PUSD Teacher EvaluationSY 14/15
Governing Board Presentation
May 13, 2014
Dr. Heather Cruz, Deputy Superintendent
Presentation Overview
Legislative History The Peoria Unified Journey New Required Legislation Process Recommended Changes Next Steps
Arizona Revised Statutes§ 15-203(A)(38)
The State Board of Education shall…”on or before December 15, 2011 adopt and maintain a model framework for a teacher and principal evaluation instrument that includes quantitative data on student academic progress that accounts for between thirty-three percent and fifty percent of the evaluation outcomes and best practices for professional development and evaluator training. School districts and charter schools shall use an instrument that meets the data requirements established by the State Board of Education to annually evaluate individual teachers and principals beginning in school year 2012 – 2013.”
HB 2823
Effective June, 2012 Allowed governing boards to delay the
implementation of the Teacher and Principal Evaluation data component until SY13-14
Peoria Unified implemented the data component in 12/13
ADE Adopted Model Framework
ADE Adopted Model Framework for Educator Effectiveness April, 2011
Classroom observation tool must be: Rubric-based Tied to Arizona Teaching Standards
33% to 50% of the evaluation must be based on student achievement data
PUSD began to make the shift in evaluation practices in SY 11/12
ADE Adopted Model Framework Changes for 14/15
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver
Districts and charters shall ensure that the total measure of Academic Progress (classroom-level and/or school-level) includes a calculation of the amount of Academic Growth students experience between two or more points in time. The Academic Growth calculation shall comprise at least 20% of the total evaluation outcome.
Continuous Improvement of Process Reconvened Governing Board appointed
Certified Teacher Evaluation Committee (CTEC) to look at current evaluation tool and system
Administration is bringing back CTEC’s recommended changes to the tool and process to the Governing Board for approval this evening
Recommended changes Change current goal structure to Student Learning
Objectives to align with requirements of ESEA Waiver
CTEC Committee
Anne Babina James Hawk Melissa O'Dell Christina Vargas
Kim Baerwald Tricia Heivilin Thomas PrattAshley
Vasconcellos
Barbara Barcus Kate Hoffner Megan Reese Laura Vesely
Robert Benson Mark Hudson Katie RichardTahlya
Visintainer
Sharon Betts Dawn Kennedy Ann Sandoval John Wallander
Ali Bridgewater Karen KlappMichael
Schoonover Adam West
Renee CrawfordBrenda
Lopresto Mary Schuett Marla Woolsey
Heather Cruz Carleen McAfee Vance Setka Betty Young
Wendy Davy Mark Moffatt Frank Sharbono
Frymet Hare Monique Molina Melinda Soland Shauna Hatfield Joanne Morales Joyce Staehle
Overview of the Peoria Model-13/14
Professional Practices – Implemented 11/12 Self-Evaluation Goals – Student Achievement, Instructional, &
Exit Outcomes Reflection Rubric Components
Aligned to Arizona Teaching Standards Professional Expectations
Student Achievement Data – Implemented 12/13
Definitions
Group A Teacher A Peoria Unified teacher who has two or
more valid and reliable individual data pieces.
Group B Teacher A Peoria Unified teacher who does not have
two or more valid and reliable individual data pieces.
Changes for 14/15
Goals - Moving to Student Learning Objectives A specific learning goal with specific
measures of student learning used to track progress toward that goal
Research supports this direction Can be found on beginning p. 10 of the
PUSD Teacher Evaluation for 14/15
Benefits of SLO’s
Empowers teachers to set goals based on their current students and setting
Equalizes the percentage of data for Group A & Group B teachers
All data for SLO’s comes from current school year
Perceived to be a more fair way to align teacher data to evaluation
Satisfies the ESEA Waiver
SLO Committee
Sub-committee of CTEC
Anne Babina Marla Hobbs
Anne Babina Marla HobbsRobert Benson Dawn KennedyRenee
Crawford Ashley VasconcellosShauna Hatfield John WallanderPatricia Heivilin
Data Model Guiding Principles Collaborative thinking Guiding principles
Equity Comprehensive Manageable Choice – Menu Driven Balance Transparency Spirit of the Law
Alignment ACT and Freshman College
Success PUSD Data Model
and AZ Learns
Peoria Data Model for 13/14
Standing Data Committee Recommendation
Group A
Group B
Instructional Practices
Classroom-level Data
School-level Data
Peoria Data Model for 14/15
47%
13%
7%
20%
13%
Percentage for Each Part of the PUSD Teacher Evaluation System
Applies to both Group A and B Teachers
Domains
Professional Expectations
Self Assessment On Going Re-flection
Student Learning Objectives
Schoolwide and or Classroom Data
18
Comparison of Group A and B
20% - SLO 13% - Achievement Data
3 Individual Choices AIM is mandatory
2School-wide Choices A survey choice is mandatory
67% Professional Practices Domains, Self-Assessment,
Professional Expectations
20% - SLO 13% - Achievement Data
5 School-wide Choices AIMS is mandatory A survey is mandatory Individual data points are
mandatory, if available 67% Professional
Practices Domains, Self-Assessment,
Professional Expectations
Group A - 20/13/67 Group B - 20/13/67
Inadequacy of Classroom Performance
Not recommending any changes Currently is any one Unsatisfactory
rating in any one component in Domains 1- 4
If a teacher scores in the ineffective performance classification on their evaluation, they will be deemed inadequate This will require a Preliminary Notice of
Inadequacy of Classroom Performance
Performance Pay
Currently there is no pay tied to the evaluation performance classification for 13/14
HB 2823 requires 33% of Fund 12 from the Classroom Site Fund (301) to be tied to student progress for the evaluation beginning in 14/15 SLO’s would satisfy this requirement
301 Plan for 14/15
Update 301 plan to align with HB 2823 SLO’s will meet the requirement for this
By law, we will need to survey the teachers and receive at least 70% agreement with the plan in order to move forward
After teacher approval, the plan will be brought to the board for approval
Plan to do this in August, 2014
22
Questions
Top Related