Educator Effectiveness Administrative Manual to Include Non

Educator Effectiveness Administrative Manual to Include Non
 Educator Effectiveness Administrative Manual
July 2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
333 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
www.education.state.pa.us
Revised July 2014 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Tom Corbett, Governor
Department of Education
Carolyn C. Dumaresq, Ed.D., Acting Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Rita Perez, Acting Deputy Secretary
The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) does not discriminate in its educational programs, activities, or employment practices, based on race, color, national origin, sex,
sexual orientation, disability, age, religion, ancestry, union membership, or any other legally protected category. Announcement of this policy is in accordance with State Law
including the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and with Federal law, including Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The following persons have been designated to handle inquiries regarding the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s nondiscrimination policies:
For Inquiries Concerning Nondiscrimination in Employment:
Pennsylvania Department of Education
Equal Employment Opportunity Representative
Bureau of Human Resources
333 Market Street, 11th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
Voice Telephone: (717) 787-4417
Fax: (717) 783-9348
Text Telephone TTY: (717) 783-8445
If you have any questions about this publication or for additional copies, contact:
Pennsylvania Department of Education
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
333 Market Street, 5th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
Voice: (717) 787-2127
Fax: (717) 214-2786
TTY: (717) 783-8445
www.education.state.pa.us
All Media Requests/Inquiries: Contact the Office of Press & Communications at
(717) 783-9802
For Inquiries Concerning Nondiscrimination in All Other Pennsylvania
Department of Education Programs and Activities:
Pennsylvania Department of Education
School Services Unit Director
333 Market Street, 5th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
Voice Telephone: (717) 783-3750
Fax: (717) 783-6802
Text Telephone TTY: (717) 783-8445
Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Classroom Teachers
Section 1: Observation/Practice ................................................................................... 2
Section 2: Building Level Data ................................................................................ 14
Section 3: Teacher Specific Data...............................................................................17
Section 4: Elective Data............................................................................................. 25
Section 5: Teaching Professionals with Unique Roles and Functions ......................27
Section 6: Rating Form .............................................................................................. 30
Chapter 2:Principals
Section 1: Principal Effectiveness and Act 82 ..........................................................31
Section 2: Observation/Practice Framework for Leadership (FFL)..........................34
Section 3: Building Level Data ................................................................................. 38
Section 4: Correlation Data ....................................................................................... 39
Section 5: Elective Data............................................................................................. 41
Section 6: Rating Form .............................................................................................. 46
Chapter 3: Non-Teaching Professionals
Section 1: Overview of NTPE and Act 82 ................................................................46
Section 2: Listing of Non-Teaching Professionals ....................................................48
Section 3: Observation/Practice................................................................................. 50
Section 4: Student Performance ................................................................................ 53
Section 5: Rating Form .............................................................................................. 57
Section 6: Legislative Alignment .............................................................................. 58
Chapter 4: Differentiated Supervision ................................................................................61
Chapter 5: Professional Development.................................................................................65
Chapter 6: Process for Submitting Locally-Developed Rating Tools ................................67
Glossary .............................................................................................................................. 69
Introduction
Administrative Guidelines for Educator Effectiveness System
Goal
To develop an Educator Effectiveness Administrative Manual that will provide guidance in the evaluation of educators, highlight critical
components of effectiveness training, and offer opportunities for professional growth. The term “educator” includes teachers, all professional and
temporary professional employees, education specialists, and school administrators/principals.
The Educator Effectiveness Administrative Manual describes the features of Act 82 and compliance requirements set forth by the legislation.
This manual is designed to help guide educators in the implementation of the rating tool and to provide assistance for educators regarding
required and recommended information to educator effectiveness.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education shall develop a rating tool to reflect student performance measures and employee observation
results.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education has approved an evaluation tool and provides guidance with best practices.
The goal of the Educator Effectiveness System is to ensure that students have an effective teacher in their classrooms and effective leadership in
every building.
1
Chapter 1: Classroom Teachers - Section 1: Observation/Practice
Act 82
Revised July 2014 Beginning with the 2013-2014 school year, the evaluation of the effectiveness of professional and temporary
professional employees with instructional certificates serving as classroom teachers, a professional employee or
temporary professional employee who provides direct instruction to students related to a specific subject or grade
level, shall be given due consideration to the following:
1. Classroom observation and practice models that are related to student achievement shall comprise fifty percent
(50%) of the overall rating in each of the following areas:
x
x
x
x
Planning and preparation
Classroom environment
Instruction
Professional responsibilities
2. Student Performance, which shall comprise fifty percent (50%) of the overall rating of the professional
employee or temporary employee serving as a classroom teacher, shall be based upon multiple measures of
student achievement. (Chapter 1, Sections 2,3,4)
Ratings shall be performed by or under the supervision of the chief school administrator or, if so directed by the chief
school administrator, by an assistant administrator, a supervisor or a principal who has supervision over the work of the
professional employee or temporary professional employee being rated, provided that no unsatisfactory rating shall be
valid unless approved by the chief school administrator.
Act 82 states that all professional employees must be evaluated once a year and temporary professional employees
must be evaluated twice a year. Act 82 requires that all teachers will be rated as Distinguished, Proficient, Needs
Improvement, or Failing.
2
Each rating form shall identify the overall performance rating of the professional employees and temporary
professional employees serving as classroom teachers as one of the following:
1. Distinguished – shall be considered satisfactory
2. Proficient – shall be considered satisfactory
3. Needs improvement – shall be considered satisfactory, except that any subsequent overall rating of "needs
improvement" issued by the same employer within ten (10) years of the first overall performance rating of
"needs improvement" where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered unsatisfactory
4. Failing – shall be considered unsatisfactory
Professional Employees shall be rated at least annually and temporary professional employees shall be rated at least
twice annually.
