professional growth & effectiveness system 2015-2016hart county...2015/05/21 · effective...

Professional Growth &

Effectiveness System TEACHERSPRINCIPALSOTHER CERTIFIED PROFESSIONALS

Hart County Schools

Certified Evaluation Plan

2015-2016

i

Certification Evaluation Plan Committee Members

Special thanks are extended to the following individuals for their expertise, input, and

tireless efforts as part of the 50/50 committee in developing a plan which meets the state

requirements, focuses on quality teaching and learning, and promotes a culture of professional

growth.

Greg Cecil (administrator), Hart County High School

Debbie Fowler (administrator), District Office

Angela Frank (administrator), District Office

Donna Lefevre (administrator), District Office

Mickey Maggard (teacher), Bonnieville Elementary

Nathan Smith (administrator), Cub Run Elementary

Roxye Sidebottom (teacher), Hart County High School

Leigh Ann Scott (teacher), LeGrande Elementary School

Donna Sims (teacher), Munfordville Elementary

Shanna Smith (teacher), Cub Run Elementary

Vicki Thompson (teacher), Memorial Elementary

Wesley Waddle (administrator/district point of contact), District Office

Adopted by the Hart County Board of Education (May 21, 2015)

Table of Contents

Professional Growth and Effectiveness System – Teachers & Other Certified Professionals........................................... 1 Roles and Definitions............................................................................................................................................. 1 The Kentucky Framework for Teaching & Specialist Framework for Other Professionals………………………………… 4

Kentucky Professional Growth & Effectiveness System Model............................................................................. Sources of Evidence/Framework for Teaching Alignment..................................................................................... Part I: Professional Practice....................................................................................................................................

6 7 8

Professional Growth Planning and Self-Reflection............................................................................ 8 Observation....................................................................................................................................... 9 Observation Model............................................................................................................................ Observation Schedule........................................................................................................................

9 9

Peer Observation............................................................................................................................... Observation Conferencing……………………………………………………………………………………………………........

11 12

Observer Certification....................................................................................................................... 12 Observer Calibration......................................................................................................................... 13 Student Voice…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 14

Products of Practice/Other Sources of Evidence (Staff Data Notebook)………………………………………... 15 Rating Overall Professional Practice................................................................................................... 15

Part II: Student Growth....................................................................................................................................... 17 State Contribution – Student Growth Percentiles (MSGPs).............................................................. 17 Local Contribution – Student Growth Goal (SGG)............................................................................ 18 Rigor of SGG..................................................................................................................................... 18 Comparability of SGG....................................................................................................................... 18

Determining Growth for a Single SGG............................................................................................... 18 Rating Overall Student Growth........................................................................................................ 20 Determining Local SGG Rating……………………………………………………………………………………………. 20 Determining State MSGP Rating…………………………………………………………………………………………. 21 Combining Local & State SGG Ratings………………………………………………………………………………… 22 Determining the Overall Performance Category................................................................................................. 23 Professional Growth Plan and Summative Cycle................................................................................................. 24 Professional Growth and Effectiveness System – Principal and Assistant Principal......................................................... 25

Kentucky Professional Growth & Effectiveness System Model........................................................................... Sources of Evidence/Framework Principal Alignment........................................................................................

26 27

Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Components.............................................................. 28 Principal Performance Standards....................................................................................................................... 29

Professional Practice…………………........................................................................................................................ 30 Professional Growth Plan and Self-Reflection................................................................................ 30 Site-Visits………………………………………………………............................................................................... 30 Val-Ed 360º..................................................................................................................................... 30 Working Conditions Goal…............................................................................................................. 31 Products of Practice........................................................................................................................ 32 Student Growth................................................................................................................................................... 32 State Contribution ……............................................…….................................................................. 33 Local Contribution..................................................... ……............................................................... 33 Determining the Overall Performance Category................................................................................................ 34 Rating Overall Professional Practice.............................................................................................. 34 Rating Overall Student Growth…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 35

Determining Overall Performance Category………………………………………………………………………………………….…….. 37 Other District Certified Personnel…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39 Appeals Process................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Appendices.......................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Hart County Schools 2015-2016 CEP: Page 1

Professional Growth and Effectiveness System:

Teachers & Other Certified Professionals

Professional Growth and Effectiveness System The vision for the Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES) is to have every student taught by an effective teacher, every school led by an effective leader, and certified services delivered by an effective professional. The goal is to create a fair and equitable system to measure teacher, other certified professional, and leader effectiveness and act as a catalyst for professional growth.

Roles and Definitions 1. Artifact: A product of a certified school personnel’s work that demonstrates knowledge

and skills. 2. Assistant Principal: A certified school personnel who devotes the majority of employed

time in the role of assistant principal, for which administrative certification is required by EPSB.

3. Certified Administrator: A certified school personnel, other than principal or assistant principal, who devotes the majority of time in a position for which administrative certification is required by EPSB.

4. Certified School Personnel: A certified employee, below the level of superintendent, who devotes the majority of time in a position in a district for which certification is required by EPSB.

5. CIITS: term referring to the current (or other) state-provided technology platform; currently referred to as the Continuous Instructional Technology System

6. Conference: A meeting between the evaluator and the evaluatee for the purposes of providing feedback, analyzing the results of an observation or observations, reviewing other evidence to determine the evaluatee’s accomplishments and areas for growth, and leading to the establishment or revision of a professional growth plan.

7. Enduring Skill: comprehensive concepts that are worthy of an extended instructional focus, fundamental to learning in other disciplines, valuable and applicable beyond one narrow context (or assessment), foundational for the application of content, relevant beyond school, and measurable over time.

8. Evaluatee: A certified school personnel who is being evaluated. 9. Evaluator: The primary evaluator as described in KRS 156.557(5)(c)2. 10. Formative Evaluation: Is defined by KRS 156.557(1)(a). 11. Full Observation: An observation conducted by a certified observer that is conducted for

the length of a full class period or full lesson. 12. Improvement Plan: A plan for improvement up to twelve months in duration for:

a. Teachers and other certified professionals who are rated ineffective in professional practice and have a low overall student growth rating.

b. Principals who are rated ineffective in professional practice and have high, expected, or low overall student growth rating.

13. Job Category: A group or class of certified school personnel positions with closely related functions.


14. Local Contribution: A rating based on the degree to which a teacher, other professional, principal, or assistant principal meets student growth goals and is used for the student growth measure.

15. Local Formative Growth Measures: Is defined by KRS 156.557(1)(b). 16. Mini Observation: an observation conducted by a certified observer for 20-30 minutes in

length. 17. Observation: a data collection process conducted by a certified observer, in person or

through video, for the purpose of evaluation, including notes, professional judgments, and examination of artifacts made during one (1) or more classroom or worksite visits of any duration.

18. Observer Certification: a process of training and ensuring that certified school personnel who serve as observers of evaluatees have demonstrated proficiency in rating teachers and other professionals for the purposes of evaluation and feedback.

19. Observer Calibration: the process of ensuring that certified school personnel have maintained proficiency and accuracy in observing teachers and other professionals for the purposes of evaluation and providing feedback.

20. Other Certified Professionals: certified school personnel, except for teachers, administrators, assistant principals, or principals.

21. Overall Student Growth Rating: the rating that is calculated for a teacher or other professional evaluatee pursuant to the requirements of Section 7(9) and (10) of this administrative regulation and that is calculated for an assistant principal or principal evaluatee pursuant to the requirements of Section 10(8) of this administrative regulation.

22. Peer Observation: observation and documentation by trained certified school personnel below the level of principal or assistant principal; conducted for professional reflection and feedback—not an evaluative process

23. Performance Criteria: the areas, skills, or outcomes on which certified school personnel are evaluated.

24. Performance Rating: the summative description of a teacher, other professional, principal, or assistant principal evaluatee’s performance, including the ratings listed in Section 7(8) of this administrative regulation.

25. Principal: a certified school personnel who devotes the majority of employed time in the role of principal, for which administrative certification is required by the Education Professional Standards Board pursuant to 16 KAR 3:050.

26. Professional Growth and Effectiveness System: an evaluation system to support and improve the performance of certified school personnel that meets the requirements of KRS 156.557(1)(c), (2), and (3) and that uses clear and timely feedback to guide professional development.

27. Professional Growth Plan: an individualized plan for a certified personnel that is focused on improving professional practice and leadership skills, aligned with performance standards and the specific goals and objectives of the school improvement plan or the district improvement plan, built using a variety of sources and types of data that reflect student needs and strengths, evaluatee data, and school and district data, produced in consultation with the evaluator as described in Section 9(1), (2), (3), and (4) and Section 12(1), (2), (3), and (4) of this administrative regulation, and includes: (a) Goals for enrichment and development that are established by the


evaluatee in consultation with the evaluator; (b) Objectives or targets aligned to the goals; (c) An action plan for achieving the objectives or targets and a plan for monitoring progress; (d) A method for evaluating success; and (e) The identification, prioritization, and coordination of presently available school and district resources to accomplish the goals.

28. Professional Practice: the demonstration, in the school environment, of the evaluatee’s professional knowledge and skill.

29. Professional Practice Rating: the rating that is calculated for a teacher or other professional evaluatee pursuant to Section 7(8) of this administrative regulation and that is calculated for a principal or assistant principal evaluatee pursuant to the requirements of Section 10(7) of this administrative regulation.

30. Self-Reflection: the process by which certified personnel assesses the effectiveness and adequacy of their knowledge and performance for the purpose of identifying areas for professional learning and growth.

31. Sources of Evidence: the multiple measures listed in KRS 156.557(4) and in Sections 7 and 10 of this administrative regulation.

32. State Contribution: the student growth percentiles, as defined in 703 KAR 5:200, Section 1(11), for teachers and other professionals, and the next generation learners goal for principals and assistant principals.

33. Student Growth: Is defined by KRS 156.557(1)(c). 34. Student Growth Goal: a goal focused on learning, that is specific, appropriate,

realistic, and time-bound, that is developed collaboratively and agreed upon by the evaluatee and evaluator, and that uses local formative growth measures.

35. Student Growth Percentile: each student's rate of change compared to other students with a similar test score history.

36. Student Voice Survey: the student perception survey provided by the department that is administered annually to a minimum of one (1) district-designated group of students per teacher evaluatee or a district designated selection of students and provides data on specific aspects of the instructional environment and professional practice of the teacher or other professional evaluatee; conducted for professional reflection and feedback—not an evaluative process

37. Summative Evaluation: is defined by KRS 156.557(1)(d). 38. Supervisor: a staff member responsible for the evaluation of certified personnel, who

has satisfactorily completed all required evaluation training and, if evaluating teachers, observation certification training; immediate supervisor shall be designated as the primary evaluator.

39. Teacher: a certified school personnel who has been assigned the lead responsibility for student learning in a classroom, grade level, subject, or course and holds a teaching certificate under 16 KAR 2:010 or 16 KAR 2:020.

40. Working Condition’s Survey Goal: a school improvement goal set by a principal or assistant principal every two (2) years with the use of data from the department-approved working conditions survey.

For additional definitions and roles, please see 704KAR 3:370 Professional Growth and Effectiveness System.


The Kentucky Framework for Teaching and Specialist Framework for Other Professionals

The Kentucky Framework for Teaching is designed to support student achievement and professional practice through four domains. The four domains in the “Specialist Framework” reflect an emphasis on service delivery for other certified professionals whose work with students does not occur in the traditional classroom setting.

Framework for Teaching Planning and Preparation Classroom Environment

Instruction Professional Responsibilities

Specialist Framework for Other Professionals Planning and Preparation

Environment Instruction/Delivery of Service Professional Responsibilities

The frameworks also include themes such as equity, cultural competence, high expectations, developmental appropriateness, accommodating individual needs, effective technology integration, and student assumption of responsibility. They provide structure for feedback for continuous improvement through individual goals that target student and professional growth, thus supporting overall school improvement. Evidence documenting professional practice is situated within one or more of the four domains of the framework. Performance is rated for each component according to four performance levels: Ineffective, Developing, Accomplished, and Exemplary. The summative rating is a holistic representation of performance, combining data from multiple sources of evidence across each domain. The use of professional judgment based on multiple sources of evidence promotes a holistic and comprehensive analysis of practice, rather than over-reliance on one individual data point or rote calculation of practice based on predetermined formulas. Evaluators also take into account how educators respond to or apply additional supports and resources designed to promote student learning, as well as their own professional growth and development. Finally, professional judgment gives evaluators the flexibility to account for a wide variety of factors related to individual educator performance, such as school-specific priorities that may drive practice in one domain, an educator’s number of goals, experience level and/or leadership opportunities, and contextual variables that may impact the learning environment, such as unanticipated outside events or traumas. Evaluators must use the following categories of evidence in determining overall ratings based on the required sources of evidence:

Professional Growth Planning and Self-Reflection

Administrator Observation

Local Student Growth Goals and/or State Student Growth Goal (Median Student Growth Percentiles for Grades 4-8 in Math & English Language Arts)

Staff Data Notebook (Products of Practice/Sources of Evidence) which may include items such as program review evidence, curriculum units, lesson plans, communication logs, lesson reflections (including reflections on walkthroughs, informal peer observations, etc.), analysis of student work samples, formative student data, records of PLC activities, results of collaborative or team activities, results of various activities (such as parent involvement activities, video lessons, mini lessons, or highly effective student activities), engagement in professional activities, action


research; a sample list of artifacts are included in Appendix A; notebooks should be developed over the course of the evaluatee’s evaluation cycle.

