Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Certified Evaluation Plan Training

Understand how to guide the district evaluation committee (50/50 committee) in revising the current district Certified Evaluation Plan (CEP) to assure the plan meets the requirements of the Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES). FOCUS: PROCESS PROCEDURE

Agenda Introduction Professional Growth Plan/Self-Reflection Observation Student Voice Lunch Student Growth Overall Rating Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness Next Steps

Current CEP PGES Model CEP PGES Checklist Expertise of 50/50 Committee PGES Consultants KLA/ISLN

Model Certified Evaluation Plan Guidance provided for 50/50 committee to revise CEP and fulfill requirements of PGES Required and Local Decisions are stated Examples are provided in the Appendix

Evaluation Committee (50/50 Committee) Personnel Decisions for the 2014-15 school year Preschool, Other Professionals, and KTIP Pilot Systems Capacity Building Connect TPGES to PPGES throughout the day CEP Submission

Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System

Observation Student Voice Professional Growth Plans and Self Reflection Other: District- Determined OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE STUDENT GROWTH KENTUCKY PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFECTIVENESS MODEL PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & INSTRUMENTS DOMAIN RATINGS SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM PROFESSONAL PRACTICE State Contribution Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) State-Defined High/Expected/Low 3 Year of Data AND Local Contribution Student Growth Goals (SGGs) District-Defined High/Expected/Low 3 Year of Data SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT GROWTH PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & DISTRICT- DETERMINED DECISION RULES STUDENT GROWTH TREND RATING (H/E/L) PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT AND STATE- DETERMINED DECISION RULES See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATORS PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATORS OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY PERCENT (%) EFFECTIVE TEACHERS DOMAIN 1: Planning and Preparation DOMAIN 2: Classroom Environment DOMAIN 3: Instruction DOMAIN 4: Professional responsibilities GROWTH PLAN AND CYCLE GROWTH PLANNING MATRIX PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & STATE- DETERMINED DECISION RULES 9KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814

Informing Professional Practice

Reflects on current growth needs Collaborates with administrator to develop the PGP and action steps Implements the plan Regularly reflects on progress and impact Modifies the plan as appropriate Continues implementation and ongoing reflection Conducts summative reflection

Realistic Focused Measurable

Multiple Sources of Data Classroom Observation Feedback Student Growth/Achievement Self-Assessment Reflection

Instructional Planning Lesson Implementation Content Knowledge Beliefs Dispositions

PGP Outcomes of Self-Reflection Organized Contextualize in a Support Framework Articulated as Specific Goals Monitored through Pre-determined Methods

(pg. 5 )

Explain the expectations for developing a Professional Growth Plan (PGP) and ongoing Self-Reflection. What is the process for teachers to input the PGP and Self-Reflections into CIITS?

Use the same instruments Supervisor observation will provide documentation and feedback for teacher effectiveness (SUMMATIVE RATING) Peer observation will only provide formative feedback (NO SUMMATIVE RATING)

OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C

One full observations by the supervisor that is the final observation in the summative year Three mini observations with one being by the peer observer during the summative year.

Two full observations by the supervisor with one of the full observations being the final observation in the summative year. Two mini observations with one being by the peer observer during the summative year.

Provide an explicit description of the observation model Assure that this option provides at least a minimum of 4 observations in the summative cycle (3 principal/1 peer)

Discuss with your team the observation model that would work best for your district. What changes would need to occur in order for this model to be implemented? Would the observation model fulfill the criteria for PGES?

Districts will provide conferencing requirements for their teachers and observers.

Pre and Post conference after each full observation but not mini Pre conferences may be completed electronically Post conferences may be completed in person May not require pre conferences

Districts may choose timeline for observation schedule. Example only 1 st Observation: Begins 30 days after the start of school 2 nd Observation: Begins November 1 3 rd Observation: Begins December 15 4 th Observation: Begins February 15 (All observations should be concluded by April 1) WARNING Consider Weather Implications

At your table, look at your current CEP plan and discuss with your team What are you currently doing that would meet the observation requirements? Conferencing? (PRE/POST) Timeline? Plan for 50/50 Committee

Evaluators must complete the Teachscape Proficiency Observation Training Three sections: Framework for Teaching Observer Training Framework for Teaching Scoring Practice Framework for Teaching Proficiency Assessment

Test divided into two stages If a stage is not passed on the first attempt, must wait 24 hours before retaking

Year 1Certification Year 2Calibration Year 3Calibration Year 4Certification Teachscape, the current approved technology platform, must be used for certification and calibration.

