lose jurisdiction to discharge a teacher in the event of the evaluation not being issued within 10 days);
 provides that the teacher must receive a rating of Proficient or higher to be reinstated to the evaluation schedule at
the end of the remediation plan. If the teacher does not receive a rating of Proficient or higher, the teacher will be
subject to dismissal
 provides that the evaluation process for remediation is separate and distinct from required annual evaluations and
the forms may be different from district Evaluation plan forms
10
“Summative Rating” means a final rating given to a teacher of “Excellent, Proficient, Needs Improvement” or
“Unsatisfactory” at the end of the evaluation process. This rating is used for placement in groups (“buckets”) for RIF
(Reduction In Force) purposes.
“Excellent” refers to professional teaching that innovatively involves students in the learning process and creates a
true community of learners. Classroom functions as a community of learners with student assumption of responsibility for
learning.
“Proficient” refers to successful, professional teaching that is consistently at a high level. Teaching shows
evidence of thorough knowledge of all aspects of the profession. Students are engaged in learning. This is successful,
accomplished, professional, and effective teaching.
“Needs Improvement” refers to teaching that has the necessary knowledge and skills to be effective, but its
application is inconsistent. Teaching shows evidence of knowledge and skills related to teaching, but performance may be
inconsistent due to lack of experience.
“Unsatisfactory” refers to teaching that does not convey an understanding of the concepts underlying the
component. This level of performance is doing harm in the classroom. Teaching shows evidence of not understanding the
concepts underlying the component. This may represent practice that is harmful and requires intervention.
“Teacher” refers to a professional employee of the school district who is required to hold a professional educator’s license
issued in accordance with Article 21B of the School Code and is assigned to an area designated as requiring this licensure
or endorsement. This definition of teacher includes licensed staff who are endorsed in non-teaching areas, such as
library/media specialists; speech, occupational and physical therapists; nurses; social workers; school psychologists;
counselors; PBIS coaches; and instructional coaches. Professionals who hold a non-teaching license are included in this
definition for purposes of evaluation but are exempt from the student growth component. (PERA rules)
“Data Walkthrough” means an observer briefly observes the teacher at a time that was not planned. This can occur in the
classroom or in any other location. The purpose of these data walkthroughs is to collect building and district level data
regarding student engagement or other initiatives as directed by the Superintendent. The purpose of the data walk is nonevaluative. Evidence observed during a data walk would only be used in the evaluation if something unusual were
observed. In this case, feedback would be provided to the teacher via Teachscape or other means, like an informal
observation, and then the evidence would be incorporated into the evaluation. Teachscape does not capture teacher’s names
in the data walkthroughs, so the evidence collected in data walkthroughs cannot be used on an evaluation unless an
informal observation is conducted in the same classroom visit.
11
Section 8: Performance Evaluation Process for Tenured Teachers
12
Reflective Post-conferences must be held within ten days of the formal observation. After the formal observation, the
teacher provides a reflective statement regarding the lesson.
Teachers must submit all evidence by the last day of the school year in which the evaluation cycle began, with the
exception of any trainings or schoolwork done over the summer. This gives evaluators the summer to ensure that all
evidence is incorporated into the final summative evaluation.
“Administrators, whenever possible and preferably before a formal evaluation will confer privately with individual
teaches when there are concerns about classroom management or job expectations.” (KFT Agreement, 2012-15)
Tenured teacher evaluation starts September 15th and runs through September 14th of the following year.
TENURED EVALUATION TIMELINE
DEADLINE
PROCESS
FORMS
First day of school
Teachers who will be evaluated are notified and
provided access to their Teachscape account
All forms visible in Teachscape
By September 30th
Evaluator and teacher collaborate to develop goals
SMART Goal Form
TENURED: A minimum of one formal and a
Pre-Conference Form (optional)
minimum of four informal observations will be
conducted. Two informal observations will occur
Conversation Starters (optional)
before the midpoint conference and two will occur after
the midpoint conference. The formal observation,
Reflective Conversation Form (optional)
which can be held any time during the year, will be
preceded by a pre-conference and followed within ten
Teacher or Provider Performance
days by a reflective post-conference.
Evaluation
By February 15th
Midpoint conference
Midpoint Conference Form
By September 14th of Final Summative Evaluation is written, incorporating
the following year
evidence provided by the teacher, teacher attendance,
(However, if the
strengths and areas for improvement, evidence from
teacher or evaluator
other administrators, etc.
plans to retire or resign
at the end of the year,
the evaluation must be
completed before the
last day of school. If
the evaluation is being
conducted after a PDP
or Remediation plan,
the evaluation must be
completed before the
deadline from HR)
Teacher or Provider Performance
Evaluation
Summative Rating form
Non-tenured teachers’ evaluations start the first day of school and end by the deadline from Human Resources (usually February).
13
NON-TENURED EVALUATION TIMELINE
TIME OF YEAR
PROCESS
FORMS
First day of school
Teachers who will be evaluated are notified and
given access to Teachscape website
All forms in Teachscape
By October 31st
Evaluator and teacher collaborate to develop goals
SMART Goal Form
At least 2 formal observations are conducted,
Pre-Conference Form (optional)
preceded by pre-conferences and followed by post
conferences. Teacher provides reflection. At least
Conversation Starters (optional)
one informal observation is conducted and must be
30 minutes or longer. Evidence is documented
Reflective Conversation Form (optional)
throughout the evaluation on Teachscape so the
teacher gets feedback after the informal observation.
Teacher or Provider Performance
The Teacher Evaluation form is written by the
Evaluation
evaluator and provided to the teacher and principal at
least 24 hours before the final post conference.
By Deadline from HR Final Summative Evaluation is written, incorporating
teacher attendance from payroll, strengths and areas
for improvement, evidence from other administrators,
etc.