All components and sources of evidence related supporting an educator’s professional practice and student growth ratings will be completed and documented to inform the Overall Performance Category. All Summative Ratings will be recorded in the department-approved technology platform within the “Summary of Evidence” section. As indicated by the model on the following page, the PGES/CEP process is cyclical and reflective. The system consists of two core elements: Professional Practice and Student Growth. Based on collected evidence, evaluators assign an overall rating using their professional judgement. The rating for each core element then guides the professional growth process and results in an overall performance rating. In turn, the professional growth process will guides teachers in reflecting upon and targeting key factors within Professional Practice and Student Growth, thereby beginning the cycle anew each year of employment.


ALIGNMENT OF SOURCES OF EVIDENCE WITH THE FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING

FRA

MEW

OR

K f

or

TEA

CH

ING

(Ff

T)

Components

D O M A I N S

Planning & Preparation Classroom

Environment Instruction

Professional Responsibilities

1a

-Kn

ow

led

ge o

f co

nte

nt/

ped

ago

gy

1b

-De

mo

nst

rate

kn

ow

led

ge o

f st

ud

en

ts

1c-

Se

ttin

g In

stru

ctio

nal

Ou

tco

me

s

1d

-De

mo

nst

rate

s k

no

wle

dge

of

reso

urc

es

1e

-De

sign

ing

Co

he

ren

t In

stru

ctio

n

1f-

De

sign

ing

Stu

de

nt

Ass

ess

me

nt

2a-

Cre

atin

g En

v. o

f R

esp

ect

& R

app

ort

2b

-Est

ablis

h C

ult

ure

of

Lear

nin

g

2c-

Mai

nta

ing

Cla

ssro

om

Pro

ced

ure

s

2d

-Man

agin

g St

ud

en

t B

eh

avio

r

2e

-Org

aniz

ing

Ph

ysic

al S

pac

e

3a-

Co

mm

un

icat

ing

wit

h S

tud

en

ts

3b

-Qu

est

ion

ing

& D

iscu

ssio

n T

ech

niq

ue

s

3c-

Enga

gin

g St

ud

en

ts in

Le

arn

ing

3d

-Usi

ng

Ass

ess

me

nt

in L

ear

nin

g

3e

-De

mo

nst

rati

ng

Fle

xib

ility

& R

esp

on

sive

4a-

Re

fle

ctin

g O

n T

eac

hin

g

4b

-Mai

nta

inin

g A

ccu

rate

Re

cord

s

4c-

Co

mm

un

icat

ing

Wit

h F

amili

es

4d

-Par

tici

pat

ing

in P

rofe

ss.

Lear

nin

g C

om

m.

4e

-Gro

win

g &

De

velo

pin

g P

rofe

ssio

nal

ly

4f-

Sho

win

g P

rofe

ssio

nal

ism

SOU

RC

ES O

F EV

IDEN

CE

To In

form

Pro

fess

ion

al P

ract

ice

Supervisor Observation

Evidence (pre and post conferences)

Supervisor Observation Evidence

(pre and post conferences)

Student Voice

Kentucky Student Voice Survey

(for reflection only—not evaluative)

Professional Growth

Professional Growth Planning and Self Reflection Self-

Reflection

Peer Observation

Peer Observation

(for reflection only—not evaluative)

Staff Data Notebook

Staff Data Notebook (particularly important for domains 1 and 4)

Legend: Non-Evaluative Source of Evidence Not Applicable Direct Evaluative Data


Part I: Professional Practice

Professional practice accounts for one half of the overall rating for teachers and other certified

professionals. Evaluative elements within professional practice include self-reflection and professional

growth planning and supervisor observations. Also included—but for non-evaluative, reflective

purposes—are peer observation and student voice surveys.

Professional Growth Planning and Self-Reflection Reflective practices and professional growth planning are iterative processes. The teacher (1) reflects

on his or her current growth needs based on multiple sources of data and identifies an area or areas for

focus; (2) collaborates with his or her administrator to develop a professional growth plan and action

steps; (3) implements the plan; (4) regularly reflects on the progress and impact of the plan on his or her

professional practice; (5) modifies the plan as appropriate; (6) continues implementation and ongoing

reflection; (7) and, finally, conducts a summative reflection on the degree of goal attainment and the

implications for next steps.

The Professional Growth Plan addresses realistic, focused, and measurable professional goals. The plan

connects data from multiple sources including classroom observation feedback, data on student growth

and achievement, and professional growth needs identified through self-assessment and reflection. In

collaboration with the administrators, teachers identify explicit goals which drive the focus of

professional growth activities, support, and on-going reflection.

All teachers and other certified professionals shall participate in self-reflection and complete the annual professional growth planning process as follows . . .

1. complete the Framework for Teaching Self-Analysis Survey each year (see Appendix B) 2. reflect on his or her current growth needs based on multiple sources of data (including

survey results) and identify an area or areas of focus 3. collaborate with his or her administrator to develop a professional growth plan and action

steps in alignment with school/district improvement plans 4. implement the plan 5. regularly reflect on the progress and impact of the plan on his or her professional practice 6. modify the plan as appropriate 7. continue implementation and ongoing reflection as part of the annual review of the plan 8. conduct a summative reflection on the degree of goal attainment and the implications for

next steps

All teachers and other certified professionals will document self-reflection and professional

growth planning in CIITS (or other state-approved technology platform) according to the following timeline:

Based on multiple sources of data, including the summative reflection and degree of goal attainment on the previous PGP, a new PGP shall be developed annually and approved by the principal by the last day of the school year, no later than June 1.


Revisions and implementation of the PGP shall occur on an ongoing basis as determined by the principal and teacher with at least one reflection submitted in CIITS by October 1 (returning staff). Principals have the discretion to meet with staff regarding the reflection but are not required to do so.

Newly-hired teachers or other certified professionals who are not participating in the internship program shall develop a PGP for the current year by October 1 with at least one reflection submitted in CIITS by December 1.

Teachers and other certified professionals hired after September 15 shall develop a professional growth plan within the first six weeks of employment and complete at least one reflection in CIITS prior to his/her summative observation.

Observation The observation process is one source of evidence to determine educator effectiveness that includes

supervisor and peer observation for each certified teacher and other professional. The supervisor

observation provides documentation and feedback to measure the effectiveness of professional

practice. Only the supervisor observation will be used to inform a summative rating. Peer observation

is used only for formative feedback on professional practice in a collegial atmosphere of trust and

common purpose. Since the peer observation is in no manner an evaluative tool, NO ratings are given

by the peer observer. The rationale for each type of observation is to encourage continued professional

learning in teaching and learning through critical self-reflection.

Observation Model

Four observations shall occur within each summative cycle, including a minimum of three (3) observations conducted by the supervisor and one observation conducted by the peer. The supervisor shall conduct two mini observations and one full observation. The peer shall conduct one mini observation which must occur in the final year of the summative cycle and precede the final full observation by the supervisor. The peer and supervisor mini observations shall be documented using the mini observation form instruments for teachers and other certified professionals (see Appendices C, D, E, and F) or through CIITS at the discretion of the head principal of each building. Full observations by the supervisor shall be documented in CIITS.

The number of required observations for teachers and other certified professionals who are not

employed at the start of the school year shall be reduced based upon the date of employment and the remaining opportunities for observation according to the specified timeline in the “Observation Schedule” section of this plan.

Observation Schedule Observation cycles are outlined below for both tenured and non-tenured certified teaching staff

and other certified professionals. All teachers and other certified professionals shall receive evaluation training within 30 calendar days of reporting for employment each school year. After training on the evaluation process and criteria, observations may begin two weeks after the first student-attendance day of the school year (or two weeks after first reporting for work in the case of late hires).


Observation cycles are outlined for both tenured and non-tenured certified teaching staff and other certified professionals, as well as for intern employees.

Three-Year Observation Cycle

The observation cycle, at a minimum, for tenured staff will include . . .

1. Four (4) observations in the summative three-year cycle, including a minimum of three (3) observations conducted by the supervisor and one (1) observation conducted by the peer.

2. At least one (1) peer observation (mini) must occur in the final year of the three-year cycle.

3. The final observation in year three will be conducted by the supervisor and will be a full observation.

4. All mini observations (see schedule on Page 11) will be documented using the district shall be documented using the mini observation form instruments for teachers and other certified professionals (see Appendices C, D, E, and F) or through CIITS at the discretion of the head principal of each building.

5. The full supervisor observation will be documented in CIITS. 6. The Summary of Evidence in CIITS shall serve as the summative evaluation. Signed

hardcopies shall become part of the official personnel file. An opportunity for written

response shall be included in the official personnel file. A copy of the evaluation shall be

provided to each evaluatee.

Based upon evaluation results, tenured staff will be placed an appropriate observation cycle, which may range from a twelve-month improvement plan to a three-year self-directed professional growth cycle (See page 24). Additional and multiple observations for tenured teachers or other certified professionals will occur when summative evaluations results yield a determination of “Ineffective.”

One-Year Observation Cycle

The observation cycle, at a minimum, will include . . .

1. Four (4) observations in the annual cycle, including a minimum of three (3) observations conducted by the supervisor (one full and two mini) and one (1) mini observation conducted by the peer.

2. The final annual observation will be conducted by the supervisor and will be a full observation.

3. All mini observations will be documented using the mini observation form instruments for teachers and other certified professionals (see Appendices C, D, E, and F) or through CIITS at the discretion of the head principal of each building.

4. The full supervisor observation will be documented in CIITS. 5. The Summary of Evidence in CIITS shall serve as the summative evaluation. Signed

hardcopies shall become part of the official personnel file. An opportunity for written

response shall be included in the official personnel file. A copy of the evaluation shall be

provided to each evaluatee.


For both tenured and non-tenured staff, observation cycles shall include three mini observations (2 supervisor and 1 peer observation) of at least 20 minutes each and one full-length observation (state observation model A—3 & 1). Observers will make note of the components observed in order to identify opportunities for growth or targets for instructional practice in the next mini observation session. As stated above, the final observation shall be conducted by the supervisor and will be a formal observation consisting of a full class, lesson, or service delivery.

Observation Cycle for Intern Teachers

Intern teachers and other certified professionals shall complete all requirements of the current KTIP process in which PGES has been embedded. The final results of the KTIP process shall serve as the summative evaluation for intern teachers and other certified professionals. Signed hardcopies shall become part of the official personnel file. An opportunity for written response shall be included in the official personnel file. A copy of the evaluation shall be provided to each evaluatee.

Specific Observation Timeline

1. For teachers and other certified professionals on a one-year observation schedule, the mini observations (two supervisor and one peer) shall be conducted throughout the year, with at least one observation occurring by each date: October 15, December 15, and March 15. The full observation by the supervisor shall be conducted no later than April 30.

2. For teachers and other certified professionals on a three-year observation schedule, observations shall occur according to the following schedule:

a. Mini observation by the supervisor by March 15 in years one and two b. Mini observation by the peer in year three by March 15 c. Full observation by the supervisor (following peer observation in summative year)

by April 30 3. The peer, full observation by the supervisor, and mini observations in the fall semester by

the supervisor shall be scheduled. The mini observation in the spring semester by the supervisor may or may not be scheduled.

4. Teachers and other certified professional professionals participating in the KTIP process shall adhere to the timelines established by the KTIP process and their KTIP committee.

5. The number of required observations for teachers and other certified professionals who are not employed at the start of the school year shall be reduced based upon the date of employment and the remaining opportunities for observation according to this observation timeline.

Peer Observation A Peer Observer observes, collects, shares evidence, and provides feedback for formative, reflective purposes only. Peer observers do not score a teacher’s practice. All teachers and other certified professionals will receive a peer observation in their summative year. All Peer Observers participating during the summative year observations will complete the KDE-approved training once every three years. All peer observation documentation will be accessed only by the observee unless he/she chooses to share the information from the peer observation.

All teachers and other certified professionals will receive a peer observation in their summative year which shall be documented/evidence collected using the mini observation form


instruments for teachers and other certified professionals (see Appendices C and D) or through CIITS at the discretion of the head principal of each building.

Based on their professional judgment, principals shall identify and assign Peer Observers from a pool of trained teachers and other certified professionals after consultation with observees.

Peer observers shall complete the required training online or through other KDE-approved training methods as available prior to conducting any peer observations. Training must be completed at least once every three years.

An annual refresher regarding peer observations will be provided by the district or schools for peer observers.

As appropriate, peer observers for other certified professionals may be assigned by the principal from other staff throughout the district; however, as a reflective, collegial process, other certified professionals may benefit from a peer observation from an individual who does not necessarily share the same job position.

Observation Conferencing Observers will adhere to the following observation conferencing requirements for teachers and other professionals:

1. Pre-observation conferences are encouraged but not required for mini observations and may be conducted electronically (email, etc.), by phone, or in person.

2. Pre-observation conferences are required for full observations and shall be conducted electronically (email, etc.), by phone, or in person. The timeline for pre-observation conferences shall be established by the teacher and observer but shall occur no later than the preceding day of the observation.

3. Pre-observation conferences may use the pre-conference form in Appendix G or another district-approved form at the discretion of the principal.

4. Post-observation conferences are required for mini and full observations and shall occur within five (5) working days of the date the observations. Post-observation conferences for full observations shall occur in person. Post-observation conferences for mini observations may be conducted electronically (email, etc.), by phone, or in person.