If a supervisor has yet to complete or does not pass the proficiency assessment, the district must provide supports: Processes/procedures to ensure success during the first assessment administration Supports for those who do not pass

If the supervisor is not certified through the proficiency system, the district will use the following processes/procedures: May include district-level personnel or principals from another building (certified through the proficiency system) Will conduct the observation with the principal (modeling the process)

Discuss with your team how the district will support Observation Certification and procedures to maintain certification.

All teachers will be observed by a trained Peer Observer during the summative year. All Peer Observers participating during the summative year observations will complete the state developed training.

District decisions: Number of peer observations required each evaluation cycle (minimum of 1 during the summative year) Processes and procedures the district will use to ensure all teachers have access to Peer Observers Documentation that Peer Observers have met selection and training requirements

Selection/Assignment at the District Level Selection/Assignment at the School Level Selection/Assignment at the Teacher Level Examples include: NBCT Cadre Content Specialists Examples include: Teacher Leaders Examples include: Trusted Peers PLC Team Members pool selected at the district level, assigned to teachers/schools at the district level, or may simply be a pool of Peer Observers from which schools/teachers may choose pool selected at the school level, assigned to teachers at the school level, or may simply be a pool of Peer Observers from which teachers may choose pool self-selected at the school level, teachers select their own Peer Observer

Talk about Peer Observers * Selection and Training * Number of Peer Observations * Peer Observation Model

Identify an Observation Model Determine Observation pre/post conference protocol Develop Observation Schedule Observation Certification Procedures District Support Peer Observers Selection and Training Number of Peer Observations Peer Observation Model

Student Voice Survey Guide

The Superintendent of each district will assign a point of contact to be responsible for overseeing and administering the Student Voice Survey meeting Ethics Requirements The district point of contact will be responsible for the general and administrative, processes for ensuring Student Voice produces results for teachers in their district.

The District will determine the number of sections required per teacher to participate in the survey. Participating teachers must have a minimum of one section respond to the survey Building Principals will determine the section(s) participating in the Student Voice Survey.

The student voice survey coordinator will work to ensure that all classes participating in the survey have computers with Internet access. For teachers who work in collaborative classrooms, there are several scenarios as to how their students may be surveyed. Students with ELL, IEPs, 504 Plans will receive requisite supports to ensure equal access.

Identify the Point of Contact Determine the number of sections per teacher Develop a plan to provide accommodations to students for equal access. District Decisions

Student Growth

Student Growth Percentiles The state contribution for student growth is base on KDE state assessment data. Teachers of Grades 4-8, reading and mathematics Rating based on each students rate of change, compared to academic peers Median SGP for a teachers class is compared to that of the state Measures progress for students at all performance levels Student Growth Goals The local contribution for the student growth measure is a rating based on the degree to which a teacher meets the growth goal for a set of students over a specified period of time as indicated in the teachers Student Growth Goal (SGG). All teachers, regardless of grade level and content area, will develop SGGs for inclusion in the local student growth measure.

of Student Growth Goals

Rigor means congruency to the standards. Sources of Evidence True intent of the Standards

Congruent with KCAS grade level and content Enduring skills, understandings, processes or concepts Allows all students to demonstrate knowledge and growth

The district must include the degree to which the goal and the assessments meet the SGG criteria. SGG and Assessments will meet these same 4 criteria OPTION A: Rigor Rubric OPTION B: Peer-Review and/or Jury Process OPTION C: District-Defined Option OPTION A: Rigor Rubric OPTION B: Peer-Review and/or Jury Process OPTION C: District-Defined Option

Sample Rubrics

The [peer-review] [jury] process will be used by all teachers prior to final approval of the SGG. Grade-level PL teams Vertical content-area PL Teams District-Level Content Coaches Multi-District Content-Area Teacher Teams Examples

Must include an explanation to ensure rigor. Processes, procedures, protocols, etc. must include the input of teachers and administrators in the district. There must be evidence of the research base grounding an instrument.