Teacher or Provider Performance
Evaluation
Summative Rating form
Observation Documentation and Conference Steps
Frequency:
Teachers without tenure will be evaluated every year. (PERA rules) Teachers with tenure will be evaluated every other
year, though a tenured teacher rated “Needs Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory” in any one year will be evaluated the
following year. (PERA rules)
Professional Growth Goals:
Before October 31, a goal-setting conference will be held where the teacher and administrator collaborate on teacher
goal(s) for the year. At this time the artifacts that the teacher will present for Domains 1 and 4 will be discussed. (TEIRC)
Pre-Conference:
The Pre-Conference Evaluation Form can be used as a guide for the pre-conference discussion. The Conversation Starters
document can also be used. This conference occurs before each formal observation. Before this conference, the teacher
submits a plan of the lesson to be observed. The observation is scheduled at a mutually agreed-upon time. During this
pre-conference the teacher may provide further explanation of the decision-making around the lesson and suggest specific
areas for the evaluator to focus on during the observation. The evaluator and teacher will discuss the lesson plan as well as
suggestions for specific behaviors to observe (PERA rules). The evaluator may ask clarifying questions. The teacher
submits artifacts for Domains 1 and 4. Providers may submit artifacts for other Domains as well.
14
Observations:
A minimum of one formal observation and four informal observations is required for each tenured teacher during his/her
evaluation year. A minimum of two formal observations and one informal observation is required for each non-tenured
teacher during his/her evaluation year. (TEIRC)
Each formal observation will be preceded by a pre-conference, arranged in advance, and followed by a post-conference.
Each formal observation must last a minimum of 45 minutes, or one class period, or one lesson (PERA rules). Each
formal observation is followed within ten days by a reflective post conference (KFT Agreement, 2012-15). At this
conference, the teacher and evaluator discuss the evidence listed so far on the Danielson rubric.
Informal observations are not preceded by a pre-conference, arranged in advanced, or followed by a post-conference. At
least one informal observation must last 30 minutes or longer; the others have no minimum or maximum time limits.
Informal observations are not followed by a post-conference but conversations are encouraged throughout the process.
Informal observations are chances for evaluators to see what is going on and provide suggestions or supports to teachers
to enhance instruction. Information from informal observations will be shared with the teacher via Teachscape. In this
way the evaluator gives the teacher the opportunity to discuss it, verbally or in written form, before the summative
conference.
“The Board recognizes the value of the timelines set forth in this section and will make a sincere effort to comply with
them. If an observation does not take place as scheduled, the administrator will work with the teacher to reschedule it at a
mutually convenient time, subject to legal and contractual limitations.” (KFT Agreement, 2012-15)
Post-Conference:
A reflective post-conference must be held within ten days of the formal observation. The teacher shall consider (that is,
reflect upon) his or her instruction and provide to the qualified evaluator additional information or explanations about the
presentation. The evaluator shall share with the teacher any evidence collected and judgments made about the evidence
during the conference held following the observation. (PERA rules). The teacher should share any artifacts or student
work generated as a result of the lesson. The evaluator may ask clarifying questions to further understand what was
observed. The evaluator provides feedback via the evaluation instrument in all domains, including those not technically
observed during the lesson. (PERA rules) Written feedback is given to the teacher in the form of the evaluation
instrument including any additional comments. A projected score is discussed at the post conference. If the qualified
evaluator determines that the data and evidence collected to date may result in the teacher receiving either a “Needs
Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory” performance evaluation rating, then the qualified evaluator shall notify the teacher of
that determination within ten working days of the observation.
The teacher, evaluator and principal will be able to see the accumulating evidence in Teachscape. The teacher and
principals (if they are not the evaluator) need to have access to the summative evaluation 24 hours before the summative
conference, to give them a chance to provide additional evidence. Tenured teachers will have the opportunity to provide
additional evidence up until the last day of school. The principal must sign the evaluation before it is sent to Human
Resources for the Assistant Superintendent’s signature.
For special education teachers, data on IEP paperwork from the previous year will be provided to the evaluator and the
teacher as evidence of paperwork under the Professionalism domain.
“No evaluation shall be placed in the teacher’s personnel file until the evaluator and the teacher have discussed it” (KFT
Agreement, 2012-15)
“A written evaluation shall be provided the teacher within ten school days of the formal observation and at least twentyfour hours before the conference with the evaluator. The teacher shall have the opportunity to provide additional data
which shall become part of the written evaluation.” (KFT Agreement, 2012-15)
15
Summative Conference:
A summative conference is held for each teacher undergoing evaluation once in a given year. The purpose of the
summative conference is to provide evaluative feedback regarding job performance and discuss the final summative rating
for the year. The summative conference for non-tenured staff must be held before the January or February deadline from
Human Resources. The summative conference for tenured staff must be held before September 14th of the following year.
(TEIRC)
The assignment of the rating is based upon the accumulation of evidence observed by the evaluator, presented by the
teacher, and gathered from other sources. Evidence from informal observations can only be incorporated into the final
rating if feedback has been provided to the teacher. At this conference, the overall summative rating is assigned.
(TEIRC) As required under Section 24A-5 of the School Code, the evaluation plan shall consider the teacher’s attendance
and competencies in the subject matter taught, as well as specify the teacher’s strengths and weaknesses and the reasons
for identifying the areas as such (PERA Statute).