5. The summative evaluation conference shall be held at the end of the summative evaluation cycle and shall include all applicable Professional Growth and Effectiveness System data.

Observer Certification

All administrators serving as a primary evaluator must complete the Initial Certified Evaluation Training

prior to conducting observations for the purpose of evaluation.

To ensure consistency of observations, evaluators must also be trained, tested and approved using the Proficiency Observation Training for the current approved state platform. The system allows observers to develop a deep understanding of how the four domains of the Kentucky Framework for Teaching (FfT) are applied in observation. There are three sections of the proficiency system:

Framework for Teaching Observer Training

Framework for Teaching Scoring Practice

Framework for Teaching Proficiency Assessment


The established cycle for observation certification shall be as follows . . .

Year 1 Certification

Year 2 Calibration

Year 3 Calibration

Year 4 Recertification

Only supervisors who have passed the proficiency assessment can conduct mini and full observations for the purpose of evaluation. In the event that a supervisor has yet to complete the proficiency assessment, or if the supervisor does not pass the assessment, the district will provide the following supports:

Observation data provided by a substitute observer is considered a valid source of evidence only if the supervisor is present in the observation. Substitute observer(s) appointed by the superintendent/designee shall conduct observations (with the supervisor participating in a passive secondary role); these observations shall be a valid source of evidence for evaluation.

In cases where the supervisor is not certified through the proficiency system and is therefore unable to conduct observations during the observation window, the superintendent/designee shall appoint a certified observer from within the district to ensure that observations, conferences, and reflections occur according to the timeline established within this document.

The district will provide technical assistance to supervisors who have not passed the proficiency assessment through shadowing other observers, one-on-one assistance, and additional training opportunities as available.

Supervisors who are employed after the start of the school year shall be provided release time to complete the state-mandated review and assessment system. The district shall provide assistance through shadowing other observers, one-on-one assistance, and additional training as needed.

The district will provide annual access to the state-mandated platform for training, assessment, and calibration so that all supervisors remain up to date and maintain the required evaluation certification.

Observer Calibration As certified observers may tend to experience “drift” in rating accuracy, the district completes a calibration process each year where certification is not required (see chart under Observer Certification). This calibration process is completed in years two and three after certification. Calibration ensures ongoing accuracy in scoring teaching practice; an awareness of the potential risk for rater bias; and ensures observers refresh their knowledge of the training and scoring practice. All calibration processes must be conducted through the state approved technology platform. Observer calibration during years two and three of the Observer Certification process will be based on the KDE-approved platform. Re-certification will be required after year three. The district will provide access to the state-mandated calibration process, including release time and technical assistance to achieve an acceptable level of calibration. Supervisors demonstrating a “red” level of calibration shall receive one-on-one follow up and complete additional training until they obtain a “yellow” or “green” rating. Supervisors demonstrating a “yellow” rating will conference with a supervisor who has obtained a “green” rating in order to further calibrate.


Student Voice The Student Voice Survey is a confidential, on-line survey collecting student feedback on specific aspects of the classroom experience and teaching practice. All teachers and other certified professionals will participate in the state-approved Student Voice Survey annually with a minimum of one identified group of students. Student selection for participation shall be consistent across the district. All teachers, other certified professionals, and appropriate administrative staff receive, review, and sign the district’s Student Voice Ethics Statement indicating their understanding of and intent to adhere to the process and required guidelines. Details of administration of the student voice survey include . . .

The Student Voice Survey will be administered in the school setting between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. local time.

Survey data will be considered only when ten or more students are respondents. If fewer than ten respondents participate, the principal and/or district point of contact will review student assignments in the student information system to determine if additional students are available to participate.

The assistant superintendent shall serve as the District Student Voice Survey Point-of-Contact.

As appropriate, teachers may preview the questions with students so that the questions are clearly understood by all students.

If needed, the survey shall be administered in pencil/paper form for those other certified professionals that may serve fewer than ten students in one school.

All teachers and other certified professionals serving students in grades 3 through 8 will receive feedback from at least one administration of the state-approved Student Voice Survey annually with a minimum of one identified group of students. However, teachers and other certified professionals serving students in grades 3 through 8 may request an additional administration in the spring semester. All 9-12 teachers will receive feedback from at least two administrations of the state-approved Student Voice Survey annually with a minimum of one identified group of students.

Results from the formative years will be used to inform professional practice and assist with professional growth in the summative year but not in the evaluation of teaching performance.

Participating students shall be given equal access for completing the survey in the time frame outlined in this section. Relevant accommodations will be provided to qualifying students.

Student Voice Surveys shall be administered according to the following timeline (or alternate dates which coincide with the state window for survey administration):

Grades 3-8: at least one survey completed no later than March 15 annually

Grades 9-12: at least one survey completed each semester (completed by October 15 and March 15, respectively)

Based on their professional judgment after consultation with each teacher, principals shall determine the identified group of students to complete the survey and assure equal access for participation.


Staff Data Notebook (Products of Practice/Other Sources of Evidence) Teachers and other certified professionals shall provide additional evidences to support assessment of their own professional practice. These evidences should yield information related to the teacher’s practice within the domains. Specific requirements include observations conducted by the supervisor, reflection on student voice survey results, and self-reflection and professional growth plans. In addition, each teacher and other certified professional shall annually assemble a collection of professional work samples related to the four Domains, with emphasis on Domains 1 and 4. The collections shall be reviewed by the principal as part of the observation cycle. The collections shall include student voice survey results (and accompanying analysis/reflection), professional growth plan, and relevant reflections. Examples of additional evidence may include but are not limited to the following artifacts and any other products of practice, as well as those listed in Appendix A:

program review evidence

curriculum units

lesson plans

communication logs

lesson reflections (including reflections on walkthroughs, informal peer observations, etc.)

analysis of student work samples

formative student data

records of PLC activities

results of collaborative or team activities

results of parent involvement activities

video lessons, mini lessons, or highly effective student activities

engagement in professional activities

action research Staff Data Notebooks should be developed over the course of the evaluatee’s evaluation cycle..

Rating Overall Professional Practice The Kentucky Framework for Teaching stands as the critical rubric for providing educators and evaluators with concrete descriptions of practice associated with specific domains. Each element describes a discrete behavior or related set of behaviors that educators and evaluators can prioritize for evidence-gathering, feedback, and eventually, evaluation. Supervisors organize and analyze evidence for each individual educator based on these concrete descriptions of practice.

The process concludes with the evaluator’s analysis of evidence and the final assessment of practice in relation to performance described under each Domain at the culmination of an educator’s cycle. The evaluator will provide a summative rating for each domain based on analysis of the documented evidence. All ratings must be recorded in the department-approved technology platform. Based on analysis of the documented evidence as indicated in the above model, supervisors shall assign

a rating of Ineffective, Developing, Accomplished, or Exemplary for each domain.


REQUIRED

• Supervisor Observations

• Professional Growth

PR

OFE

SSIO

NA

L P

RA

CTI

CE

DOMAIN RATINGS

DOMAIN 1: [I,D,A,E]

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO

INFORM PROFESSIONAL

PRACTICE

PROFESSIONAL

JUDGMENT

DOMAIN 2: [I,D,A,E]

DOMAIN 3: [I,D,A,E]

DOMAIN 4: [I,D,A,E]

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A TEACHER/OTHER CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL’S OVERALL PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING

Based upon the ratings based on evidence for each Domain, the evaluator will assign an overall rating

for professional practice in CIITS (or other KDE-approved technology platform) based upon the decision

table shown below.


Part II: Student Growth The student growth measure is comprised of two possible contributions: a state contribution and a local contribution. The state contribution shall be reported as Median Student Growth Percentiles (MSGP) and will pertain only to teachers in the following content areas and grade levels participating in state assessments:

4th – 8th Grades

English/Language Arts

Math

The local contribution uses the Student Growth Goal Setting Process and applies to all teachers and

other certified professionals in the district, including those who receive MSGP, as depicted in the graphic

below.

State Contribution Median Student Growth Percentiles (MSGP) – Teachers of Math/ELA, Grades 4-8)

The state contribution for student growth is a rating based on each student’s rate of change compared

to other students with a similar test score history (“academic peers”) expressed as a percentile. The

rating will be calculated using the MSGPs for the students attributed the teacher of grades 4-8 math

and/or ELA classes. The scale for determining acceptable growth will be determined by the Kentucky

Board of Education and provided to the district by the Kentucky Department of Education.

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Do you teach students in grades 4-8?

Do you teach in the Math or ELA

content areas?

Do your students participate in the

Math or ELA K-PREP Assessment?

LOCAL & STATE CONTRIBUTION

LOCAL CONTRIBUTION

ONLY


Local Contribution

Student Growth Goal (SGG) –All teachers and other certified professionals

The local contribution for the student growth measure is a rating based on the degree to which a

teacher or other certified professional meets the growth goal for a set of students over an identified

interval of instruction (i.e. trimester, semester, year-long) as indicated in the teacher/other certified

professional’s Student Growth Goal (SGG). All teachers and other certified professionals will develop an

SGG for inclusion in the student growth measure. All Student Growth Goals will be determined by the

teacher or other professional in collaboration with the principal and will be grounded in the

fundamentals of assessment quality (Clear Purpose, Clear Targets, Sound Design, Effective

Communication, and Student Involvement) and reflect the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable,

relevant, and time-bound) elements of effective goal setting. The SGG should address these

elements:

Rigor—congruency to the Kentucky Core Academic Standards

Comparability—data collected for the Student Growth Goal must use comparable criteria across similar

classrooms (classrooms that address the same standards) to determine progress toward mastery of

standards/enduring skills; examples of similar classrooms might be 6th grade science classrooms, 3rd

grade classrooms, English I classrooms, band or art classes. For similar classrooms, teachers would be

expected to use common- measures or rubrics to determine competency in performance at the level

intended by the standards being assessed. Although specific assessments may vary, the close alignment

to the intent of the standard is comparable.

To fulfill the criteria of measuring student growth at the local level, the protocol shown in Appendix H

shall be applied to ensure rigorous and comparable growth measures in use by all teachers and other

certified professionals—in addition to the guidance provided in the following section of this plan.

When establishing the SGG, other certified professionals shall use the national standards for their job profession. For example, library media specialists shall select an area for SGG based upon the American Association of School Librarians national standards, Speech-Language Pathologists shall select from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association national standards, etc. Preschool teachers shall base SGGs upon the Kentucky Early Childhood Standards.

Determining Growth for a Single Student Growth Goal (SGG) Development of the goal through grade level teams, PLC’s, and other professional collaborative efforts is encouraged.

Student Growth Goal Criteria The one SGG shall. . .

align with Kentucky Core Academic Standards (K-12 teachers), national professional standards (other certified professionals), or Kentucky Early Childhood Education


Standards (preschool teachers) and be appropriate for the grade level and content area/service delivery for which it was developed.

address an enduring skill, process, understanding, or concept that students are expected to master.

enable high- and low-achieving students to adequately demonstrate their knowledge and growth in comparison to the desired level of mastery.

provide equitable access to the curriculum/service delivery and opportunity for mastery by all students, regardless of academic level, socio-economic status, ethnicity, gender, disability, etc.

be entered in CIITS according to the following timeline as determined by course length: o year-long course: goal entered within four weeks of beginning of course o semester course: goal entered within three weeks of beginning of course o nine-week course: goal entered within one week of beginning of course

complete the data collection, analysis, and reporting process relative to the SGG no later than the date of the summative conference or April 15 in non-summative years

While teachers may develop goals in consultation with peers, PLCs, and/or with the principal, the principal shall ensure that the goals meet the “acceptable” standards of the protocol prior to their entry into CIITS. Principals shall monitor the scoring processes and data collection related to the goal(s) during the observation cycle, grade level team meetings, PLC’s, and other professional collaborative efforts which may contribute to the goal development and monitoring of student progress as appropriate.

The results of the local SGG shall be evaluated as low, expected or high based on analysis of student data collected through the selected measures. Student performance measures may include one of the following or any combination which appropriately relates to the goal or another research-based measure agreed upon by the teacher/other certified professional and principal at the time of goal development. All assessments must meet the district standards for rigor and comparability outlined in the SGG Development Protocol (see Appendix H). Data shall be collected in a manner consistent with the content of the goal and shall be documented in CIITS or in another accessible, consistent manner to ensure comparability, validity, and reliability. It shall be the principal’s responsibility to determine validity and comparability of scoring. Pre-Test/Post-Test

The teacher and principal will use pre- and post-test results to determine the growth identified in their goal. These assessments can be identical or comparable versions. Repeated Measures Design

Teachers will maintain a record of results on short-term measures that allow students to act on the information obtained from each measure, repeated throughout the length of the SGG. These measures will accompany descriptive feedback rather than quantitative feedback, student involvement in the assessment process, and opportunities for students to


communicate their evolving learning while the teaching is in progress. The teacher and principal will then analyze the pattern across the repeated administrations of the measures.

Other Measures

Other appropriate measures may measures include . . .

Literacy Design Collaborative Model (LDC)

Math Design Collaborative Model (MDC)

Authentic Performance Tasks Problem-Based Learning

Rating Overall Student Growth

As shown above, the overall Student Growth Rating shall include data from the local SGG (all staff) and

the state MSGP (where available), and will be considered in a three year cycle (when available).

Determining Local SGG Rating

While the model depicted above demonstrates that the overall rating for student growth is the result of

state and local contributions when available over a three-year period, the following guidelines

specifically identify the process for evaluation of the local SGG and MSGP annually and then determining

an overall rating for SGG in the summative year.