Literacy Design Collaborative teachers (LDC) (any content area) For the 2011 12 school year, 100% of students will make measurable progress in writing. Each student will improve by one performance level in three or more areas of the LDC argumentation rubric. Furthermore, 80% of the students will score a 3 or better overall.

Discuss with your team the required number of SGGs for teachers. Describe the process for determining rigor of SGG.

Student Growth Goals

Teachers agree on what it looks like for students to meet a given standard or group of standards. Assessments are appropriate for students to show that they meet the intent of the standard Assessments may be different in structure, even when assessing the same standards.

Administration Protocol Scoring Process Professional Learning Teams Analyze standards assessments student work and other student data SAMPLE Assessment Design Process

Work with your team to describe how comparability of SGG and Assessments will be met.

Single Student Growth Goal

SMART process for goals Options for rating low, expected or high growth: PPre-Test/Post-Test RRepeated Measures Design HHolistic Evaluation

Identical AssessmentsComparable Assessments Assessment over content standards Same assessment over content standards Comparable Assessment over content standards Assessment over content standards

Trends and patterns Determine growth over time Assessment over content standards Teacher & Principal analyze formative assessment data Teacher & Principal analyze formative assessment data

Combining pre- and post-test model with repeated measures Use of district -developed growth rubric for a holistic evaluation Districts must explain the processes and procedures for ensuring quality and inter-rater reliability of the rubrics. Assessments must meet the district assurance of rigor and comparability.

Determining Levels of Growth: Pre-Test/Post-Test Repeated Measures Design Holistic Evaluation Collaborative process of data analysis using a district-developed rubric Calculation using cut scores Collaborative process of data analysis using a district-developed rubric & calculated cut scores This process must be applied across all teachers and schools within the district.

Discuss with your team how the district will determine high/expected/low growth

District Decisions Determine the number of SGGs for teachers. Ensure rigor and comparability of SGG and Assessments Determine high/expected/low growth

Overall Performance Rating

Determining the Overall Performance Category Informed by evidence, the evaluator determines the Overall Performance Category based on Professional judgment Sources of evidence: Domains District-Developed Rubrics Decision rules that establish a common understanding of performance thresholds to which all educators are held

Rating Professional Practice

Rating Professional Practice Scenario for Mr. Thomas Observations Student Voice Survey Self Reflections Professional Growth Plans Other relevant local data Teacher Domain Ratings Domain 1: Prep and PlanningA Domain 2: Classroom EnvironmentD Domain 3: InstructionD Domain 4: Professional ResponsibilitiesA

Rating Professional Practice Scenario for Mr. Thomas The principal must now provide ONE professional practice rating that is inclusive of all domains. Please look at the proposed decision rules that you were given today. Teacher Domain Ratings Domain 1: Prep and PlanningA Domain 2: Classroom EnvironmentD Domain 3: InstructionD Domain 4: Professional ResponsibilitiesA

Decision Rules for Determining Professional Practice

DomainRanking Domain 1Accomplished Domain 2Developing Domain 3Developing Domain 4Accomplished

DomainRanking Domain 1Exemplary Domain 2Exemplary Domain 3Accomplished Domain 4Ineffective

DomainRanking Domain 1Ineffective Domain 2Developing Domain 3Developing Domain 4Ineffective

DomainRanking Domain 1Ineffective Domain 2Developing Domain 3Developing Domain 4Ineffective As a district you could decide to expand the decision rule list and create additional rules for guidance. Option: You could leave the chart as is and leave to the discretion of the principal.