“The evaluator shall submit with the summative evaluation report a statement seeking out specific areas of strengths and
weaknesses, if any, with specific recommendations to improve performance.” (KFT Agreement, 2012-15)
“Each teacher being evaluated shall receive a summative evaluation report which is the final assessment for the year of the
teacher’s performance. Information that may negatively affect the summative rating must be shared with the teacher
within ten days of the incident to be included in the summative evaluation. The administrator who conducted the formal
summative evaluation must furnish the teacher with a copy of the written evaluation at least twenty-four hours before the
scheduled conference with the teacher to review the formal summative evaluation. A summative conference will be held
to review and discuss the summative evaluation report.” (KFT Agreement, 2012-15)
“If the teacher feels the evaluation is incomplete, inaccurate, or unjust, the teacher may attach written objections or any
other materials to the evaluation form.” (KFT Agreement, 2012-15)
16
17
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND REMEDIATION PLANS
18
Guide for Creating a Professional Development Plan
The Performance and Evaluation Reform Act includes the language regarding the creation of a Professional
Development Plan (PDP) for a teacher in contractual continued service (tenured) who is rated “Needs Improvement.”
This Professional Development Plan (PDP):
1.
is to be created within 30 days after the completion of an evaluation resulting in the “Needs
Improvement” rating
2.
is to be developed by the Evaluator in consultation with the teacher and will take into account the tenured
teacher’s on-going professional responsibilities including his/her regular teaching assignments
3.
is to be directed to the areas that need improvement and include supports that the district
4.
will address the performance areas identified as needing improvement.
5.
After development of the PDP, the teacher and Evaluator will collaborate to determine the target
completion date.
Tenured teachers must be evaluated at least once in the school year following the Professional Development Plan.
Teachers who are rated “Proficient” or “Excellent” at that time will be reinstated to the normal evaluation cycle.
Teachers rated “Needs Improvement” will have another Professional Development Plan written. Teachers rated
“Unsatisfactory” will have a remediation plan written.
PDP Components
Areas of Improvement: List each domain to be addressed on a separate form
Rationale for Area of Improvement: Evidence from observations that show an area
needing improvement
Domain/ Component: List the domain and/or component rated needs improvement
Indicators for Effective Teaching: Find examples in the Sources of Evidence for FfT
packet of domain/component rated needs improvement that will show or produce evidence
of effective teaching.
Improvement Strategies: Provide strategies the teacher can use to show improvement in
needed domain/component
Tasks to Complete: Specific tasks the teacher will complete that will improve the
domain/component
Support and Resources: List of supports and resources the teacher can use to improve,
e.g. workshops, observe colleagues, ask a specialist, books/journals
Indicators of Progress: How the teacher will show progress towards proficient/excellent
in domain/component through informal observation, data, evidence, etc.
19
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS
In accordance with Chapter 105s 5/24A-5, of the Illinois School Code
TIME OF YEAR
PROCESS
FORMS
Within 10 school days
of the evaluator
determining that an
Evaluator will notify teacher that the observation may lead
observation may lead
to a rating of Needs Improvement
to a rating of Needs
Improvement
Email or Teachscape feedback
Notify Human Resources
Within 30 school
days of teacher
receiving an
Summative rating of
Needs Improvement
Review the Teacher Performance Evaluation to confirm
Areas of Strength and Areas for Further Development
Evaluator writes the Professional Development
Plan (PDP) in consultation with the teacher, submits it to
Human Resources
Teacher Performance Evaluation
Professional Development Plan
Evaluator and teacher will determine timelines for the plan.
The plan can last as long as until the teacher evaluation the
following year
As determined by
plan
No later than the
following year
At the end of the
evaluation
Support is provided to the teacher as listed on plan
Pre-Conference Form, Conversation Starters,
Informal observations and reflective conversations are held
Classroom Observation Documentation, Reflective
Lesson Plans and other evidence is reviewed
Conversation Form, Worksheet for Recording
Teacher meets with evaluator per plan description
Component Ratings, etc. as needed
Evaluation is conducted in the
same manner as a normal evaluation
Teacher provides evidence for Domains 1 and 4
Summative Evaluation determines evaluation status: if
Excellent or Proficient, return to normal evaluation cycle.
Needs Improvement, create a new Professional
Development Plan and evaluate the following year
If Unsatisfactory, initiate a 90-day Remediation Plan
Pre-Conference Form or Conversation Starters
Classroom Observation Documentation
Reflective Conversation Form
Teacher Performance Evaluation
Summative Evaluation Form or
Remediation Plan
Guide for Creating a Remediation Plan:
The Performance and Evaluation Reform Act includes language regarding the development of a Remediation Plan for a
teacher in contractual continued service (tenured) who is rated “Unsatisfactory” in order to correct deficiencies cited,
provided the deficiencies can be remediated. The Remediation Plan:




is to be created within 30 days after the completion of an evaluation resulting in a “Unsatisfactory” rating
provides for 90 school days of remediation within the classroom
provides a consulting teacher (see definition) selected by the evaluator who participates in developing the
remediation plan
provides at least a mid-point and final evaluation during the remediation period with the final evaluation including
20



a summative rating and any deficiencies in performance and recommendation for correction being identified
provides a decision within 10 days after the conclusion of the respective remediation plan (although a district does
not lose jurisdiction to discharge a teacher in the event of the evaluation not being issued within 10 days);
provides that the teacher must receive a rating of Proficient or higher to be reinstated to the evaluation schedule at
the end of the remediation plan. If the teacher does not receive a rating of Proficient or higher, the teacher will be
subject to dismissal
provides that the evaluation process for remediation is separate and distinct from required annual evaluations and
the forms may be different from district Evaluation plan forms
REMEDIATION PLAN PROCESS
In accordance with Chapter 105s 5/24A-5, of the Illinois School Code
TIME
PROCESS
FORMS
Within 10 school days of the
evaluator determining that an
observation may lead to a Evaluator will notify teacher that the observation may lead to a
rating of Unsatisfactory
rating of Unsatisfactory
Within 30 days of the final
summative conference where Remediation plan will be developed. Consulting teacher and
a rating of “Unsatisfactory” is second evaluator will be determined. Remediation plan will be
written.
given
At the beginning of the 90
day Remediation Plan
Confirm implementation of Remediation Plan between
Teacher/Provider, Evaluator, and Consulting Teacher
Remediation Plan Form
Remediation Plan Form
Before and After the
Formal observations, informal observations and reflective
Pre-Observation Conversation Form
midpoint of the Remediation conversations per plan specifications. Danielson rubric will be
Conversation Starters
Plan
completed and a score determined.