Determining the rating of the local SGG is a two-step, annual process: 1) assessing results for proficiency and growth separately and 2) combining the results for proficiency and growth for a total SGG rating. First, proficiency and growth will be rated separately as high, expected, or low using the criteria in the following table.

STATE (Grades 4-8 Math/ELA)

• MSGPs • State Predefined Cut

Scores LOCAL

• SGG • Data Review Process • Rate on H/E/L

STU

DEN

T G

RO

WTH

STUDENT GROWTH RATING

STUDENT GROWTH [H,E,L]


INFORM STUDENT GROWTH

PROFESSIONAL

JUDGMENT

AND DISTRICT-

DETERMINED

RUBRICS


PROFICIENCY GROWTH

High More than 10% above the goal High At least 90% of students grow

Expected Within +/- 10% of the goal Expected 75% to 89% of students grow

Low More than 10% from goal Low Less than 75% of students grow

Only students who were enrolled at both pre- and post-assessment timeframes will be included in the student growth goal ratings. Based on the combined results for proficiency and growth of the local SGG, the supervisor will used the following Local Growth Goal Rating Matrix to determine the total local SGG rating.

LOCAL GROWTH RATING MATRIX P

RO

FIC

IEN

CY

HIG

H

EXP EXP HIGH EX

P

LOW EXP HIGH

LOW

LOW EXP EXP

LOW EXP HIGH

GROWTH

Although it is strongly encouraged that all staff have both proficiency and growth components embedded in the local SGG, if is not practical for an other certified professional to include both, then the single year growth rating will be determined solely by the target included in the local SGG.

To calculate three-year trend data as part of the summative rating for the local SGG, a numerical value will be assigned to each year’s local SGG rating as follows: Low = 1, Expected =2, and High = 3. The point values assigned for each year will be averaged with equal weighting for each year. A final trend rating for the Local Student Growth Rating will then be assigned based on the following decision table.

Decision Table for Local SGG Trend Data

Local SGG Three-Year Average SGG Rating

1.00 – 1.49 Low

1.50 – 2.49 Expected

2.50 – 3.00 High

Determining State MSGP Rating

Ratings for the state contribution to SGG shall be determined by the cut points established by the state

department of education for the MSGP. The three-year trend data available in CIITS shall be used to

determine the summative rating for MSGP at the end of the evaluation cycle. In the event the three-

year trend data is not available in CIITS, a numerical value will be assigned to each year’s rating as


follows: Low = 1, Expected =2, and High = 3 . The point values assigned for each year will be averaged

with equal weighting for each year. A final trend rating for the state contribution of MSGPs will then be

assigned based on the following decision table.

Decision Table for State MSGP Trend Data if Not Available in CIITS

State SGG Three-Year Average SGG Rating

1.00 – 1.49 Low

1.50 – 2.49 Expected

2.50 – 3.00 High

Combining Local SGG and State MSGP Contributions

For teachers with both local and state contributions to SGG in one or more years, three-year trend will be considered in generating the state and local growth scores separately as described above and the two trend data ratings will be combined using the following matrix to generate the Overall Student Growth Rating:

OVERALL SGG RATING BASED ON LOCAL & STATE TREND DATA

STA

TE G

RO

WT

H T

REN

D R

AT

ING

HIG

H

EXP EXP HIGH

EXP

LOW EXP HIGH

LOW

LOW EXP EXP

LOW EXP HIGH

LOCAL GROWTH TREND RATING


Determining the Overall Performance Category Supervisors are responsible for determining an Overall Performance Category for each teacher at the conclusion of the summative evaluation year. The Overall Performance Category is informed by the educator’s ratings on Professional Practice and Student Growth. The evaluator determines the Overall Performance Category based on professional judgment informed by evidence that demonstrates the educator's performance within the Domains, district-developed decision tables (see local contribution for student growth), and decision rules that establish a common understanding of performance thresholds to which all educators are held. Based on an individual’s overall rating of the evidence for professional practice and overall rating for student growth, the following state decision rule table will be used to determine the overall performance category. This overall summative rating shall be documented in CIITS (or other KDE-approved technology platform).

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A TEACHER’S OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL’S

OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY


Professional Growth Plan and Summative Cycle Based on the overall Professional Practice rating and Student Growth rating, the type of Professional Growth Plan and the length of the summative cycle shall be determined using the chart below.

ONE YEAR DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN

• Goal determined by evaluator

• Goals focused on low performance/outcome area

• Plan activities designed by evaluator with educator input

• Formative review at midpoint

• Summative at end of plan

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PLAN AND CYCLE FOR TENURED TEACHERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS

LOW EXPECTED HIGH

THREE-YEAR CYCLE

SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH

PLAN

Goal set by teacher with

evaluator input

One goal must focus on

low student growth

outcome

Formative review annually

ONE-YEAR CYCLE DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN

• Goal(s) Determined by

Evaluator

• Goals focus on professional

practice and student growth

• Plan activities designed by

evaluator with teacher input

• Summative review annually

THREE-YEAR CYCLE

SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN

• Goal(s) set by teacher with

evaluator input; one must

address professional practice

or student growth.

• Formative review annually.

UP TO 12-MONTH

IMPROVEMENT PLAN • Goal(s) determined by

evaluator

• Focus on low performance

area

• Summative at end of plan INE

FF

EC

TIV

E

DE

VE

LO

PIN

G

AC

CO

MP

LIS

HE

D

EX

EM

PL

AR

Y


THREE-YEAR CYCLE


• Goals set by teacher with evaluator input

• Plan activities are teacher directed and implemented with colleagues.

• Formative review annually

• Summative occurs at the end of year 3.

PR

OF

ES

ION

AL

PR

AC

TIC

E

THREE-YEAR CYCLE


• Goal(s) set by educator with

evaluator input

• Formative review annually


Professional Growth and Effectiveness System:

Principals & Assistant Principals


Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Components

Overview and Summative Model The following graphic outlines the summative model for the Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System.

Evaluators will look for trends and patterns in practice across multiple types of evidence and apply their

professional judgment based on this evidence when evaluating a principal. The role of evidence and

professional judgment in the determination of ratings on standards and an overall rating is paramount in

this process. However, professional judgment must be grounded in the common framework identified:

The Principal Performance Standards.

Professional Growth

Plans and Self-

Reflection

Site-Visits

Val-Ed 360°

Working Conditions

Growth Goal

STANDARD 4: Organizational

Management

OVERALL

PERFORMANCE

CATEGORY

PR

OFE

SSIO

NA

L P

RA

CTI

CE

STU

DEN

T G

RO

WTH

PROFESSIONAL

JUDGMENT

STANDARD RATINGS

STANDARD 3: Human

Resource Management

STANDARD 2: School Climate

STANDARD 1: Instructional

Leadership

SOURCES OF

EVIDENCE TO

INFORM

PROFESSIONAL

PRACTICE

State Contribution –

ASSIST/NGL Goal

SOURCES OF

EVIDENCE TO

INFORM STUDENT

GROWTH

Local Contribution –

Student Growth Goals

(SGGs) based on

school need

AND

PERFORMANCE

TOWARD

TRAJECTORY

STUDENT GROWTH

RATINGS

LOCAL CONTRIBUTION: High,

Expected, Low Growth

Rating

PROFESSIONAL

JUDGMENT

AND DISTRICT-

DETERMINED

RUBRICS

STATE CONTRIBUTION: High,

Expected, Low Growth

Rating

PROFESSIONAL

JUDGMENT &

STATE-

DETERMINED

DECISION

RULES establishing a

common

understanding of

performance

thresholds to

which all

educators are

held

STANDARD 5:

Communication &

Community Relations

STANDARD 6: Professionalism


Principal Performance Standards The Principal Performance Standards are designed to support student achievement and professional best-practice through the standards of Instructional Leadership; School Climate; Human Resource Management; Organizational Management; Communication & Community Relations; and Professionalism. Included in the Performance Standards are Performance Indicators that provide examples of observable, tangible behaviors that provide evidence of each standard. The Performance Standards provide the structure for feedback for continuous improvement through individual goals that target professional growth, thus supporting overall student achievement and school improvement. Evidence supporting a principal’s or assistant principal’s professional practice will be situated within one or more of the six standards. Performance will be rated for each standard according to the four performance levels: Ineffective, Developing, Accomplished, and Exemplary. It is projected that most principals or assistant principals will maintain an Accomplished rating, but will occasionally have exemplary performance on standards at any given time. The summative rating will be a holistic representation of performance, combining data from multiple sources of evidence across each standard. The use of professional judgment based on multiple sources of evidence promotes a more holistic and comprehensive analysis of practice, rather than over-reliance on one individual data point or rote calculation of practice based on predetermined formulas. Evaluators will also take into account how principals respond to or apply additional supports and resources designed to promote student learning, as well as their own professional growth and development. Finally, professional judgment gives evaluators the flexibility to account for a wide variety of factors related to individual principal performance. These factors may include school-specific priorities that may drive practice in one standard, an educator’s number of goals, experience level and/or leadership opportunities. Contextual variables may also impact the learning environment, such as unanticipated outside events or traumas. Evaluators must use the following categories of evidence in determining overall ratings:


Site-Visits

Val-Ed 360°

Working Conditions Goal

State and Local Student Growth Goal data

Evaluators may use the following categories of evidence in determining overall ratings:

Other Measures of Student Learning

Products of Practice

Other Sources


Professional Practice The following sections provide a detailed overview of the various sources of evidence used to inform

Professional Practice Ratings.


Completed by principals & assistant principals

The Professional Growth Plan will address realistic, focused, and measurable professional goals. The

plan will connect data from multiple sources including site-visit conferences, data on student growth

and achievement, and professional growth needs identified through self-assessment and reflection. Self-

reflection improves principal practice through ongoing, careful consideration of the impact of leadership

practice on student growth and achievement. All principals and assistant principals will participate in

self-reflection and professional growth planning each year.

Based on multiple sources of data, including the summative reflection and degree of goal attainment on the previous PGP, a new PGP shall be developed annually by June 30 (October 1 for new hires); revisions and implementation of the PGP shall occur on an ongoing basis as determined by the principal and supervisor. Late hires shall develop a PGP six weeks after reporting for employment. PGPs shall be entered into CIITS with the monitoring and self-reflection process determined by the supervisor.

Site-Visits Completed by supervisor of principal – formal site visits are not required for assistant principals

Site visits are a method by which the superintendent may gain insight into the principal’s practice in

relation to the standards. During a site visit, the superintendent will discuss various aspects of the job

with the principal, and will use the principal’s responses to determine issues to further explore with the

faculty and staff. Additionally, the principal may explain the successes and trials the school community

has experienced in relation to school improvement.

Formal site visits shall be conducted at least twice each year (minimum of one per semester). Post-visit conferences shall occur within five working dates after the site visit and involve a discussion of the site-visit in relation to the Principal Performance Standards. Site-visits will be conducted with late hires once in semester in which they are employed. The supervisor shall maintain anecdotal notes of the site visits as documentation. For late hires, one site visit will be conducted in each semester in which the administrator has worked 30 or more days.

Val-Ed 360° Completed for principals – not completed for assistant principals

The VAL-ED 360° is an assessment that provides feedback on a principal’s learning-centered behaviors by using input from the principal, his/her supervisor, and teachers. All teachers will participate in the Val-Ed 360°. The results of the survey will be included as a source of data to inform each principal’s


professional practice rating. Val-Ed 360° shall be conducted every two years by April 1, alternating with the administration of the TELL Kentucky survey. The district point of contact for Val-Ed 360° shall be the assistant superintendent. Results shall be accessible by the principal, assistant principal(s), superintendent, and district administrators as designated by the superintendent. In regard to late hires, the survey shall be conducted according to the same schedule; however, the data shall not inform the rating of professional practice for those principals employed after January 1 of the year of administration of the survey.

Working Conditions Goal Goal inherited by Assistant Principal

Principals are responsible for setting one two-year Working Conditions Growth Goal based on the most

recent TELL Kentucky Survey by August 1 based upon the goal development protocol shown below. The

principal’s effort to accomplish the Working Conditions Growth Goal is a powerful way to enhance

professional performance and, in turn, positively impact school culture and student success.

Working Conditions Goal Development Protocol

Key Component: Acceptable Needs Revision

Focuses on principal performance standards Identifies an area related to current school needs Includes target focused on sustained improvement References adequate data sources

Focuses on one or more standards relevant to working conditions survey results Identifies a specific area of working conditions that has strong potential to impact student learning Includes clear, specific target(s) with strong potential for long-term impact Clear connection between goal and relevant, meaningful data sources for monitoring and measuring results

Focuses on a standard not relevant to the working conditions survey results Fails to address a specific area of working conditions or limited potential to impact student learning Target not clear or specific; or focuses on minor issue with limited potential for long-term impact Data sources unidentified or appear to be inconsistent or inadequate to monitor progress or measure results

The Superintendent shall conduct a midpoint review of the working conditions goal during the fall semester site visit or no later than December 1. Additional surveys or evidence that are mutually agreed upon by the superintendent and principal may also be used to inform development and evaluation of the Working Conditions Goal. The progress toward the goal shall be evaluated according to the following rubric and documented in the supervisor’s anecdotal notes.