Table Activity At your table, discuss your options for the rating of Professional Practice. A) Add more decision rules? If so, what would they be? B) Use Evaluators Professional Judgment C) A combination of both A and B

Observation Student Voice Professional Growth Plans and Self Reflection Other: District- Determined OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE STUDENT GROWTH KENTUCKY PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFECTIVENESS MODEL PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & INSTRUMENTS DOMAIN RATINGS SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM PROFESSONAL PRACTICE State Contribution Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) State-Defined High/Expected/Low 3 Year of Data AND Local Contribution Student Growth Goals (SGGs) District-Defined High/Expected/Low 3 Year of Data SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT GROWTH PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & DISTRICT- DETERMINED DECISION RULES STUDENT GROWTH TREND RATING (H/E/L) PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT AND STATE- DETERMINED DECISION RULES See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATORS PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATORS OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY PERCENT (%) EFFECTIVE TEACHERS DOMAIN 1: Planning and Preparation DOMAIN 2: Classroom Environment DOMAIN 3: Instruction DOMAIN 4: Professional responsibilities GROWTH PLAN AND CYCLE GROWTH PLANNING MATRIX PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & STATE- DETERMINED DECISION RULES 81KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814 Overall Student Growth Rating

Rating Student Growth Ratings will fall into one of the following three categories Low Expected High

Rating Student Growth Supervisors will look at trend data from three years (if available) when determining a teachers rating. Districts will develop their own rubric, decision rules, or set of guidelines to determine an overall student growth rating of: Low, Expected, or High.

Rating Student Growth Sample Set of Growth Data Ms. Gilpins Student Growth Data State TestLocal Goal 2015-2016ExpectedHigh 2014-2015LowExpected 2013-2014Expected What level would this teacher rate? Why?

How Would You Rate Ms. Hoskins? Why? Ms. Hoskins Student Growth Data State TestLocal Goal 2015-2016LowExpected 2014-2015LowExpected 2013-2014LowExpected

How Would You Rate Ms. Lee? Why? Ms. Lees Student Growth Data Local Goal 2015-2016High 2014-2015High 2013-2014Low

How does a teacher switching grade levels affect the data? Particularly if they are moving in or out of a testing grade. Should the most recent data be weighted more than previous years? What if I dont have three years of data? Should the state and local goals be weighted equally in the K-PREP years? Questions to Consider

Appendix C Consider pages 44 & 45 in your Appendix (3.0) 3 sample decision rules for multi-year SGG ratings, in order to determine 1 final rating for the cycle Decision rules chart Mathematical Average Mathematical Average with Weighting applied

District C Example Mr. Watts Student Growth Data State TestLocal GoalYearly Averages 2015-2016Expected=2 2/1= 2 2014-2015Low=1Expected=2 3/2 = 1.5 2013-2014Low=1 1/1 = 1.50(Y1A) +.30(Y2A) +.20(Y3A) = GT.50(2) +.30(1.5) +.20(1) = GT 1 +.45 +.20 = 1.65 Final Rating?

As a team, discuss the examples for determining Overall Student Growth Rating and how your district will approach making a decision to assign a rating.

Observation Student Voice Professional Growth Plans and Self Reflection Other: District- Determined OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE STUDENT GROWTH KENTUCKY PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFECTIVENESS MODEL PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & INSTRUMENTS DOMAIN RATINGS SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM PROFESSONAL PRACTICE State Contribution Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) State-Defined High/Expected/Low 3 Year of Data AND Local Contribution Student Growth Goals (SGGs) District-Defined High/Expected/Low 3 Year of Data SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT GROWTH PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & DISTRICT- DETERMINED DECISION RULES STUDENT GROWTH TREND RATING (H/E/L) PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT AND STATE- DETERMINED DECISION RULES See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATORS PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING See MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATORS OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY PERCENT (%) EFFECTIVE TEACHERS DOMAIN 1: Planning and Preparation DOMAIN 2: Classroom Environment DOMAIN 3: Instruction DOMAIN 4: Professional responsibilities GROWTH PLAN AND CYCLE GROWTH PLANNING MATRIX PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT & STATE- DETERMINED DECISION RULES 91KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814 Overall Performance Category

This is a combination of the teachers Professional Practice Rating AND Student Growth Rating The Teacher Effectiveness Steering Committee (TESC) has proposed a set of MINIMUM criteria when determining the Overall Performance Category. Refer to pages 19-21 in Model CEP 3.0 Determining an Educators Overall Performance Category

MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATORS PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING IFTHEN Domains 2 AND 3 are rated INEFFECTIVE Professional Practice Rating shall be INEFFECTIVE Domains 2 OR 3 are rated INEFFECTIVE Professional Practice Rating shall be DEVELOPING OR INEFFECTIVE Domains 1 OR 4 are rated INEFFECTIVE Professional Practice Rating shall NOT be EXEMPLARY Two Domains are rated DEVELOPING, and two Domains are rated ACCOMPLISHED Professional Practice Rating shall be ACCOMPLISHED Two Domains are rated DEVELOPING, and two Domains are rated EXEMPLARY Professional Practice Rating shall be ACCOMPLISHED Two Domains are rated ACCOMPLISHED, and two Domains are rated EXEMPLARY Professional Practice Rating shall be EXEMPLARY COMPONENTS FOR DETERMINING OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:011814 STUDENT GROWTH RATING CRITERIA LOW EXPECTED HIGH CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATORS OVERALL STUDENT GROWTH RATING DISTRICT DECISION

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING STUDENT GROWTH TREND RATING OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY Exemplary High OR ExpectedEXEMPLARY LowACCOMPLISHED Accomplished HighEXEMPLARY ExpectedACCOMPLISHED LowDEVELOPING Developing HighACCOMPLISHED Expected OR LowDEVELOPING Ineffective HighDEVELOPING Expected OR LowINEFFECTIVE MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATORS OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY Overall Rating Category Criteria

Ms. Seagraves Professional Practice Rating Student Growth Rating OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY AccomplishedExpected ??? Applying the Criteria Mr. Holte Professional Practice Rating Student Growth Rating OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY DevelopingLow ???

Growth Planning Matrix

Non-Tenured: A yearly directed growth plan. Tenured Teachers: Growth plans and summative cycle will be based on the Growth Planning Matrix

TYPE AND LENGTH OF EDUCATOR PLAN FOR TENURED TEACHERS RATING LOW EXPECTEDHIGH THREE-YEAR CYCLE SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Goal set by educator with evaluator input One goal must focus on low outcome Formative review annually ONE-YEAR CYCLE DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Goal Determined by Evaluator Goals focus on low performance/outcome area Plan activities designed by evaluator with educator input Formative review at mid-point Summative at end of plan THREE-YEAR CYCLE SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Goals set by educator with evaluator input; one must address low performance or outcomes. Plan activities designed by educator with evaluator input. Formative Review annually. UP TO 12-MONTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN Goal Determined by evaluator Focus on low performance area Summative at end of plan INEFFECTIVE DEVELOPING ACCOMPLISHED EXEMPLARY STUDENT GROWTH TREND RATING THREE-YEAR CYCLE SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Goals set by educator with evaluator input Plan activities are teacher directed and implemented with colleagues. Formative review annually Summative occurs at the end of year 3. PROFESIONAL PRACTICE RATING THREE-YEAR CYCLE SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Goal set by educator with evaluator input One goal must focus on low outcome Formative review annually ONE-YEAR CYCLE DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Goal Determined by Evaluator Goals focus on low performance/outcome area Plan activities designed by evaluator with educator input Formative review at mid-point Summative at end of plan KDE:ONGL:FCS:TB:01181498

District Decisions Determine method for combining local student growth goal and state student growth percentile to rate overall growth as low, expected, and high Your district must establish how a teachers Student Growth Rating will be determined. (e.g. rubrics, decision rules, quantitatively, etc.) The decision rules that have been established are the MINIMUM requirements by the district. Your district may add additional criteria if desired.

Principal & Assistant Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PPGES)

The CEP Model Plan The PPGES Guide (Draft) The District Current CEP Plan (Confirm Plan Assurances)

Administer Formative Val-Ed Site-Visit by Superintendent Mid-Year Review with Superintendent Site-Visit by Superintendent End-of-Year Review with Superintendent 2013/14 Where Are you In the Cycle? 2013-14 Administer Summative Val-Ed Review Accountability and ASSIST Goal Results & Set SGG/PGP/Working Conditions 2-year Goal Two Year Cycle of the PPGES Where are we now?

Site-Visit by Superintendent Mid-Year Review with Superintendent Site-Visit by Superintendent End-of-Year Review with Superintendent Thinking Ahead to 2014/15 2014-15 Administer TELL SURVEY Review Accountability and ASSIST Goal Results & Set SGG/PGP/ & Update Working Conditions 2-year Goal Two Year Cycle of the PPGES 14/15

Roles and Definitions-Requires additional district action As you work through the Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness section of the Model CEP, determine if there are additional definitions that your district needs to add.