Reflective Conversation Form
Teacher Performance Evaluation
At the 45 day midpoint of the
Remediation Plan
Formal observations, informal observations and reflective
Pre-Observation Conversation Form
conversations per plan specifications
Conversation Starters
Post-conference will be held after each formal observation with
Classroom Observation
the Danielson rubric completed and a score determined.
Documentation Form
Reflective Conversation Form
Teacher Performance Evaluation
At the conclusion of the 90
day Remediation Plan
Summative Evaluation per the remediation plan
Performance Evaluation Summative
If Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory, recommend dismissal
Form
to board. If Proficient or Excellent, reevaluate the following year
Remediation Plan Form
21
Kankakee District #111 Teacher Evaluation Plan
Phase-In Process
Status
Tenured
teachers, due
for evaluation
2012-13
2012-13
New
evaluation
2013-14
None
2014-15
New
evaluation
2015-16
None
Tenured
teachers, due
for evaluation
2013-14
None
New
evaluation
None
New
evaluation
with student
growth
Non-tenured
teachers and
providers
New
evaluation for
teachers, old
evaluation for
providers
Old
evaluation,
pilot of new
evaluation
instruments
None
New
evaluation for
all until
tenured
New
evaluation for
all until
tenured
New
evaluation
with student
growth
None
New
evaluation
instruments
None
New
evaluation
instruments
None
New
evaluation
instruments
Tenured
Providers, due
for evaluation
2012-13
Tenured
providers, due
for evaluation
2013-14
22
Section 9: RIF & Recall Teacher Groupings
Group 1 – Any first-year non-tenured teacher with no evaluation rating
Group 2 – A tenured or non-tenured teacher with a “Needs Improvement” or
‘Unsatisfactory” performance evaluation rating on either of the teacher’s last two
performance evaluation ratings
Group 3 – A teacher with a performance evaluation rating of at least “Satisfactory” or “Proficient” on both of the
teacher’s last two performance evaluation ratings, if two ratings are available, or on the teacher’s last performance
evaluation rating, if only one rating is available
Group 4 – A teacher whose last two performance evaluation ratings are “Excellent” as well as a teacher with two
“Excellent” performance evaluation ratings out of the teacher’s last three performance evaluation ratings with a third
rating of “Satisfactory” or “Proficient”
HIGHLIGHTS:
Teachers in Group 1 are dismissed first in a Reduction in Force, then teachers in Group 2, then teachers in Group 3, and
teachers in Group 4 are dismissed last.
Teachers in Group 1 may be laid off in any order, at the discretion of the District.
Teachers in Group 2 are dismissed based on the average of their performance evaluation ratings, with teachers in any
order, at the discretion of the District.
Teachers in Group 2 are dismissed based on the average of their performance evaluation ratings, with teachers with the
lowest average performance evaluation rating dismissed first. Teachers with the same average performance evaluation
rating will be dismissed by seniority. The average is calculated by using 4 for “Excellent”, 3 for “Proficient” or
“Satisfactory”, 2 for “Needs Improvement” and 1 for “Unsatisfactory”.
Teachers in Group 3 and 4 are ranked by seniority.
A teacher must be evaluated 75 days prior to the end of the school year for the evaluation rating to apply to that year’s
placement in Groups, except that teachers in Group 1 will be placed in another Group if they are evaluated between 75
and 45 days prior to the end of the school year.
A teacher, other than a first-year teacher, who is not evaluated prior to the end of the school year will default to
“Proficient” for that school year. Kankakee School District is moving from a school year cycle (August to February) to a
fiscal year (September 15-September 14th) cycle. Starting with the 2014-15 school year, most tenured teachers’
evaluation ratings will not be determined until the following year. For purposes of RIF grouping, they will stay in the
same RIF group for 2014-15 as they were in 2013-14. The rating tenured teachers receive by September 14th of 2015 will
determine their RIF group for the 2014-15 school year. No additional evaluation or improvement in teaching can alter the
RIF grouping for those teachers until the following year. Teachers who were ranked “Needs Improvement” for 2013-14
will remain in Group 2 for the 2014-15 school year.
Teachers in Groups 1 and 2 do not have recall rights. However, a teacher in Group 2 that has only one “Needs
Improvement” rating does have recall rights (PA 98-0648). Teachers released as “Honorable Dismissal” in Group 3 or
Group 4 will have recall rights.
For the purposes of this section “Teacher” refers to any staff required to hold a professional educator licensure.
23
Appendix:
Forms
Page 24 of 48
Optional
PRE-CONFERENCE FORM
Teacher/Provider:
Grade Level(s):
Evaluator:
Domain 1 – Planning and Preparation
Assignment:
Date:
Domain 2 – Classroom Environment
a. Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy a. Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
b. Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
b. Establishing a Culture for Learning
c. Setting Instructional Outcomes
c. Managing Classroom Procedures
d. Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
d. Managing Student Behavior
e. Designing Coherent Instruction
e. Organizing Physical Space
f. Designing Student Assessments
Domain 3 – Evidence of Teaching
Domain 4 – Professional Responsibilities
a. Communicating with Students
b. Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
c. Engaging Students in Learning
d. Using Assessment in Instruction
e. Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
a. Reflecting on Teaching
b. Maintaining Accurate Records
c. Communicating with Families
d. Contributing to the School District
e. Growing and Developing Professionally
f. Showing Professionalism
Demonstrating Knowledge of Students (1b)
Briefly describe your students, including those with special needs. How do you plan to teach to each student’s level of understanding?
Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources (1e)
When preparing this lesson, what resources, what resources did you use? (Material, collaboration, etc.)
Design Coherent Instruction (1e)
How does this learning “fit” into the sequence for this class? (ex. Introducing the topic, mastering, etc.)
Assessment (Domain 1 and 3)
How will you know whether the students have learned what you intend? (formal and/or informal)
Page 25 of 48
Student Learning (Domain 2 and 3)
How will you engage students in the learning? Is objective clear to students? What will you do? What will the students be doing?
Will the students work in groups / individual / large group? Bring any materials to the pre-conference.
Describe any particular teaching behavior(s) or classroom management techniques you would like the evaluator to focus on during
this observation.
Professionalism (Domain 4)
Describe how you communicate with families other than district parent/teacher conference days?
Are timelines and deadlines met?
Describe your professional relationships with your colleagues.
Describe your professional development activities and how they relate to your professional growth.
State any additional responsibilities and volunteer work you do in KSD #111 and the community.
Page 26 of 48
Optional
Conversation Starters for Pre-conference
1. To which part of your curriculum does this lesson relate?
2. How does this learning “fit” in the sequence of learning for this class?
3. Briefly describe the students in this class, including those with special needs.
4. What are your learning outcomes for this lesson? What do you want the students to understand?
5. How will you engage the students in the learning? What do you want the students to understand?
6. How will you differentiate instruction for different individuals or groups of students in the class?
7. How and when will you know whether the students have learned what you intend?
8. Is there anything that you would like me to specifically observe during the lesson?
Adapted from Formal Classroom Observation, Copyright 2006, Charlotte Danielson
Page 27 of 48
Optional
Reflective Conversation Form
Teacher/Provider:
School:
Grade Level(s):
Assignment:
Observer:
Date:
After the lesson and documentation from the Evaluator, the teacher can respond to the following questions.
In general, how successful was the lesson? Did the students learn what you intended for them to learn? How do you
know?
If you were able to bring samples of student work, what do those samples reveal about those students' levels of
engagement and understanding?
Comment on different aspects of your instructional delivery (e.g., activities, grouping of students, materials, and
resources). To what extent were they effective?
If you had a chance to teach this lesson again to the same group of students, what would you do differently?
Other comments?
Page 28 of 48
REQUIRED
D
MIDPOINT CONFERENCE FORM
Teacher/Provider:
Grade Level(s):
Evaluator:
Assignment:
Date:
This form is created by the evaluator and teacher together at the midpoint meeting, when teacher sees the projected rating.
Discussion of evidence for Domains 1 and 4:
Discussion of observations so far:
Student growth/goals midpoint assessment:
Strengths:
Recommendations for improvement:
This form should be electronically accepted by teacher to document that the conversation took place.
Page 29 of 48
REQUIRED
D
Performance Evaluation Summative Form for Non-Tenured Staff
Teacher/Provider: _________________________School Year: __________
Evaluator: __________________School(s): ___________________________
Assignment(s): __________________________________________________
1. Met to identify professional goal(s) by: ___________ (must be by September 30)
(These may be student achievement goals or professional growth within a domain.)
2. Classroom Observation(s) and conference(s)
Pre-Conference: _______
Formal Observation: ________
Reflective Post-conference: _____________
Pre-Conference: _______
Formal Observation: ________
Reflective Post-conference: _____________
Informal Observation: ____________
Reflective Post-conference: _________
3. Final Summative Evaluation Conference:__________ (before deadline from HR)
This conference incorporates three observations, artifacts from teacher, information from pre-conference, items discussed after
informal observations, evidence from other sources since the previous evaluation, and teacher input into the final document. The
narrative sections below are the evaluator’s comments regarding strengths and/or concerns in one or more of the four domains.
Areas of Strength:
Page 30 of 48
Areas for Further Development:
Attendance:
Final Summative Evaluation Score: _________
Excellent
80-100
Proficient
59-79
Needs Improvement 31-58
Unsatisfactory
0-30
________________________
______________
Teacher/Provider’s Signature
Date
________________________
______________
Evaluator’s Signature
Date
________________________
______________
Principal’s Signature
Date
________________________
______________
Ass’t. Supt. For Human Resources Signature
Date
Page 31 of 48
REQUIRED
D
Performance Evaluation Summative Form for Tenured Staff
Teacher/Provider: _________________________School Year: __________
Evaluator: __________________School(s): ___________________________
Assignment(s): __________________________________________________
1. Goal-planning conference: ___________ (before September 30)
2. Classroom Observation(s) and conference(s).
(Two informal observations must be held before the midpoint
conference and two must be held after the midpoint conference. The formal observation can occur before or after the midpoint
conference.)
Informal Observation:________
Informal Observation:________
Pre-Conference: ____________
Formal Observation: _________
Reflective Post-conference: ___________
Midpoint Conference:________________ (before March 15)
Informal Observation:________
Informal Observation:________
2.
Final Summative Evaluation Conference :______________(must be before September 14th)
This conference incorporates observations, artifacts from teacher, information from pre-conference, evidence from informal
observations, evidence from other sources since the previous evaluation, and teacher input into the final document. The narrative
sections below are the evaluator’s comments regarding strengths and/or concerns in one or more of the four domains.