Decision Rules for Evaluation of Working Conditions Goal Level of Attainment Rating (1-4)

Goal attainment of less than 60% 1—Ineffective

60% attainment level 2—Developing

80% attainment level 3—Accomplished

90% or higher attainment level 4—Exemplary

Products of Practice/Other Sources of Evidence Principals/Assistant principals may provide additional evidences to support assessment of their

own professional practice. These evidences should yield information related to the principal’s/assistant

principal’s practice within the standards. Examples of artifacts may include but are not limited to the following . . .

A collection of instructional leadership work samples

SBDM Meeting Agendas and Minutes

Faculty Meeting Agendas and Minutes

Department/Grade Level Team/PLC Agendas and Minutes

Leadership Team Meeting Agendas and Minutes

Walk-through documentation

Budgets

EILA/Professional Learning experience documentation

Analysis of survey results

Professional Organization memberships and leadership roles

Parent/Community engagement survey results

Results of parent/community engagement activities School schedules, including master schedule and calendars

Student Growth The following sections provide a detailed overview of the various sources of evidence used to inform

Student Growth Ratings. At least one of the Student Growth Goals set by the principal must address gap

populations. Assistant principals will inherit the SGG (both state and local contributions) of the

Principal.


State Contribution

ASSIST/Next Generation Learners (NGL) Goal Based on Trajectory - Goal inherited by Assistant

Principal

Principals are responsible for setting at least one Student Growth Goal that is tied directly to the

Comprehensive School Improvement Plan located in ASSIST based on the ASSIST/NGL trajectory. The

superintendent and the principal will meet to discuss the trajectory for the goal and to establish the

year’s goal that will help reach the long-term trajectory target. New goals are identified each year based

on the ASSIST goals. The goal should be customized for the school year with the intent of helping

improve student achievement and reaching the long term goals through on-going improvement. The

goal shall be based on the school’s gap population unless the local goal is based on the gap population.

If the school does not receive state level data, the principal will construct two local student growth

goals.

Principals will select one (1) of the grade-level appropriate goals to use as the State contribution of their Student Growth Goal. The goal statements are established by the Kentucky Board of Education with a specified year for trajectory.

The principal will then collaborate with the superintendent to determine what percentage of the overall trajectory will be targeted for student growth during the CURRENT school year. For example, if the original goal and trajectory is to decrease the achievement gap from a percentage of 45 to 15 percent by a specified year, the principal and superintendent may decide to simply divide the 30 percent difference evenly and set an objective of decreasing the achievement gap by 6 percent for the upcoming year. Alternately, the decision may be made to pursue a more aggressive objective of 10 percent or a lower goal of 5 percent based on overall factors. The principal and superintendent shall then agree to the specific strategies the principal will implement to reach the objective percentage. These strategies shall reflect actions by the principal (not teachers or staff) in relation to the principal performance standards.

The principal and superintendent shall review data related to the trajectory goal, with the superintendent determining a rating for growth based on the following decision table.

GROWTH GOAL DECISION TABLE

High More than 10% above the goal

Expected Within +/- 10% of the goal

Low More than 10% from goal

Local Contribution

Based on School Need - Goal inherited by Assistant Principal

A single local goal for student growth should be based on school need. It may be developed to parallel

the State Contribution or it may be developed with a different focus. The goal shall be based on the

school’s gap population unless the State Student Growth goal is based on gap population.


The Local Student Growth Goal Process shall include . . .

Determining needs based on school-specific data

Developing a specific growth goal based upon the data

Identifying and implementing one or more leadership/management strategies to address the goal

Monitoring progress through on-going data collection

Determining goal attainment The superintendent shall review data relevant to the local student growth goal and determine the rating based upon the following decision table:

GROWTH GOAL DECISION TABLE

High More than 10% above the goal

Expected Within +/- 10% of the goal

Low More than 10% from goal

Determining the Overall Performance Category Superintendents are responsible for determining an Overall Performance Category for each principal at

the conclusion of their summative evaluation year. The Overall Performance Category is informed by the

principal’s ratings on professional practice and student growth.

Rating Overall Professional Practice

The state-required decision rules shall be applied to determine the overall rating; the rating shall be

documented in CIITS annually by April 30.

REQUIRED

• Professional Growth Plans and Self-Reflection

• Site-Visit • Val-Ed 360°/Working

Conditions OPTIONAL

• Other: District-Determined – Must be identified in the CEP

PR

OFE

SSIO

NA

L P

RA

CTI

CE

STANDARDS RATINGS

STANDARD 1: [I,D,A,E]

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

PROFESSIONAL

JUDGMENT







A principal’s/assistant principal’s Overall Performance Category is determined by the evaluator

based on the principal’s ratings on each standard, as well as student growth. Using the sources

of evidence for principals/assistant principals, evaluators will determine a rating for each

standard based on evidence. The evaluator shall determine an overall rating for professional

practice based upon the state-defined criteria below and record ratings in CIITS (or other state-

approved technology platform).

Rating Overall Student Growth Overall Student Growth Rating results from a combination of professional judgment and the district-

developed instrument. The instrument is designed to aid the evaluator in applying professional

judgment to multiple evidences of student growth over time (using multiple years of data up to three

years when available). Student growth ratings must include data from both the local and state

contributions and ratings shall be recorded in CIITS (or other KDE-approved technology platform).


Both the state and local goal will be given a numerical value: Low = 1, Expected =2, and High =3. Determination of a single yearly combined goal rating will be a simple average of the two goals. When a principal has established up to three years of trend data for SGG the principal will have a trend rating. The total rating will be averaged from the previous three years (if available) and applied to the following scale with results recorded in CIITS.

AVERAGE SCORE RATING

1.00 -- 1.49 Low

1.50 -- 2.49 Expected

2.50 -- 3.00 High

STATE

ASSIST/NGL Goal LOCAL

• Based on school need

STU

DEN

T G

RO

WTH


STUDENT GROWTH [H,E,L]


INFORM STUDENT GROWTH

PROFESSIONAL

JUDGMENT

AND DISTRICT-

DETERMINED

RUBRICS


Determining the Overall Performance Category A principal’s/assistant principal’s Overall Performance Category is determined by the evaluator based on

the principal’s ratings on Professional Practice and Student Growth. The evaluator will use the following

decision rules for determining the Overall Performance Category. The overall rating shall be recorded in

CIITS annually as the summative evaluation. A signed hardcopy shall become part of the official

personnel file. An opportunity for written response shall be included in the official personnel file. A

copy of the evaluation shall be provided to each evaluatee.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A PRINCIPAL’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE

CATEGORY


Professional Growth Plan and Summative Cycle Based on the overall Professional Practice rating and Student Growth rating, supervisors will determine

the type of Professional Growth Plan required of the principal.


Other District Certified Personnel

Other district personnel shall be evaluted annually in accordance with the 2013-2014 certified evaluation plan.

Appeals Process

The appeals process specified in board policy (see Appendix I) shall apply.

According to 156.557 Section 9, Section 9. (1) A certified employee who feels that the local district is not properly implementing the

evaluation plan according to the way it was approved by the Kentucky Department of Education shall have the

opportunity to appeal to the Kentucky Board of Education.

(2) The appeal procedures shall be as follows:

(a) The Kentucky Board of Education shall appoint a committee of three (3) state board members to serve

on the State Evaluation Appeals Panel. Its jurisdiction shall be limited to procedural matters already addressed

by the local appeals panel required by KRS 156.557(5). The panel shall not have jurisdiction relative to a

complaint involving the professional judgmental conclusion of an evaluation, and the panel's review shall be

limited to the record of proceedings at the local district level.

(b) No later than thirty (30) days after the final action or decision at the local district level, the certified

employee may submit a written request to the chief state school officer for a review before the State

Evaluation Appeals Panel. An appeal not filed in a timely manner shall not be considered. A specific description

of the complaint and grounds for appeal shall be submitted with this request.

(c) A brief, written statement, and other document which a party wants considered by the State Evaluation

Appeals Panel shall be filed with the panel and served on the opposing party at least twenty (20) days prior to

the scheduled review.

(d) A decision of the appeals panel shall be rendered within fifteen (15) working days after the review.

(e) A determination of noncompliance shall render the evaluation void, and the employee shall have the

right to be reevaluated. (11 Ky.R. 1107; Am. 1268; eff. 3-12-85; 12 Ky.R. 1638; 1837; eff. 6-10-86; 15 Ky.R.

1561; 1849; eff. 3-23-89; 17 Ky.R. 116; eff. 9-13-90; 19 Ky.R. 515; 947; 1081; eff. 11-9-92; 20 Ky.R. 845; eff. 12-

6-93; 23 Ky.R. 2277; 2732; eff. 1-9-97; 27 Ky.R. 1874; 2778; eff. 4-9-2001.)

NOTICE: This Local Evaluation Appeals Procedure is merely a sample that districts may consider as they

develop their own PGES system plan. Districts are responsible for developing procedures for a local evaluation

appeals panel that are consistent with the requirements of KRS 156.557 and 704 KAR 3:370. Districts are

advised to review the requirements of KRS 156.557 and 704 KAR 3:370 as they develop procedures for

evaluation appeals. KDE reserves the right to revise or amend this sample Local Evaluation Appeals Procedure

at any time.


Appeals/Hearings

All certified employees shall have the right to appeal a summative evaluation to the Local Evaluation Appeals

Panel (“LEAP”).

Formation of LEAP

A LEAP shall be established in accordance with KRS Chapter 156 and 704 KAR 3:345. The responsibility of the

LEAP is to review and/or hear appeals from certified employees in reference to employees’ summative

evaluations. Two (2) members of the LEAP shall be elected by the certified employees of the District. One (1)

member shall be appointed by the Board, and that person shall be a certified employee of the District. The

Superintendent shall appoint one (1) of the three (3) members as LEAP Chairperson. Alternate membership to

the LEAP shall be elected and appointed as stated above. LEAP elections and appointments will be held before

September 15 of each school year. The names and positions of members, alternates, and chairperson shall be

posted in each school and on file at the Central Office.

An alternate will serve on the LEAP under the following circumstances:

1. A member of the LEAP wishes to make an appeal;

2. Illness or circumstances beyond a member’s control prevents attendance;

3. A relative of a panel member is appealing; or

4. A member has been prejudiced in the appeal being considered.

Appeals Procedure

All certified school personnel shall receive written notice of their right to appeal, including applicable

deadlines and the right to request a hearing, at the time summative evaluation results are provided to the

certified school personnel.

1. Certified personnel shall have the right to appeal within twenty (20) working days after

receiving a summative evaluation. The LEAP will have no jurisdiction unless an appeal is filed

with the LEAP. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Superintendent.

2. Certified personnel shall submit their written appeals to the Superintendent using the

Certified Evaluation Appeals Form. As directed by the Certified Evaluation Appeals Form,

Certified school personnel shall specifically indicate whether or not a hearing is requested. If

a hearing is not requested by the certified personnel, the LEAP will decide the matter on

written documents submitted by the evaluatee and evaluator.

3. Upon receipt of an appeal from a certified personnel, the Superintendent shall notify the

LEAP. The Certified Evaluation Appeals Form, along with any accompanying documentation,

will be reviewed by the LEAP within ten (10) working days of receipt by the Superintendent.


At the time the LEAP conducts its initial review within ten (10) working days of receipt by the

Superintendent, the LEAP shall do the following:

If a hearing is requested, the LEAP shall set a hearing date not to exceed forty-

five (45) calendar days from the date the appeal was received by the

Superintendent and notify all parties in writing of the hearing date.

The LEAP shall send written notification to all parties regarding the appeal

procedure, including all applicable submission deadlines.

If a hearing is requested, the LEAP shall send written notification of the hearing

procedures, including all applicable submission deadlines and the right to have a

chosen representative present at the hearing.

The LEAP shall advise in writing the evaluatee and the evaluator to submit a

copy of all documentation that concerns the summative evaluation.

If a hearing is requested, the LEAP shall advise in writing the evaluatee and the

evaluator to submit lists of persons who may be called as witnesses at a hearing.

4. If a hearing is requested, all documentation, including a list of witnesses, must be submitted

to the LEAP Chairperson no later than five (5) working days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Copies of all documentation, including a list of witnesses, must also be made available to all

parties to the appeal no later than five (5) working days prior to any scheduled hearing.

Hearing

1. Any hearing will be held within forty-five (45) calendar days from receipt of appeal by the

Superintendent.

2. The evaluatee and evaluator have the right to have a chosen representative, including an

attorney, present at the hearing.

3. The hearing will adhere to the following format:

Reading of the written appeal by the LEAP Chairperson.

Questioning of the evaluatee and/or evaluator by the panel.

Presentation of relevant evidence and witnesses by the evaluatee in support of the

appeal.

Presentation of relevant evidence and witnesses by the evaluator in support of the

summative evaluation.


Follow-up questioning by panel of any witnesses, evaluatee, and/or evaluator.

Dismissal of hearing.

4. No party shall be allowed to present any documentation that has not been submitted to the

LEAP Chairperson and made available to the other parties at least five (5) working days prior

to the hearing. Nor shall the parties call any witnesses whose names were not submitted to

the LEAP Chairperson and made available to all other parties at least five (5) working days

prior to the hearing.

5. At any time, either the appellant or the evaluator may concede in writing to the LEAP

Chairperson, and the LEAP process will be terminated.

6. Based on the issues identified in the certified personnel’s appeal documentation and

presented during the hearing, the LEAP shall determine whether the employee has

demonstrated that a procedural violation has occurred under the District’s evaluation plan

and whether the summative evaluation is supported by the evidence. The LEAP may decide

to:

Rule in favor of the appellant, either in whole or in part;

Uphold the evaluation; or

Call for a second evaluation by a trained evaluator.

