The Certified personnel evaluation process

1. The Certified personnel evaluation process

2. The Policy connection

3. Board Policy 01.5 • All policies of the Board are binding on employees of the District. . . • Employees who fail to comply with Board policies may be subject to disciplinary action.

4. Board Policy 02.3 Supervisors shall : • Endeavor to establish an atmosphere of cooperation and professional courtesy. • Direct employees under their supervision in keeping with Board policies, administrative procedures and other legal requirements. • Assist employees in solving problems that arise in the workplace in a timely and supportive manner. • Monitor employee performance to document training needs and share this information with the Superintendent/designee.

5. Board Policy 03.1325 Any employee who participates in or encourages activities that disrupt the educational process, whether on school property or at school-sponsored events and activities, may be subject to disciplinary action . . . including conduct that: • Threatens the health, safety, or welfare of others; • May damage public or private property, including the property of students or staff; • Is an illegal activity; • Interferes with a student's access to educational opportunities or programs, including ability to attend, participate in, and benefit from instructional and extracurricular activities; or • Disrupts delivery of instructional services or interferes with the orderly administration of the school / school-related activities /operations.

6. Board Policy 03.133 All employees are expected to use sound judgmentin the performance of their duties and to take reasonable measures to protect the health, safety, and well-being of others, as well as District property.

7. Development of System The Superintendent shall recommend for approval of the Board and the Kentucky Department of Education an evaluation system, developed by an evaluation committee, for all certified employees below the level of District Superintendent, which is in compliance with applicable statute and regulation.(KRS 156.557, 704 KAR 3:345) Policy 03.18/Evaluation of Certified Personnel

8. Purposes The purposes of the evaluation system shall be to: improve instruction, provide a measure of performance accountability to citizens, foster professional growth, and support individual personnel decisions. Policy 03.18/Evaluation of Certified Personnel

9. The current evaluation system

10. KDE Staff Note (Dec 09)

11. KDE Staff Note (continued)

12. Commonalities – Current Systems

13. Limitations of observations Only 1-2 classes per year (minor % of performance) Classroom responsibilities only Insufficient emphasis on formative evaluation and resulting assistance provided Subject to evaluator bias Focus on process versus outcomes Inspector model Source: James H. Stronge, 2011

15. Next Generation professionals

16. Construction underway

17. Timeline and Major Milestones • October, 2011 • Defining Multiple Measures • Content Validity Process • Selection Criteria for Teachers in the Field Test • MET Tools • November, 2011 • Content Validity results reported to steering committees • Volunteer district training • Tool developed and framework alignment to support defined multiple measures • Teacher & Leader Effectiveness components recommended by steering committees • Inter-rater Reliability training (MET videos & tools) • 17 • 17

18. Timeline and Major Milestones (Cont) • December, 2011 • Inter-rater reliability training continued • Field test training developed • January, 2012 • Field test training implemented • Final preparation for field test • February – April, 2012 • Field testing with volunteer districts • Field test process evaluation • May, 2012 • Field test evaluation report • Identify needs for Fall 2012 pilot implementation • June/July, 2012 • Correlation studies with multiple measures June KBE Meeting Approve regulation for evaluation system • 18 • 18

19. Next Generation Evaluations

20. Teacher impact Which teacher a student happens to get within a school matters more than which school the student happens to attend. Source: Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004

21. Kentucky Commitments Change how teachers and principals are evaluated. Change how they are supported to: • Continuously improve their professional practice; • Enhance their effectiveness; and • Drive increasingly high levels of student achievement.

22. possibilities Implications?

23. Elevating the Formative • Re-examine the purpose and focus of the formative phase. • During the post-formative conference, evaluator should work with employee to clarify expectations: • What is to occur during the year – including planning and systematic collection of data. • What the supervisor will look for during the subsequent observations.

24. DOMAIN PERFORMANCE LEVELS STANDARD KY TEACHER STANDARDS/ ISLLC (PRINCIPAL) EVIDENCE & ARTIFACTS DESCRIPTORS

25. FRAMEWORK designations

26. Basis for ratings Multiple-measures of teacher/ principal evaluation, including student growth, will be part of the future of K-12 education. Implications?

27. What areMultiple Measures?

28. Examples of Artifacts • Video/Audio Tapes • Office Referral Data • Student Feedback • Attendance Data • Parent Communication • Mentoring/Coaching • PD Logs • SBDM Committee Work • PD Presentations • Videos • Lesson/Unit Plans • Student Work Products • Learning Logs

29. Effectiveness Framework:The domains

30. Instruction

31. Learning Climate

32. Leadership and Professionalism

33. Student Performance

34. Important notes

35. Final reflections

36. Bill Gates on Great Teachers “We’ve never had a meaningful evaluation system that identifies the dimensions of great teachers so we can transfer the skills to others.” Key predictors of how much kids will learn: • Does the teacher use class time well? • When students are confused, does the teacher help get them straightened out?