Page 32 of 48
Areas of Strength:
Areas for Further Development:
Attendance:
Final Summative Evaluation Score: _________
Excellent
80-100
Proficient
59-79
Needs Improvement 31-58
Unsatisfactory
0-30
________________________
______________
Teacher/Provider’s Signature
Date
________________________
______________
Evaluator’s Signature
Date
________________________
______________
Principal’s Signature
Date
________________________
______________
Ass’t. Supt. For Human Resources Signature
Date
Page 33 of 48
SMART Goals
To focus their efforts, teachers write SMART Goals based on Danielson’s Framework for effective teaching. The goal a
teacher selects and the work s/he conducts should focus on one or more components of the four domains in the Danielson
Framework. When Student Growth is used as a factor in evaluation, these goals may become Student Learner Objectives.
The goal needs to be a SMART goal, which means that the goal is:
Specific and Strategic
Measurable
Aligned and Attainable
Results-oriented
Time bound
A teacher will work with his/her evaluator to develop goals. Steps in the development and implementation of the plan
include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Writing a SMART goal
Designing action plan
Implementing the action steps for the Individual Growth Plan goal
Reflecting on the success of the goal
Assessing goal attainment
SMART goals should be developed to address an identified need related to student learning and teacher skill
improvement. Professional goals should represent new learning for the teacher and not be limited to implementation
of district curriculum or initiatives. The goals represent a critical component for developing new teaching skills and
supporting improvement in student learning.
The Goal Self-Assessment Worksheet focuses upon reflecting on professional strengths and growth opportunities
and helps to select one key area to target for improvement. This worksheet is for teacher use and will not be part of
the teacher’s evaluation, although it may be discussed with the evaluator.
To develop a professional goal, teachers can complete the Goal Self-Assessment Worksheet and reflect on data regarding
professional skills and student needs, such as past evaluations, self-assessment based on Framework for Teaching, school
improvement goals, district goals, grade level data, classroom assessments (both formative and summative) and feedback
from others. This form will support teachers to determine an area of new learning to create a SMART Goal.
This form has several parts:
o SMART Goal: Decide on the goal, how the goal will be measured, and the documentation needed.
o Framework for Teaching Domains/Components: List the Domain(s) and Component(s) on which your goal is
focused.
o Action Steps: Describe specific, aligned action steps that will be implemented to support the goal.
o Timelines: Provide timelines to the specific actions listed in Action Steps.
o Evidence/Data Collection: Throughout the plan, collect and maintain evidence and data that demonstrates
changes in your practice and/or improved student learning.
o Signatures: Teacher and evaluator should review and sign the form to confirm that they have read and discussed
the plan. The evaluator must approve the goal before it becomes part of the evaluation process.
GOAL WRITING GUIDING QUESTIONS
(modified from Talking about Teaching: Leading Professional Conversations by Charlotte Danielson, 2009)
These guiding questions are meant to help you focus your reflection on student learning and your teaching practices.
WHAT CONSTITUTES IMPORTANT LEARNING?
What are the key purposes in your learning activities?
Page 34 of 48
Does the purpose reflect important learning and a view of content as conceptual
understanding rather than rote repetition of facts and procedures?
WHAT CAUSES LEARNING?
What are students actually doing on a regular basis in your classroom activities?
What is the level of intellectual rigor?
What choices do students have? What are their opportunities for reflection and closure regarding their
learning?
HOW ARE STUDENTS MOTIVATED?
To what extent have you succeeded in creating a learning community in class?
To what degree do students assume responsibility for their learning on a daily basis?
Use the SMART Professional Growth Goal criteria to guide the development of your goal using the following
WWWD Formula:
When: Provide time frame for goal process.
Who: List the students or staff that will be involved in the goal.
What: List specific area of teaching/student learning that needs to be improved.
Data Source: List data tool(s) that will measure progress of goal. Data tools include rubrics, check sheets, tests, etc.
th
Example focused on 2d: Managing Student Behavior: (WHEN) Before 1-31-14, (WHO) the 4 grade team will (WHAT)
improve student on-task behavior through re-teaching using Cool Tools (DATA SOURCE) as measured by a 25%
decrease in referrals from one 6-week review to end of year according to Skyward.
Page 35 of 48
REQUIRED
D
SMART Goal Form
Name
Position
Duration of Plan
GOAL STATEMENT: The educator must develop at least one Goal based on Danielson’s Framework for effective
teaching. Write a goal statement that is specific, measurable, aligned/attainable, results-oriented, and time-bound so that
you can show evidence of completion before your final post-conference.
Framework for Teaching Domain / Component(s) addressed:
SMART GOAL:
ACTION PLAN: Describe your step to obtain the goal.
Action Step
Timeline
Evidence / Data
Collection
Support Needed
Teacher/Provider Signature: _________________________________________ Date: ___________________
Evaluator Signature: ________________________________________ Date: ___________________
Teacher and evaluator retain copies
Page 36 of 48
REQUIRED
D
EVIDENCE OF COMPLETION OF GOAL(S):
Name
Position
Duration of Plan
SMART GOAL:
Attach evidence and/or data to quantify the degree to which the goal was met. Summarize the accomplishment here:
Self-reflection or plans for follow up:
Teacher/Provider Signature: _________________________________________ Date: ___________________
Evaluator Signature: _______________________________________________ Date: ___________________
Page 37 of 48
SMART Goal Form – Sample 1
Teacher/Provider
Position
Duration of Plan
Jane Smith
4th Grade Teacher
2013-2014
INDIVIDUAL GROWTH GOAL STATEMENT: The educator must develop a Individual Growth Goal based on Danielson’s
Framework for effective teaching. Write a goal statement that is specific/strategic, measurable, attainable, result oriented and timebound to the two year cycle.
Framework for Teaching Domain/Component(s) addressed: 2d Managing Student Behavior
SMART GOAL:
During 2013-14, the 4th grade team will improve student on-task behavior through re-teaching using Cool Tools as measured by the
25% decrease in referrals from 1st to 4th quarter according to Skyward.