7. The Superintendent must take appropriate action consistent with the Appeal Panel’s decision.

8. The decision of the LEAP shall be given in writing to both the appellant and the evaluator

within thirty (30) working days of the hearing date. The decision of the LEAP shall include

written notification of the right to appeal to the State Evaluation Appeals Panel pursuant to

KRS Chapter 156 and 704 KAR 3:345, including the applicable timeline for such an appeal.

9. The Appeal Panel’s decision and the original summative evaluation form shall be placed in the

employee’s evaluation file. In the case of a new evaluation, both evaluations shall be included

in the employee’s personnel file.

Appeal Without A Hearing

1. If a hearing is not requested by the certified personnel on the Certified Evaluation Appeals

Form, the LEAP will decide the matter based on written documents submitted by the

evaluatee and evaluator.

2. At any time, either the appellant or the evaluator may concede in writing to the LEAP

Chairperson, and the LEAP process will be terminated.


3. Based on the issues identified in the certified personnel’s appeal documentation the LEAP

shall determine whether the employee has demonstrated that a procedural violation has

occurred under the District’s evaluation plan and whether the summative evaluation is

supported by the evidence. The LEAP may decide to:

Rule in favor of the appellant, either in whole or in part;

Uphold the evaluation; or

Call for a second evaluation by a trained evaluator.

4. The Superintendent must take appropriate action consistent with the Appeal Panel’s decision.

5. The decision of the LEAP shall be given in writing to both the appellant and the evaluator

within forty-five (45) working days from receipt of appeal by the Superintendent. The

decision of the LEAP shall include written notification of the right to appeal to the State

Evaluation Appeals Panel pursuant to KRS Chapter 156 and 704 KAR 3:345, including the

applicable timeline for such an appeal.

The Appeal Panel’s decision and the original summative evaluation form shall be placed in the employee’s

evaluation file. In the case of a new evaluation, both evaluations shall be included in the employee’s personnel

file.


Appendix A: Staff Dana Notebook Sample Artifacts

Staff Data Notebook Suggested Artifacts

The following items are provided as suggestions that may be included as evidence for

each of the four domains. The purpose of the staff data notebook is to reflect each teacher’s

performance and growth across all domains, but it will be especially helpful in documenting

progress in domains 1 and 4 which are not as readily observable as domains 2 and 3. The staff

data notebook should include one’s best work and is not intended to be an exhaustive collection

of everything that a teacher does during the course of a year or evaluation cycle. The focus

should be on quality over quantity.

Domain 1: Planning & Preparation*

Outline of unit plans, syllabus, student learning goals checklists, etc. based upon the Common Core State Standards (or other current curriculum in content areas beyond ELA, math, and science)

Lesson plans reflecting differentiated instruction

Assessments or lesson plans based upon analysis of formative classroom data

Sampling of instructional goals and resources that align with content standards and/or specific student learning needs

Rubrics or scoring guides reflective of content standards and high expectations for student learning

Analysis of student learning styles, pre-assessments, or other student inventories

Documentation of planned accommodations/modifications for students with IEPs and GSSPs

Domain 2: Classroom Environment

Brief description, sketch, or photo of classroom layout or re-arrangements for specific activities

Copies of notes or cards from students or parents

Copies/photos of student-friendly learning targets posted in classroom

Copies/photos of classroom learning procedures posted in the classroom or otherwise distributed

Posting of student work samples

Copies of comments/feedback on student work

Copies/photos of classroom rules/learning norms posted in classroom


Domain 3: Instruction

Examples of intentionally planned higher order questions

Examples of activities which reflect multiple intelligences, varied learning styles, student choice, and/or student interests

Revised lesson plans or pacing guide which reflects analysis of student learning needs

Lesson reflection or anecdotal notes regarding student responses to lessons, student behavior, assessment, procedures, etc.

Analysis of student formative assessments (progress monitoring)

Examples of highly-engaging activities, such as lessons featuring effective use of technology integration, authentic learning opportunities, and research-based instructional strategies

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities*

Examples of written communication to students, parents, homes, and/or community

Timely posting of grades in Infinite Campus

Log of extracurricular activity involvement

PGP reflections which indicate refinement and/or growth

Peer-observation reflections which indicate refinement and/or growth

Anecdotal notes or other documentation of student advocacy, such as referrals to FRYSC, my team students or other mentoring, etc.

Service to the school through SBDM, committees, PLCs, etc.

Log of school involvement and support of school and district activities, such as literacy events, student orientation sessions, science fairs, academic team, athletic events, etc.

Evidence of active involvement/contributions through professional organizations

Evidence of professional leadership, such as leading professional development activities, supporting new staff, sponsoring student activities, etc.

*While collecting artifacts over the duration of the evaluation cycle, please note that the Staff Data Notebook is most useful for organizing artifacts related to Domains 1 and 4 which are not always readily apparent during classroom observations.


Appendix B: Teacher/Other Certified Professional Self-Analysis Survey

Annually, each teacher and other certified professional will review complete the survey and reflect upon the individual components of each domain prior to completing the self-reflection in CIITS.

1.A

In planning and practice, teacher makes content errors or does not correct errors made by students.

Teacher displays extensive knowledge of the important concepts in the discipline and the ways they relate both to one another and to other disciplines.

Teacher displays little or no understanding of the range of pedagogical approaches suitable to student’s learning of the content.

Teacher displays solid knowledge of the important concepts in the discipline and the ways they relate to one another.

Teacher is familiar with the important concepts in the discipline but displays lack of awareness of how these concepts relate to one another.

Teacher’s plans and practice reflect familiarity with a wide range of effective pedagogical approaches in the discipline, anticipating student misconceptions.

Teacher’s plans and practice display little understanding of prerequisite relationships important to student’s learning of the content.

Teacher’s plans and practice indicate some awareness of prerequisite relationships, although such knowledge may be inaccurate or incomplete.

Teacher’s plans and practice reflect a limited range of pedagogical approaches to the discipline or to the students.

Teacher’s plans and practice reflect accurate understanding of prerequisite relationships among topics and concepts.

Teacher’s plans and practice reflect familiarity with a wide range of effective pedagogical approaches to the discipline.

Teacher’s plans and practice reflect understanding of prerequisite relationships among topics and concepts and provide a link to necessary cognitive structures needed by students to ensure understanding.

1.B The teacher also purposefully seeks knowledge from several sources of students’ backgrounds, cultures,

skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs and attains this knowledge about groups of students.

Teacher actively seeks knowledge of students’ levels of development and their backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs from a variety of sources. This information is acquired for individual students.

Teacher demonstrates little or no understanding of how students learn and little knowledge of students’ backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs and does not seek such understanding.

Teacher indicates the importance of understanding how students learn and the students’ backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs, and attains this knowledge about the class as a whole.

Teacher understands the active nature of student learning and attains information about levels of development for groups of students.

1.C All outcomes represent rigorous and important learning in the discipline. All the instructional outcomes are clear, are written in the form of student learning, and suggest viable

methods of assessment.


Most of the outcomes are suitable for most of the students in the class in accordance with global assessments of student learning.

Most outcomes represent rigorous and important learning in the discipline. Outcomes are stated as activities rather than as student learning. Outcomes reflect only one type of learning and only one discipline or strand and are suitable for only

some students. Outcomes reflect several different types of learning and opportunities for coordination. Outcomes reflect several different types of learning and, where appropriate, represent opportunities for

both coordination and integration. Outcomes reflect several types of learning, but teacher has made no attempt at coordination or

integration. Outcomes represent low expectations for students and lack of rigor, and not all of them reflect important

learning in the discipline. Outcomes represent moderately high expectations and rigor. Outcomes take into account the varying needs of groups of students. Outcomes take into account the varying needs of individual students. Some outcomes reflect important learning in the discipline and consist of a combination of outcomes and

activities. The outcomes are clear, are written in the form of student learning, and permit viable methods of

assessment. 1.D Teacher displays awareness of resources – not only through the school and district but also through

sources external to the school and on the Internet – available for classroom use, for the expansion of his or her own knowledge, and for students.

Teacher displays basic awareness of school or district resources available for classroom use, for the expansion of his or her own knowledge, and for students, but no knowledge of resources available more broadly.

Teacher displays extensive knowledge of resources – not only through the school and district but also in the community, through professional organizations and universities, and on the Internet—for classroom use, for the expansion of his or her own knowledge, and for students.

Teacher is unaware of school or district resources for classroom use, for the expansion of his or her own knowledge, or for students.

1.E The series of learning experiences is poorly aligned with the instructional outcomes and does not

represent a coherent structure. The lesson’s or unit’s structure is clear and allows for different pathways according to diverse student

needs. The lesson or unit has a recognizable structure; the progression of activities is uneven, with most time

allocations reasonable. The lesson or unit has a clear structure, with appropriate and varied use of instructional groups. The learning activities have reasonable time allocations; they represent significant cognitive challenge,

with some differentiation for different groups of students. The activities are not designed to engage students in active intellectual activity and have unrealistic time

allocation. Instructional groups do not support the instructional outcomes and offer no variety. Teacher coordinates knowledge of content, of students, and of resources, to design a series of learning

experiences aligned to instructional outcomes and suitable to groups of students. Some of the learning activities and materials are suitable to the instructional outcomes and represent a

moderate cognitive challenge but with no differentiation for different students. Instructional groups partially support the instructional outcomes, with an effort by the teacher at providing some variety.


Plans represent the coordination of in-depth content knowledge, understanding of different students’ needs, and available resources (including technology), resulting in a series of learning activities designed to engage students in high-level cognitive activity.

Learning activities are differentiated appropriately for individual learners. Instructional groups are varied appropriately with some opportunity for student choice.

1.F Approach to the use of formative assessment is rudimentary, including only some of the instructional

outcomes. The approach to using formative assessment is well designed and includes student as well as teacher use

of the assessment information. Teacher intends to use assessment results to plan future instruction for individual students.

Assessment criteria and standards are clear. Teacher has a well-developed strategy for using formative assessment and has designed particular approaches to be used.

Assessment criteria and standards have been developed, but they are not clear. Assessment methodologies have been adapted for individual students, as needed. Assessment procedures are not congruent with instructional outcomes; the proposed approach contains

no criteria or standards. Some of the instructional outcomes are assessed through the proposed approach, but others are not. Teacher has no plan to incorporate formative assessment in the lesson or unit nor any plan to use

assessment results in designing future instruction. Teacher intends to use assessment results to plan for future instruction for the class as a whole. Teacher intends to use assessment results to plan for future instruction for groups of students. Teacher's plan for student assessment is aligned with the instructional outcomes; assessment

methodologies may have been adapted for groups of students. Teacher's plan for student assessment is fully aligned with the instructional outcomes and has clear

criteria and standards that show evidence of student contribution to their development. 2.A Patterns of classroom interactions, both between the teacher and students and among students, are

generally appropriate but may reflect occasional inconsistencies, favoritism, and disregard for students' ages, cultures, and developmental levels.

Classroom interactions among the teacher and individual students are highly respectful, reflecting genuine warmth and caring and sensitivity to students as individuals.

Patterns of classroom interactions, both between the teacher and students and among students, are mostly negative, inappropriate, or insensitive to students' ages, cultural backgrounds, and developmental levels. Interactions are characterized by sarcasm, put-downs, or conflict.

Students exhibit respect for the teacher and contribute to high levels of civil interaction between all members of the class. The net result of interactions is that of connections with students as individuals.

Students exhibit respect for the teacher. Interactions among students are generally polite and respectful. Students rarely demonstrate disrespect for one another. Teacher attempts to respond to disrespectful behavior, with uneven results. The net result of the

interactions is neutral, conveying neither warmth nor conflict. Teacher does not deal with disrespectful behavior Teacher responds successfully to disrespectful behavior among students. The net result of the

interactions is polite and respectful, but impersonal. Teacher-student interactions are friendly and demonstrate general caring and respect. Such interactions

are appropriate to the ages of the students.

2.B Classroom interactions support learning and hard work.


Medium or low expectations for student achievement are the norm, with high expectations for learning reserved for only one or two students

Students assume responsibility for high quality by initiating improvements, making revisions, adding detail, and/or helping peers.

Students understand their role as learners and consistently expend effort to learn. The classroom culture is a cognitively busy place where learning is valued by all, with high expectations

for learning being the norm for most students. The classroom culture is a cognitively vibrant place, characterized by a shared belief in the importance of

learning. The classroom culture is characterized by a lack of teacher or student commitment to the learning and/or

little or no investment of student energy into the task at hand. Hard work is not expected or valued. The classroom culture is characterized by little commitment to learning by teacher or students. The teacher appears to be only going through the motions, and students indicate that they are interested

in completion of a task, rather than quality. The teacher conveys high expectations for learning by all students and insists on hard work. The teacher conveys that student success is the result of natural ability rather than hard work; high

expectations for learning are reserved for those students thought to have a natural aptitude for the subject.

The teacher conveys that with hard work students can be successful.

