1. Kentucky’s Professional Growth and Effectiveness System
Last year, Commissioner Holliday presented to the IJCE KDE’s plans to develop a new teacher and leader professional growth and evaluation system to improve the effectiveness of KY teachers.
Such a system was required for KY’s Race To the Top application and would enable KDE to provide other federally-mandated data.
Because of its importance, Commissioner Holliday decided to continue the work with limited available funding when KY did not receive RTTT funding.
Our motto has been “Go Slow, to Go Fast”. This means KDE is taking the necessary time over
three years to facilitate a shift in paradigm that will result in a fair and equitable professional
growth and evaluation system. Having teachers and leaders involved in this work across our state
is a critical factor in the work, and reflects the collective voices from all stakeholders.

2. KENTUCKY’S COMMITMENT
To change how teachers and administrators are evaluated.
To change how they are supported to:
Continuously improve their professional practice;
Enhance their effectiveness; and
Drive increasingly high levels of student achievement.
Key assumption : Teachers are the KEY determinate for driving student achievement
Key questions: (1) How to measure teacher/principal effectiveness?
(2) How to continuously improve effective teaching and administrative leadership?
The characteristics of the new system:
Move the discussion from teacher quality (as measured by degrees/rank) to teacher & leader effectiveness (are students learning?).
Focus on teacher and principal professional growth.
Develop through a collaborative, inclusive and transparent process.
Involve a comprehensive/holistic approach incorporating multiple measures.

3. PROGRESS TO DATE: IMPLEMENTATION CYCLE
Steering Committees (Provide initial and on-going guidance)
The feedback loop provides local districts and Steering Committee members opportunity to inform the work at each stage of the process.
Integrated Design Team
(incorporates field guidance into documents)
Integrated Design Team
(incorporates Steering Committee guidance into documents)
The phrase “design team” is a bit of a misnomer. The Integrated Design Team’s responsibility is to facilitate the work as directed by the Kentucky Department of Education, the state Teacher and Principal Steering Committees, and the individual districts/regions across the state. The team only ‘designs’ as directed by the Steering Committees and/or KDE with all products then going back to either the field, the Steering Committees or KDE for final approval.
* This particular information is not intended to be presented in a defensive manner. It’s sole purpose is to clarify any misunderstandings of the work to this point, and to better assure understanding as the work moves forward.
Regional Focus Groups
(consolidate district input for Steering Committee feedback)
District Focus Groups
(review individual components)

4. CONSTRUCTION UNDERWAY
Three Year Process of System Redesign
Full State Implementation
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Steering Committees
Integrated Design Team Synthesizes Field and Steering Committee Feedback
State-wide Pilot
This graphic outlines the timeline for the three-year process originally presented by Commissioner Holliday.
For the current year of , the actual field test will not begin until January, once the content validity work has been completed and the training for those teachers and administrators volunteering to participate has been developed and implemented.
Field Testing
(50+ Districts)
Framework Design 2010 – 2011
( 25 Districts)

5. PROPOSED MULTIPLE MEASURES FOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS
Observation
Teacher Effectiveness Framework
Peer Observation
Professional Growth
Self Reflection
*These notes apply for this slide and the next one for Principal Effectiveness.
Based on the most current research in the areas of both teacher and principal effectiveness, these are the PROPOSED multiple measures. The 50+ districts who will be field testing the frameworks are currently involved in the previously described cycle of district and regional focus groups addressing a set of guiding questions around these proposed multiple measures. Based on that input, the Steering Committees will make recommendations to the Commissioner and the Integrated Design Team.
Please note that whatever the final determination is for the multiple measures of effectiveness, all of them will be supported by artifacts and evidence. (An example will be seen on an upcoming slide.)
Student Voice
All multiple measures are supported through artifacts and evidence.
Parent Voice
Student Growth

6. PROPOSED MULTIPLE MEASURES FOR PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS
Professional Growth
Principal Effectiveness Framework
Student Growth
Student Voice
Parent Voice
Same notes from previous slide.
Self Reflection
All multiple measures are supported through artifacts and evidence.
Observation
ValEd 360
Teacher Reflection

7. EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORKS
DOMAIN
STANDARD
PEROFRMANCE LEVELS
Point out the various aspects of the frameworks as listed on this slide.
Call attention to the area of artifacts and evidence since it was mentioned on the previous two slides.
Comments: (Provide brief comments to support the holistic recommendation.)

8. EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK DOMAINS
The domains for both teacher and principal effectiveness frameworks are the same:
Instruction
Learning Climate
Leadership and Professionalism
Student Growth
These four domains were agreed to by the Commissioner and state Steering Committees based on the current research of practices and procedures that have the greatest impact on student learning and teacher professional growth.

9. EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK STANDARDS
The standards for teacher and principal effectiveness are different:
Teacher standards are based on the Kentucky Teacher Standards and are aligned with the characteristics of highly effective teaching and learning.
Principal standards are based on ISLLC; The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards
Both the teacher standards and those for principals have been reviewed by the state Steering Committees and by a wide variety of state agencies to assure that they represent state and national standards. Both Steering Committees have “cross representation” on them – teachers on the Principal Steering Committee and administrators on the Teacher Steering Committee.

10. K L A CONNECTIONS I
The 2011 – 2012 KLA agenda focuses on small professional learning communities addressing four critical questions:
What do you want students to know and be able to do?
How will we know when they’ve learned it?
How will we respond when students haven’t learned it?
How will we enrich and extend the learning for students who are proficient?
Briefly review the focus for KLA this year.
Acknowledge that some of the participants in the room may be from districts involved in the field test and may even be teachers/administrators who will actually be selected for direct involvement in the field test.

11. K L A CONNECTIONS II
Thinking in the context of the small professional learning community in which you are working in KLA, what connections do you see to your guiding question and the teacher and/or principal effectiveness framework(s)? What implications do those connections have for your classroom, school or district?
Emphasize the exploration of our multiple measures and how the volunteer districts will help develop the tools and protocols that will be used to collect data for the measures.
KDE will send two years of student growth data to teachers in November which will allow field test districts to run simulations as part of their field test process.

12. I’ll be back with more
as it occurs!