ACTION PLAN: Describe your steps to obtain the goal
Action Step
Timeline
Evidence / Data
Collection
Support
Needed
Team will review Cool Tools with
members of PBIS team to increase
familiarity with the tools and their use.
Prior to the
first day of
student
attendance
Meeting minutes
Time for teams to meet with PBIS
committee member
Copies of Cool
Tools
Team will review data from Skyward
6 weeks after Skyward reports of referrals by grade Time for team to meet with PBIS
reports with a member of the PBIS team beginning of level, location, type, motivation, time of committee member
school year day
Copies of Skyward
Report
Based on review of Skyward data, select
and agree on appropriate Cool Tool(s)
and when they will be retaught/reinforced.
Within the
first week
after data
review
Next 6 weeks Skyward report
Continue to review data, re-teach and
reflect with teammate and PBIS team
member
6 week cycle Skyward reports reflecting decrease in
throughout referrals
year
Team reflections, anecdotal
descriptions of changes noted in
student behavior
Team meeting time.
Time for team to meet with PBIS
committee member
Copies of Skyward referral
report
Teacher/Provider Signature: _____________________________
Date: ___________________________
Evaluator Signature: ___________________________________
Date: ___________________________
Page 38 of 48
SMART Goal Form – Sample 2
Teacher/Provider Name
Position
Duration of Plan
John Jones
7th Grade Social Studies
2013-2015
GOAL STATEMENT: The educator must develop a goal based on Danielson’s Framework for Teaching. Write a goal statement that
is specific/strategic, measureable, aligned/attainable, results-oriented and time-bound to the two-year cycle or less.
Framework for Teaching Domain(s) Component(s) addressed: 3b Using questioning and discussion techniques: 3d Using
assessment in instruction
SMART GOAL:
During 2013-14, I will improve the effectiveness of my Evaluation, Synthesis and Analysis questions in class discussion and
student assessments as measured by an increase in the number of higher-level questions in lesson plans/student assessments and
correct student responses to such questions.
ACTION PLAN: Describe your steps to obtain the goal
Action Step
Timeline
Evidence / Data
Collection
Support Needed
Familiarize myself with higher September 30th
level questions in Bloom’s
Taxonomy through research and
reading
List of resources consulted, notes from
reading
Local professional library
Purchase of one book identified as
especially useful through my
research
Establish baseline of types and
numbers of questions currently
used in lesson plans and
assessments
Date from past lesson plans and student
assessments
October 31st
Revised/develop lesson plans and November 30st
assessments using models and
strategies learned from research
Comparison between past and current
lesson plans and assessments
With a colleague and/or
supervisor, review student
responses and get feed back
Student Assessment data
Notes from the meeting
Time with colleague identified as
having expertise in this area
Lesson plans and assessments, student
assessment data
Time with colleague
December 31st
Continue to refine and reflect on January 31st
lesson plans and student
assessments
Teacher/Provider Signature: ____________________________________________Date: ________________________
Evaluator Signature: ___________________________________________
Date: ________________________
Page 39 of 48
Suggested Forms of Evidence for Teachers
Domain
Planning and Preparation
Learning Environment
Instruction / Delivery of Service
Professional Responsibilities
Sample Evidence/Data
Lesson Plans, Units & IEP goals in alignment with Common Core and
Essential skills
Assessment plan and assessments
Projects/Reports
Student Achievement Data
Grading Plan and Grade Book
Classroom Expectations
Substitute Plans
Evidence of differentiated instruction and assessment
Back to School Night handouts
Pre-observation conversation preparedness
Anecdotal notes, running records
Surveys of students’ attitudes, interests, learning styles, etc.
And/or others, if appropriate
Physical layout of room/area, Seating arrangements
Classroom rules and routines with evidence of student involvement,
Rubrics, Phone log for good news calls
Bulletin Boards (interactive, instructional), Artifacts of positive
reinforcement, schedule of students’ in-class jobs
Student projects, samples of student encouragement, student ambassador
program
And/or others, if appropriate
Units, pictures of classroom activities
Extension/enrichment activities
Review/reinforcement activities
Modifications for special needs
Appropriate interpretation of assessments
Flexible grouping plans
Student work samples, portfolios
Homework assignments and study guides
Curriculum integration plans
Videotape of instructor (audiotapes, photos)
Assessments
Projects / Reports
Student achievement data
And/or others, if appropriate
Professional involvement (ex: building committees, district committees,
professional organizations)
Participation in courses, conferences, workshops (in-district, out-ofdistrict), CPDUs
Presentations at professional meetings, evidence of collaboration
Service to professional organizations
Professional readings
Group planning notes (team, grade level, subject area)
Parent communications (notes, letters, phone call logs, surveys, forms,
etc.)
Copies of grants and explanation of how they benefit students
Journals
Mentor observations, protégé reflections
Yearly attendance
And/or others, if appropriate
Page 40 of 48
Optional
EVIDENCE / DATA TAG
The purpose of the tag is to document your reflection on evidence or data chosen to show progress towards your SMART
Goal.