2.C Instructional time is maximized because of efficient routine and procedures. Much instructional time is lost through inefficient classroom routines and procedures. Routines are well understood and may be initiated by students. Some instructional time is lost through only partially effective classroom routines and procedures. Students contribute to the management of instructional groups, transitions, and the handling of materials

and supplies. The teacher’s management of instructional groups and the handling of materials and supplies are

consistently successful. The teacher’s management of instructional groups, transitions, and/or the handling of materials and

supplies is inconsistent, the result being some disruption of learning. There is little evidence that students know or follow established routines. There is little loss of instructional time because of effective classroom routines and procedures. There is little or no evidence that the teacher is managing instructional groups, transitions, and /or the

handling of materials and supplies effectively. With minimal guidance and prompting students follow established classroom routines. With regular guidance and prompting¸ students follow established routines 2.D Response to students’ misbehavior is repressive or disrespectful of student dignity Standards of conduct appear to have been established, but their implementation is inconsistent. Student behavior is entirely appropriate. Student behavior is generally appropriate. Students challenge the standards of conduct. Students take an active role in monitoring their own behavior and that of other students against

standards of conduct. Teacher response to student misbehavior is consistent, proportionate, respectful to students, and

effective. Teacher tries, with uneven results, to monitor student behavior and respond to student misbehavior. Teacher’s response to student misbehavior is sensitive to individual student needs and respects students’

dignity.


Teachers’ monitoring of student behavior is subtle and preventative. The teacher monitors student behavior against established standards of conduct. There appear to be no established standards of conduct and little or no teacher monitoring of student

behavior. There is inconsistent implementation of the standards of conduct. 2.E Students contribute to the use or adaptation of the physical environment to advance learning. Teacher makes effective use of physical resources, including computer technology. Teacher makes effective use of physical resources, including computer technology. The teacher ensures

the arrangement is appropriate to the learning activities. Teacher makes some attempt to modify the physical arrangement to suit learning activities, with partial

success. The physical environment is unsafe, or many students don’t have access to learning resources. The classroom is safe, and essential learning is accessible to most students. The classroom is safe, and learning is accessible to all students; teacher ensures that the physical

arrangement is appropriate to the learning activities. The classroom is safe, and learning is accessible to all students, including those with special needs. The teacher’s use of physical resources, including computer technology, is moderately effective. There is poor coordination between the lesson activities and the arrangement of furniture and resources,

including computer technology. 3.A During the explanation of content, the teacher invites student intellectual engagement. Students contribute to extending the content and help explain concepts to their classmates. Teacher’s explanation of content is well scaffolded, clear and accurate, and connects with students’

knowledge and experiences. Teacher’s spoken and written language is clear and correct and uses vocabulary appropriate to the

students’ ages and interests. Teacher’s spoken language is correct; however, his or her vocabulary is limited, or not fully appropriate

to the students’ ages or backgrounds. The instructional purpose of the lesson is unclear to students, and the directions and procedures are

confusing. The teacher clearly communicates instructional purpose of the lesson, including where it is situated

within the broader learning, and explains procedures and directions clearly. The teacher links the instructional purpose of the lesson to the students’ interests; the directions and

procedures are clear and anticipate possible student misunderstanding. The teacher’s attempt to explain the instructional purpose has only limited success, and/or directions

and procedures must be clarified after initial student confusion. The teacher’s explanation consists of a monologue, with no invitation to the students for intellectual

engagement. The teacher’s explanation of content is thorough and clear, developing conceptual understanding through

artful scaffolding and connecting with students’ interest. The teacher’s explanation of the content contains major errors. The teacher’s explanation of the content may contain minor errors; some portions are clear; other

portions are difficult to follow. The teacher’s spoken and written language is expressive, and the teacher finds opportunities to extend

students’ vocabularies. The teacher’s spoken or written language contains errors of grammar or syntax The teacher’s spoken or written language contains errors. The teacher’s vocabulary is inappropriate, vague, or used incorrectly, leaving students confused.


3.B A few students dominate the discussion. Alternatively, the teacher attempts to frame some questions designed to promote student thinking and

understanding, but only a few students are involved. Although the teacher may use some low-level questions, he or she asks the students questions designed

to promote thinking and understanding. Interaction between teacher and students is predominantly recitation style, with the teacher mediating

all questions and answers. Students formulate many questions, initiate topics, and make unsolicited contributions. Students themselves ensure that all voices are heard in the discussion. Teacher attempts to engage all students in the discussion and to encourage them to respond to one

another, but with uneven results. Teacher creates a genuine discussion among students, providing adequate time for students to respond

and stepping aside when appropriate. Teacher successfully engages most students in the discussion, employing a range of strategies to ensure

that most students are heard. Teacher uses a variety or series of questions or prompts to challenge students cognitively, advance high-

level thinking and discourse, and promote metacognition. Teacher’s questions are of low cognitive challenge, require single correct responses, and are asked in

rapid succession. Teacher’s questions lead students through a single path of inquiry, with answers seemingly determined

in advance. 3.C Few students are intellectually engaged or interested. In addition, there is evidence of some student initiation of inquiry and of student contribution to the

exploration of important content. Students may have some choice in how they complete tasks and may serve as resources for one another. The learning tasks and activities are aligned with instructional outcomes and designed to challenge

student thinking, the result being that most students display active intellectual engagement with important and challenging content and are supported in that engagement by teacher scaffolding.

The learning tasks and activities are partially aligned with the instructional outcomes but require only minimal thinking by students, allowing most to be passive or merely compliant.

The learning tasks and activities, materials, resources, instructional groups and technology are poorly aligned with the instructional outcomes or require only rote responses.

The pace of the lesson is too slow or too rushed. The pacing of the lesson is appropriate, providing most students the time needed to be intellectually

engaged. The pacing of the lesson may not provide students the time needed to be intellectually engaged. The pacing of the lesson provides students the time needed to intellectually engage with and reflect upon

their learning and to consolidate their understanding. Virtually all students are intellectually engaged in challenging content through well-designed learning

tasks and suitable scaffolding by the teacher and fully aligned with the instructional outcomes. 3.D A variety of feedback, from both their teacher and their peers, is accurate, specific, and advances learning. Assessment is fully integrated into instruction through extensive use of formative assessment. Assessment is used regularly by teacher and/or students during the lesson through monitoring of

learning progress and results in accurate, specific feedback that advances learning. Assessment is used sporadically by teacher and/or students to support instruction through some

monitoring of progress in learning.


Feedback to students is general, students appear to be only partially aware of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their work, and few assess their own work.

Questions, prompts, and assessments are rarely used to diagnose evidence of learning. Questions, prompts, assessments are used regularly to diagnose evidence of learning by individual

students. Questions, prompts, assessments are used to diagnose evidence of learning. Students appear to be aware of the assessment criteria; some of them engage in self-assessment Students appear to be aware of, and there is some evidence that they have contributed to, the assessment

criteria Students do not appear to be aware of the assessment criteria and do not engage in self-assessment. Students self-assess and monitor their progress. There is little or no assessment or monitoring of student learning; feedback is absent or of poor quality. 3.E Drawing on a broad repertoire of strategies, the teacher persists in seeking approaches for students who

have difficulty learning. Teacher accepts responsibility for student success but has only a limited repertoire of strategies to draw

upon. Teacher adheres to the instruction plan in spite of evidence of poor student understanding or lack of

interest. Teacher attempts to modify the lesson when needed and to respond to student questions and interests,

with moderate success. Teacher ignores student questions; when students experience difficulty, the teacher blames the students

or their home environment. Teacher persists in seeking effective approaches for students who need help, using an extensive

repertoire of instructional strategies and soliciting additional resources from the school or community. Teacher promotes the successful learning of all students, making minor adjustments as needed to

instruction plans and accommodating student questions, needs, and interests. Teacher seizes an opportunity to enhance learning, building on a spontaneous event or student interests,

or successfully adjusts and differentiates instruction to address individual student misunderstandings. 4.A Drawing on an extensive repertoire of skills, teacher offers specific alternative actions, complete with the

probable success of different courses of action. Teacher does not know whether a lesson was effective or achieved its instructional outcomes, or he/she

profoundly misjudges the success of a lesson Teacher has a generally accurate impression of a lesson’s effectiveness and the extent to which

instructional outcomes were met. Teacher has no suggestions for how a lesson could be improved. Teacher makes a few specific suggestions of what could be tried another time the lesson is taught. Teacher makes a thoughtful and accurate assessment of a lesson’s effectiveness and the extent to which it

achieved its instructional outcomes, citing many specific examples from the lesson and weighing the relative strengths of each.

Teacher makes an accurate assessment of a lesson’s effectiveness and the extent to which it achieved its instructional outcomes and can cite general references to support the judgment.

Teacher makes general suggestions about how a lesson could be improved. 4.B Students contribute information and participate in maintaining the records. Teacher’s records for non-instructional activities are adequate but require frequent monitoring to avoid

errors.


Teacher’s records for non-instructional activities are in disarray, resulting in errors and confusion. Teacher’s system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments and student

progress in learning is nonexistent or in disarray. Teacher’s system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments and student

progress in learning is rudimentary and only partially effective. Teacher’s system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments, student progress in

learning, and non-instructional records is fully effective. Teacher’s system for maintaining information on student completion of assignments, student progress in

learning, and non-instructional records is fully effective. 4.C Information to families is conveyed in a culturally appropriate manner. Response to family concerns is handled with professional and cultural sensitivity. Teacher communicates frequently with families about the instructional program and conveys

information about individual student progress. Teacher communication with families—about the instructional program, about individual students—is

sporadic and culturally inappropriate. Teacher makes no attempt to engage families in the instructional program. Teacher makes some attempts to engage families in the instructional program. Teacher makes sporadic attempts to communicate with families about the instructional program and

about the progress of individual students but does not attempt to engage families in the instructional program. Communications are one-way and not always appropriate to the cultural norms of those families.

Teacher’s communication with families is frequent and sensitive to cultural traditions, with students contributing to the communication.

Teacher’s efforts to engage families in the instructional program are frequent and successful. 4.D Teacher avoids becoming involved in school events or school and district projects Teacher avoids participation in a professional culture of inquiry, resisting opportunities to become

involved. Teacher becomes involved in the school’s culture of professional inquiry when invited to do so. Teacher maintains cordial relationships with colleagues to fulfill duties that the school or district

requires. Teacher participates in school events and school and district projects when specifically asked to do so. Teacher takes a leadership role in promoting a culture of professional inquiry. Teacher volunteers to participate in school events and district projects making a substantial contribution,

and assuming a leadership role in at least one aspect of school or district life. Teacher volunteers to participate in school events and in school and district projects, making a

substantial contribution. Teacher’s relationships with colleagues are characterized by mutual support and cooperation; teacher

actively participates in a culture of professional inquiry. Teacher’s relationships with colleagues are characterized by mutual support and cooperation, with the

teacher taking initiative in assuming leadership among the faculty. Teacher’s relationships with colleagues are negative or self-serving. 4.E Teacher accepts, with some reluctance, feedback on teaching performance from both supervisors and

colleagues. Teacher engages in no professional development activities to enhance knowledge or skill. Teacher finds limited ways to contribute to the profession. Teacher initiates important activities to contribute to the profession.


Teacher makes no effort to share knowledge with others or to assume professional responsibility. Teacher participates actively in assisting other educators. Teacher participates in professional activities to a limited extent when they are convenient. Teacher resists feedback on teaching performance from either supervisors or more experienced

colleagues. Teacher seeks out feedback on teaching from both supervisors and colleagues. Teacher seeks out opportunities for professional development and makes a systematic effort to conduct

action research. Teacher seeks out opportunities for professional development to enhance content knowledge and

pedagogical skill. Teacher welcomes feedback from colleagues—either when made by supervisors or when opportunities

arise through professional collaboration. 4.F Teacher attempts, though inconsistently, to serve students. Teacher does not knowingly contribute to

some students being ill-served by the school. Teacher complies fully with school and district regulation. Teacher complies fully with school and district regulations, taking a leadership role with colleagues. Teacher complies minimally with school and district regulations, doing just enough to get by. Teacher displays dishonesty in interactions with colleagues, students and the public. Teacher displays high standards of honesty, integrity, and confidentiality in interactions with colleagues,

students and the public. Teacher is active in serving students, working to ensure that all students receive a fair opportunity to

succeed. Teacher is highly proactive in serving students, seeking out resources when needed. Teacher makes a

concerted effort to challenge negative attitude or practices to ensure that all students, particularly those traditionally underserved, are honored in the school.

Teacher is honest in interactions with colleagues, students and the public. Teacher is not alert to students’ needs and contributes to school practices that result in some students

being ill-served by the school. Teacher maintains an open mind in team or departmental decision-making. Teacher makes decisions and recommendations based on self-serving interests. Teacher does not

comply with school and district regulations. Teacher takes a leadership role in team or departmental decision-making and helps ensure that such

decisions are based on the highest professional standards. Teacher takes a leadership role with colleagues and can be counted on to hold the highest standards of

honesty, integrity and confidentiality. Teacher’s decisions and recommendations are based on limited but genuinely professional

considerations.


Appendix C: Teacher Peer Mini Observation Form

HART COUNTY SCHOOLS

Teacher Peer Mini Observation Form

School: _________________________ Teacher Observed: _______________________________________

Observer: ___________________________________________

Date: ______/_______/_______ Time In: ________________ Time Out: ______________

Domain II: Classroom Environment Yes Unobserved

An environment of respect and rapport exists

Comments:

The culture exhibits importance of content, high expectations for students, and

student pride in his or her work

Comments:

Classroom is managed during group work, seat work, as well as transitional times

Comments:

Collaborates well with team teachers and paraprofessionals

Comments:


Student-friendly learning targets are posted and student interviews reveal that all

students are aware of the target for the day

Comments:

Student behavior is monitored and addressed positively and timely

Comments:

Physical space is both safe and accessible

Comments:

Domain III: Instruction Yes Unobserved

Communicating with students (…expectations for learning, directions and

procedures, explanation of content, and usage of oral/written language)

Comments:

Higher-order questioning

Comments:

Students engaged in learning (variety of experiential, inductive, hands-on learning)

Comments:


Differentiated instruction and assessment (content, product, and/or process)

Comments:

Appropriate monitoring and feedback of student learning

Comments:

Student self-assessment/monitoring of progress

Comments:

Appropriate pacing of lesson

Comments:

Effective use of technology (students and teacher)

Comments:

Teacher Reflection:

What went well?