1. Instructional Leadership 2. School Climate 3. Human Resources Management 4. Organizational Management 5. Communication and Community Relations 6. Professionalism

TELL Kentucky Survey (WC GOAL) VAL-ED 360 Survey Professional Growth Plan & Self-Reflection Site Visits State Contribution (SGGs ) ASSIST/NGL Goal Local Contribution-Based on School Needs-May parallel state contribution. Sources of Evidence to Inform Student Growth (Student Growth Ratings)

Professional Practice Professional Growth Planning and Self-Reflection (No additional district action required) Site Visits (Plan Requires additional District Action) Val-ED (Plan Requires additional District Action) Working Conditions Goal (Plan Requires additional District Action) Products of Practice/Other sources of Evidence (Self-Explanatory)

Assistant Principal Requirements Professional Growth Plan and Self Reflection Completed independent of the principal Working Conditions Goal Inherited from the principal Student Growth Goals State & Local Inherited from the principal Mid-Year Reviews completed by Principal Evaluated by the Principal annually Principal Performance Standards & Student Growth Same summative Overall Performance Category

SBDM Minutes Faculty Meeting Agendas and Minutes Department/Grade Level Agendas and Minutes PLC Agendas and Minutes Leadership Team Agendas and Minutes Instructional Round/Walk-through documentation Budgets EILA/Professional Learning experience documentation Surveys Professional Organization memberships Parent/Community engagement surveys Parent/Community engagement events documentation School schedules Other

Student Growth State Contribution-Assist/NGL Goal Based on Trajectory Local Contribution-Based on School Need --may parallel state contribution At least one (1) of the Student Growth Goals set by the Principal must address gap populations. Assistant Principals will inherit the SGGs (both state and local contributions) of the Principal. NOTE: Districts will develop a rubric to measure high/expected/low growth on both goals.

The Model Professional Growth and Effective System Plan should be used in conjunction with the existing Certified Evaluation Plan to meet the assurances of the Professional Growth and Effectiveness System. For the purpose of todays activity we will discuss the critical areas of flexibility around the following PGES components: Site Visits VAL-ED TELL/Working Conditions Student Growth

Did your table discuss how districts might define the protocol that will be used with Site Visits ? How many site visits will occur in your district each year (Min. 2)? If the number of site visits vary, how will the superintendent determine the number of visits per principal. How will your district address Scheduling (Process & Procedures) What is the procedure for conducting site visits? Did you include protocols for guiding discussions/questioning? Are all required criteria addressed.

Did your table address these issues? Who is responsible for seeing to the administration (organization and management ) of the survey? Windows? When will your district administer VAL-ED? Are there more than one window? Will VAL-ED be more than every other year? How will your district use VAL-ED results? Who will see the results? VAL_ED

Did your table address these ISSUES? # of WC Goals? How the WCG will added to ASSIST? Process for establishing the WCG Rubric? Criteria for High, Expected, or Low Growth within the Rubric? How a mid-point review will be conducted? Additional evidence that might be used? TELL SURVEY

Did your table address: How many local student growth goals will the principal be required to develop? Is there a clearly defined criteria for helping principals select goals. How will district develop a plan to identify criteria for rating high/expected/low growth? If more than one goal is required how will use multiple goals to determine high/expected/ low growth )? How do you arrive at a single local SGG result?

Result from a combination of professional judgment and district developed rules/rubrics Must include data form both state and local contribution Districts must describe the process and/or instrument to be used and include as an attachment to their CEP.

District Decisions Site Visits Administration of Val-Ed 360 Working Conditions Goal based on TELL Survey Student Growth

Follow-Up Opportunities Monday, March 10 ISLN; CEP Work Session Friday, March 21 CEP Work Session On-going CEP Plan Electronic Review

Evaluation Committee (50/50 Committee) Personnel Decisions for the 2014-15 school year Preschool, Other Professionals, and KTIP Pilot Systems Capacity Building Connect TPGES to PPGES throughout the day CEP Submission Considerations

Certified Evaluation Plan Submission [email protected]

Documents

Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Certified Evaluation Plan Training