Directions:
Create a tag for each evidence or data collection
==============================================================================
Teacher/Provider:
Name of Evidence:
Date Collected:
Domain:
Why I selected this…… Or What I learned from this ………
Page 41 of 48
Page 42 of 48
Kankakee School District #111 Professional Development Plan
Teacher/Provider: ___________________________________ Evaluator ______________ Date*:__________________
*to be written within 30 days of summative evaluation
Use separate sheet for each domain identified as an area needing improvement
Areas of Improvement:
Rationale for Area(s) of Improvement:
Domain / Component:
Indicators for Effective Teaching (refer to Sources of Evidence for Framework for Teaching
Improvement Strategies:
Task to Complete:
Domain / Component
Supports and Resources:
Indicators of Progress:
Evaluator
Comments
Evaluator:
Teacher/Provider:
Date:
Date:
Signatures above indicate the plan was developed by the evaluator in consultation with the teacher/provider
Page 43 of 48
Target Completion Date
Date of Completion
Professional Development Plan Summary
Teacher/Provider: _____________________________________ Evaluator: ___________________________ Date of PDP: ________________
Improvement
Area 1
Completed ? Yes
Improvement
Area 2 (if
Indicated)
Completed ? Yes
Improvement
Area 3 (if
Indicated)
Completed ? Yes
Domain ___________ Component _______________
No
Domain ___________ Component _______________
No
Domain ___________ Component _______________
No
Next Steps:
Teacher/Provider completion of Professional Development Plan:
Evaluator
Teacher/Provider:
Date:
Date:
Yes ___ No ___
The Teacher’s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the contents, but does acknowledge that the evaluation meeting occurred and that the Teacher received a copy of this Professional Development Plan
Summary.
Page 44 of 48
Kankakee School District
Remediation Plan for _________ (Teacher’s Name)
Date: _________________
This 90 school day Remediation Plan has been developed in response to the (date) __________ Unsatisfactory
rating under Kankakee School District’s Professional Evaluation Plan. The Summative Evaluation Form dated
___________identified the following areas in which performance was determined to be unsatisfactory.
Through the cooperation of the Union, _________ was selected as the consulting teacher to provide assistance
in developing and implementing this Plan. Other participants in the development of the Plan were
_________________. The plan was reviewed and finalized on (date)__________________.
This Plan is divided into two parts. The first part sets forth the major areas of unsatisfactory performance
identified in the Summative Evaluation Form dated _________. Examples of the deficiencies are given in Part
1. These examples have been taken from observations and documents that have previously been shared with
(teacher). Each of the major areas is followed by remedial activities to help ___________ raise her
performance to a satisfactory level. The second part of the Plan addresses significant issues relating to
implementation of the Plan.
Part 1: Deficiencies and Remedial Activities
Deficiencies:
Remedial Activities:
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Examples of Deficiencies:
Remedial Activities:
Component 1a: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the ______________ evaluation:
1a:
Component 1b: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
1b:
Component 1c: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
1c:
Component 1d: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
1d:
Component 1e: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
1e:
Component 1f: The following specific deficiencies
1f:
Page 45 of 48
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
Domain 2: Classroom Environment
Examples of Deficiencies:
Remedial Activities:
Component 2a: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the ______________ evaluation:
2a:
Component 2b: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
2b:
Component 2c: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
2c:
Component 2d: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
2d:
Component 2e: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
2e:
Domain 3: Instruction
Examples of Deficiencies:
Remedial Activities:
Component 3a: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the ______________ evaluation:
3a.
Component 3b: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
3b.
Component 3c: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
3c.
Component 3d: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
3d.
Component 3e: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
3e.
Domain 4: Professionalism
Examples of Deficiencies:
Remedial Activities:
Component 4a: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the ______________ evaluation:
4a.
Component 4b: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
4b.
Component 4c: The following specific deficiencies
Page 46 of 48
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
4c.
Component 4d: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
4d.
Component 4e: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
4e.
Component 4f: The following specific deficiencies
were noted in the _____________ evaluation:
4f.
Part 2: Implementation
1.
Evaluators: ___________and ____________ will be the qualified evaluators assigned to observe
your performance. While not expected, changes in the evaluators will be discussed with you and the consulting
teacher as soon as reasonably possible. _________ will be responsible for conducting an evaluation and rating
conference every 30 school days.
2.
Evaluation and Rating Conferences: The three evaluation and rating conferences will be held, to
the extent reasonably possible during the following weeks:
1st Conference – week of __________________
2nd Conference - week of _________________
3rd Conference - week of __________________
At each conference, the observations that occurred during the rating period, the Summative Evaluation Form,
including an overall rating, will be reviewed. _________ will prepare the evaluation instruments and determine
the rating. While the consulting teacher will not participate in the observations or evaluate your performance,
he/she will be informed of the results of the first two evaluations and may attend those conferences. Each rating
will be based on the District’s Professional Evaluation Plan.
At the last conference, the summative evaluation form containing the rating of your performance over the entire
remediation period will be presented. ________ will review the results of the remedial period and must concur
with the rating. It will be on the basis of this rating that a decision will be made on your employment status. If
this rating is Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory, your dismissal will be recommended to the Board of
Education. If the rating is Excellent or Proficient, you will be evaluated again next year.
3.
Observations: The observation schedule for the first evaluation and rating period will be as
follows, to the extent reasonably possible:
Week
Observer(s)
_________________
__________________________
_________________
__________________________
_________________
__________________________
Page 47 of 48
The actual dates of scheduled observations will be established, if reasonably possible, by the observers by the
end of the week preceding the observation. Observations and conferences will be held in the same basic
manner as is customary during a regular evaluation cycle.
For the second and third evaluation and rating periods, the observation schedule for the next period will be
established in connection with the rating conference. Unscheduled, drop-in observations may be conducted
between scheduled observations. The observer will advise you of the drop-in observation at the beginning of
the observation and then provide you an opportunity for a conversation in the same basic manner as is
customary for other teachers. Other indications of performance that arise outside of the formal classroom
observation context generally will be documented and will be reviewed during the post-conferences and/or
during the rating conference.
4.
Problems/Changes: Significant problems and concerns on the part of any participant must be
reduced to writing as soon as reasonably possible after the problem or concern arises to facilitate efforts to
resolve the matter. Similarly, significant changes in this Remediation Plan should be made in writing only after
discussions with you and the consulting teacher. It is the hope and expectation of all participants in this
Remediation Plan that problems, concerns and changes will be few and that you will complete the remediation
period with at least a Proficient rating.
Page 48 of 48