What would you do differently if teaching the lesson again?

What is the impact for next lessons?


Appendix D: Other Certified Professional Peer Mini Observation Form

HART COUNTY SCHOOLS

Other Certified Professional Peer Mini Observation Form

School: _________________________Other Professional Observed: _______________________________________

Observer: ___________________________________________


Domain II: Environment Yes Unobserved


Comments:



Comments:

Delivery of service is managed during group work, seat work, as well as transitional

times

Comments:

Collaborates well with teachers, paraprofessionals, and other service providers

Comments:


Expected student outcomes are evident and student interviews reveal that all

students are aware of the expected outcome

Comments:


Comments:


Comments:

Domain III: Instruction/Delivery of Service Yes Unobserved



Comments:


Comments:

Students engaged in learning/delivery of service (variety of experiential, inductive,

hands-on learning)

Comments:


Differentiated instruction/service delivery and assessment (content, product, and/or

process)

Comments:

Appropriate monitoring and feedback of student learning/results of service delivery

Comments:


Comments:

Appropriate pacing of lesson/services

Comments:


Comments:

Educator/Professional Reflection:

What went well?

How might you refine the process of providing these services again?

What is the impact for future services?


Appendix E: Supervisor Mini Observation form for Teachers

HART COUNTY SCHOOLS

Supervisor Mini Observation Form for Teachers

School: _________________________ Teacher Observed: _______________________________________

Observer: ___________________________________________


Domain II: Classroom Environment RATING


Comments:

1 2 3 4



Comments:

1 2 3 4

Classroom is managed during group work, seat work, as well as transitional times

Comments:

1 2 3 4

Collaborates well with team teachers and paraprofessionals

Comments:

1 2 3 4


Student-friendly learning targets are posted and student interviews reveal that all

students are aware of the target for the day

Comments:

1 2 3 4


Comments:

1 2 3 4


Comments:

1 2 3 4

Domain III: Instruction RATING



Comments:

1 2 3 4


Comments:

1 2 3 4

Students engaged in learning (variety of experiential, inductive, hands-on learning)

Comments:

1 2 3 4


Differentiated instruction and assessment (content, product, and/or process)

Comments:

1 2 3 4

Appropriate monitoring and feedback of student learning

Comments:

1 2 3 4


Comments:

1 2 3 4

Appropriate pacing of lesson

Comments:

1 2 3 4


Comments:

1 2 3 4

Teacher Reflection:

What went well?

What would you do differently if teaching the lesson again?

What is the impact for next lessons?


Appendix F: Supervisor Mini Observation Form for Other Certified Professionals

HART COUNTY SCHOOLS

Supervisor Mini Observation Form for Other Certified Professionals

School: _________________________Other Professional Observed: _______________________________________

Observer: ___________________________________________


Domain II: Environment RATING


Comments:

1 2 3 4



Comments:

1 2 3 4

Delivery of service is managed during group work, seat work, as well as transitional

times

Comments:

1 2 3 4

Collaborates well with teachers, paraprofessionals, and other service providers

Comments:

1 2 3 4


Expected student outcomes are evident and student interviews reveal that all

students are aware of the expected outcome

Comments:

1 2 3 4


Comments:

1 2 3 4


Comments:

1 2 3 4

Domain III: Instruction/Delivery of Service Unobserved



Comments:

1 2 3 4


Comments:

1 2 3 4

Students engaged in learning/delivery of service (variety of experiential, inductive,

hands-on learning)

Comments:

1 2 3 4


Differentiated instruction/service delivery and assessment (content, product, and/or

process)

Comments:

1 2 3 4

Appropriate monitoring and feedback of student learning/results of service delivery

Comments:

1 2 3 4


Comments:

1 2 3 4

Appropriate pacing of lesson/services

Comments:

1 2 3 4


Comments:

1 2 3 4

Educator/Professional Reflection:

What went well?

How might you refine the process of providing these services again?

What is the impact for future services?


Appendix G: Pre-Observation Form

HART COUNTY SCHOOLS

PRE-OBSERVATION FORM

Questions for Discussion: Notes:

What is your identified student learning target(s)?

To which part of your curriculum does this lesson relate?

How does this learning fit in the sequence of learning for this class?

Briefly describe the students in this class, including those with special needs or other unique circumstances.

How will you engage the students in the learning? What roles will you and students have in the learning process? Will instruction occur in small groups, individually, or in large group? Provide any materials that the students will be using.

How will you differentiate instruction for individuals or groups of students? On what basis will differentiation be implemented?

How and when will you know whether the students have achieved the learning target(s)?

Is there anything that you would like me to specifically observe during the lesson? Is there anything else of which I should be aware?

Teacher/Other Professional:

School:

Grade Level/Subject(s):

Observer:

Date of Conference:


*For other certified professionals, please consider national standards for the specific profession; preschool teachers shall use the Kentucky Early Childhood Standards.

Student Growth Goal Development Protocol STRUCTURE: Acceptable Needs Revision Focus on student standards

Identifies an area of need pertaining to current students’ abilities

Includes clear, specific and separate targets for growth and proficiency for ALL students

Uses appropriate data collection methods for base line, mid-point, and end of goal measurements

Specifically states appropriate interval of instruction

Focuses on a standards-based enduring skill

Identifies a specific area of need supported by current student data

Includes a growth target for the desired level of individual progress for ALL students and an overall proficiency target for the student group

All three measures included and methods appropriately align with the skill being assessed

Specifies year-long/course-long interval of instruction

Focuses on a standards-based skill that is not enduring OR does not address a standards-based skill

Fails to address a specific need OR identifies a specific area of need without the support of current student data

Does not include separate targets for growth and proficiency or fails to include expected levels of performance

Does not include provisions for three measurements or methods not aligned with skill being assessed

Specifies less than a year-long/course-long interval of instruction or interval not included

RIGOR: Acceptable Needs Revision

Congruent to the KCAS* Valid and reliable measures for student performance Growth and proficiency targets appropriately challenge students

Consistent with the KCAS* and is appropriate for the grade level and content area Intended measures enable students to validly demonstrate skill attainment or performance over time Includes growth and proficiency targets that are challenging but attainable with appropriate support

Not consistent with the KCAS* or not appropriate for the grade level and/or content area Intended measures enable students to demonstrate attainment or performance of only part of the standard(s) being assessed; or measures lack validity or reliability Fails to include both growth and proficiency targets that adequately challenge students

DATA COMPARABILITY: Acceptable Needs Revision

Data collection methods enable comparison of student progress across similar classrooms

Consistent measures/rubrics will be used to measure student performance on the standard(s) being addressed across similar classrooms/settings

Does not reflect the use of consistent measures/rubrics to measure student performance on the standard(s) being addressed across similar classrooms/settings

Appendix H: Student Growth Goal Development Protocol


APPENDIX I: APPEALS PROCEDURE

PERSONNEL 03.18

- CERTIFIED PERSONNEL -

Evaluation

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.1

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.

NOTIFICATION

The evaluation criteria and evaluation process to be used shall be explained to and discussed with certified school

personnel no later than the end of the first month of reporting for employment for each school year.

REVIEW

All employees shall be afforded an opportunity for a review of their evaluations. All written evaluations shall be

discussed with the evaluatee, and he/she shall have the opportunity to attach a written statement to the evaluation

instrument. Both the evaluator and evaluatee shall sign and date the evaluation instrument.

All evaluations shall be maintained in the employee's personnel file.2

APPEAL PANEL

The District shall establish a panel to hear appeals from summative evaluations as required by law.1

ELECTION

Two (2) members of the panel shall be elected by and from the certified employees of the District. Two (2)

alternates shall also be elected by and from the certified employees, to serve in the event an elected member cannot

serve. The Board shall appoint one (1) certified employee and one (1) alternate certified employee to the panel.

TERMS

All terms of panel members and alternates shall be for one (1) year and run from July 1 to June 30. Members may be

reappointed or reelected.

CHAIRPERSON

The chairperson of the panel shall be the certified employee appointed by the Board.

APPEAL TO PANEL

Any certified employee who believes that he or she was not fairly evaluated on the summative evaluation may

appeal to the panel within five (5) working days of the receipt of the summative evaluation. The certified employee

may review any evaluation material related to him/her. Both the evaluator and the evaluatee shall be given the

opportunity to review documents to be given to the hearing committee reasonably in advance of the hearing and may

have representation of their choosing.


PERSONNEL 03.18

(CONTINUED)

Evaluation

APPEAL FORM

The appeal shall be signed and in writing on a form prescribed by the District evaluation committee. The form shall

state that evaluation records may be presented to and reviewed by the panel.

CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS

No panel member shall serve on any appeal panel considering an appeal for which s/he was the evaluator.

Whenever a panel member or a panel member's immediate family appeals to the panel, the member shall not serve

for that appeal. Immediate family shall include father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, uncle,

aunt, nephew, niece, grandparent, and corresponding in-laws.

A panel member shall not hear an appeal filed by his/her immediate supervisor.

BURDEN OF PROOF

The certified employee appealing to the panel has the burden of proof. The evaluator may respond to any statements

made by the employee and may present written records which support the summative evaluation.

HEARING

The panel shall hold necessary hearings. The evaluation committee shall develop necessary procedures for

conducting the hearings.

PANEL DECISION

The panel shall deliver its decision to the District Superintendent, who shall take whatever action is appropriate or

necessary as permitted by law. The panel’s written decision shall be issued within fifteen (15) working days from

the date an appeal is filed. No extension of that deadline beyond April 25th shall be granted without written approval

of the Superintendent.

SUPERINTENDENT

The Superintendent shall receive the panel's decision and shall take such action as permitted by law as s/he deems

appropriate or necessary.

REVISIONS

The Superintendent shall submit proposed revisions to the evaluation plan to the Board for its review to ensure

compliance with applicable statute and regulation. Upon adoption, all revisions to the plan shall be submitted to the

Kentucky Department of Education for approval.

REFERENCES:

1KRS 156.557, 704 KAR 003:345

OAG 92-135, Thompson v. Board of Educ., Ky., 838 S.W.2d 390 (1992)

RELATED POLICIES:

203.15, 03.16, 02.14

Adopted/Amended: 07/27/2006

Order #: 07-23

http://policy.ksba.org/documentmanager.asp?requestarticle=/krs/156-00/557.pdf&requesttype=krs

http://policy.ksba.org/documentmanager.asp?requestarticle=/kar/704/003/345.htm&requesttype=kar

http://policy.ksba.org/documentmanager.asp?requestarticle=/civil/opinions/oag92135.htm&requesttype=oag


PERSONNEL 03.18 AP.21

- CERTIFIED PERSONNEL -

Evaluation Appeal Form

This form is to be used by certified employees who wish to appeal current evaluation. If you

feel that you were not fairly evaluated you may submit an appeal to the Evaluation Appeals

Panel by completing this form and returning it to the Chairperson of the panel within five (5)

working days of the receipt of your summative evaluation.

___________________________________________________ _______________________

Name of Employee Building

___________________________________________________

Title

___________________________________________________

Home Address

What specifically do you object to or why do you feel you were not fairly evaluated? _________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

If additional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s).

Date you received the summative evaluation:_________________________________________

Name of Evaluator ______________________________________________________________

I hereby give my consent for my evaluation records to be presented to the members of the

Evaluation Appeal Panel for their study and review.

_____________________________________________ _______________________________

Employee's Signature Date

Review by Panel ________________________________________

Review by Board ________________________________________

RELATED PROCEDURES:

03.18 AP.11, 03.18 AP.12

Review/Revised:4/27/2000


Appendix J: Timeline

Certified Evaluation Plan Timeline

TEACHER & OTHER CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION TIMELINE

NON-Tenured Annual Observation Cycle (begins two weeks after first student attendance day) October 15 1st mini observation complete December 15 2nd mini observation complete March 15 3rd mini observation complete April 30 Full supervisor observation complete Tenured Three-Year Observation Cycle (begins two weeks after first student attendance day) March 15 Mini supervisor observation complete (years 1 and 2) March 15 Mini Peer observation complete (year 3) April 30 Full supervisor observation complete (year 3) Establish Student Growth Goal (results reviewed at end of each goal period; no later

than April 15 each year) Year-Long Established within four weeks of start of course Semester Established within three weeks of start of course Nine-Week Established within one week of start of course Student Voice Survey (Non-Evaluative Process—timeline subject to state window)

October 15 One survey complete (Grades 9-12) March 15 Additional survey completed (Grades 9-12); at least one survey

complete (Grades K-8) Professional Growth Plan June 1* New plan developed for next school year by end of the school year

(returning staff) – No later than June 1* October 1 Plan developed for current school year (new staff) Teachers submit reflection on current PGP (returning staff) December 1 Teachers submit reflection on current PGP (new staff)

professional growth & effectiveness system 2015-2016hart county...2015/05/21 · effective...

Documents