1. Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Update Kentucky Board of Education August 8, 2012 1

2. The KBE Goal of Teacher/Leader Evaluation The ultimate goal of all teacher/leader evaluation should be… Every student is taught by an effective teacher; every school led by an effective leader. 2

3. Phase 1 (2011-2012) Field Test 54 participating districts identified Districts trained and implement field test protocols Multiple measures of effectiveness defined Districts participate in regional field test status meetings Feedback and revisions Phase 2 (2012-2013) Extended Field Test 54 Districts trained in and implement protocols Districts participate in regional status meetings Teacher/Leader Feedback collected Gathering and collecting data to inform the system requirements Phase 3 (2013 & Beyond) Statewide Pilot & Implementation Statewide training Statewide system implementation Collect baseline data Gathering and collecting data to inform the system requirements Timeline for Teacher and Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System 3 2015 Full accountability in Spring 2015

4. FINDINGS FROM YEAR 1 FIELD TEST (2011-12) Training Positive aspects: ◦ Connections between the multiple measures and the PGES ◦ Able to align SMART goals to the PGES For Consideration: ◦ The training was good, but more details needed about:  SMART Goals  Implementation expectations 4

5. FINDINGS FROM YEAR 1 FIELD TEST (2011-12) Measures Positive Aspects: ◦ Accountability system ◦ Self Reflection well aligned with the PGPs ◦ Student Growth concept was well received For Consideration: ◦ Doubts about Local Student Growth measure ◦ Concerns about Student Voice 5

6. FINDINGS FROM YEAR 1 FIELD TEST (2011-12) Implementation Positive aspects: ◦ Student Voice was easy to administer ◦ Self-reflection helped guide the PGP process ◦ Need for an electronic platform For Consideration: ◦ Evident gaps in communication ◦ Time Consuming ◦ Scaling up 6

7. FINDINGS FROM YEAR 1 FIELD TEST (2011-12) Framework Positive aspects: ◦ Teachers felt comfortable aligning their PGPs to the PGES framework. For consideration: ◦ Teachers were uncomfortable being assessed using the framework. ◦ There is a need to streamline the framework for more efficient use. 7

8. 2012-13 Detailed Timeline May 2012 Data Collection and Analysis District feedback -Revise Training June – July (Ext. Field Test) Evaluation System Training Observer training – Inter-rater reliability and certification Focus on meaningful feedback August - December 54 districts extended field test Full Evaluation System Cycle Scaling Criteria Training on the Principal Evaluation System Readiness and Preparation (remaining 120 districts) January 2013 Original 54 scaling to full implementation District leadership team meetings with remaining districts February – May 2013 54 districts continue scaling District leadership team training on PGES statewide June – July 2013 State leadership team and certification training for all districts August 2013 Statewide pilot implementation Local district scaling to full implementation 8

9. Implementation Efforts and Extended Field Test (2012-13)  Implementation and validation of the entire PGES system  Testing and verification of Teacher of Record definitions  Correlation studies between multiple measures and student growth percentiles  Training on observation certification  Data collection and monitoring on the field test 9

10. Steering Committee Recommendations Teacher Framework (Danielson Framework) Multiple Measures (Peer Observation used formatively) A teacher’s rating shall not be determined by one measure alone. Annual summative for all educators is not possible. Results of evaluation not publically reported by individual teacher. Principal Multiple measures (Remove Peer Evaluation) A principal’s rating shall not be determined by one measure alone. Annual summative for all educators is not possible. Results of evaluation not publically reported by individual principal. 10

11. Revisions to 156.557  Align to components of the ESEA Waiver  Prohibit public reporting of data by individual teacher or principal 11

12. KBE Policy Questions What is the role of KDE in implementing a statewide system? What is the role of local district in implementing a statewide system? 12

13. KBE Policy Questions What further definition is needed around the multiple measures? o How will the multiple measures be weighted? o What will be the frequency and duration of multiple measures (e.g., student surveys, observations, self-reflection)? o What will be the cycle of formative and summative evaluations ? 13

14. KBE Policy Questions How will the system support personnel decisions? o What will the process be for assigning performance ratings? o What will the corrective action process include? 14

15. PGES Strengths & Weaknesses  Strengths Involvement of stakeholders through Teacher and Principal Steering Committees Extensive field testing and feedback  Weaknesses Costs Capacity 15

16. Next Steps Propose legislative changes in the 2013 session Continue field testing system Review national research findings Review work in other states Continue to consult with Teacher and Principal Steering Committees Bring recommended changes to 704 KAR 3:345 to the KBE in early 2013 16