Teachers who receive an overall performance rating of Needs Improvement or Failing are required by Act 82 to
participate in a Performance Improvement Plan. A Performance Improvement Plan shall be designed with the
professional employee's input addressing the area(s) of concern, recommendations for Professional Development,
types of data (evidence) that will be collected to determine improvement, and an observation schedule with Intensive
Supervision.
Current Rating Systems under existing collective bargaining agreements or contracts must be discontinued in any
new or renewed agreements or contracts or during the status quo period after an expired contract. No new agreements
or contract may provide for a rating system other than what is provided by Act 82.
Professional employees and temporary professional employees serving as classroom teachers may be evaluated through
the use of a rating tool developed by individual school districts, intermediate units, or area vocational-technical schools
that the department has approved as meeting or exceeding the measures of effectiveness. An alternative rating form
application may be found on the PDE website www.education.state.pa.us Educator Effectiveness System.
Charter schools are not included in this rating system but may choose to participate.
Revised July 2014 3
Regulations Teacher observation and practice domains. The rating of a classroom teacher for effectiveness in teacher practice shall be
based on classroom observation or other supervisory methods. The percentage factor for, and description of, each domain is
listed in Table A.
Table A: Descriptions of Four Domains
Domain
I.Planning & Preparation - 20%
Revised July 2014 Description
Effective teachers plan and prepare for lessons using their extensive knowledge of the
content area, the relationships among different strands within the content and between
the subject and other disciplines, and their students’ prior understanding of the
subject. Instructional outcomes are clear, represent important learning in the subject,
and are aligned to the curriculum. The instructional design includes learning activities
that are well sequenced and require all students to think, problem solve, inquire, and
defend conjectures and opinions. Effective teachers design formative assessments to
monitor learning, and they provide the information needed to differentiate instruction.
Measures of student learning align with the curriculum, enabling students to
demonstrate their understanding in more than one way.
II. Classroom Environment - 30%
Effective teachers organize their classrooms so that all students can learn. They
maximize instructional time and foster respectful interactions with and among
students, ensuring that students find the classroom a safe place to take intellectual
risks. Students themselves make a substantive contribution to the effective
functioning of the class by assisting with classroom procedures, ensuring effective use
of physical space, and supporting the learning of classmates. Students and teachers
work in ways that demonstrate their belief that hard work will result in higher levels
of learning. Student behavior is consistently appropriate, and the teacher’s handling of
infractions is subtle, preventive, and respectful of students’ dignity.
III. Instruction - 30%
In the classrooms of accomplished teachers, all students are highly engaged in
learning. They make significant contributions to the success of the class through
participation in high-level discussions and active involvement in their learning and
the learning of others. Teacher explanations are clear and invite student intellectual
engagement. The teacher’s feedback is specific to learning goals and rubrics and
offers concrete suggestions for improvement. As a result, students understand their
progress in learning the content and can explain the learning goals and what they
need to do in order to improve. Effective teachers recognize their responsibility for
student learning and make adjustments, as needed, to ensure student success.
4
IV. Professional Responsibilities 20%
Accomplished teachers have high ethical standards and a deep sense of
professionalism, focused on improving their own teaching and supporting the ongoing
learning of colleagues. Their record-keeping systems are efficient and effective, and
they communicate with families clearly, frequently, and with cultural sensitivity.
Accomplished teachers assume leadership roles in both school and LEA projects,
and they engage in a wide range of professional development activities to strengthen
their practice. Reflection on their own teaching results in ideas for improvement that
are shared across professional learning communities and contribute to improving the
practice of all.
Copyright © Charlotte Danielson, 2013.
Scoring. An LEA must provide a rating score in each domain. The four teacher observation and practice domains shall be
rated and scored on a zero-to-three-point scale. The ratings of Failing, Needs Improvement, Proficient and Distinguished are
given numeric values and definitions as shown in Table B.
Table B: Domain Rating Assignment - 3 Point Scale
Performance Rating
Revised July 2014 Failing
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Distinguished
Value
Rating Tool Regulation Definition
0
The employee does not meet performance expectations required for
the position.
1
The employee is functioning below proficient for performance
expectations required for continued employment.
2
The employee’s performance consistently reflects practice at a
professional level.
3
The employee’s performance consistently reflects teaching at the
highest level of practice.
5
Rating and Performance in Four Domains. Table C summarizes teacher performance levels for each of the Domain
Rating Assignments and for the ratings to be assigned for each domain in the Rating (A) column on the next page in Table
D. From Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teachers, 2nd Edition (pp. 41-42), by Charlotte Danielson, Alexandria, VA: ASCD. ©
2007 by ASCD. Adapted and reproduced with permission.
Table C: Four Levels of Performance in Four Domains
Revised July 2014 Domain
Failing
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Distinguished
I. Planning &
Preparation - 20%
Teacher’s plans reflect
little understanding of
the content, the
students, and available
resources.
Instructional outcomes
are either lacking or
inappropriate;
assessment
methodologies are
inadequate.
Teacher’s plans reflect
moderate
understanding of the
content, the students,
and available
resources. Some
instructional outcomes
are suitable to the
students as a group,
and the approaches to
assessment are
partially aligned with
the goals.
Teacher’s plans reflect
solid understanding of
the content, the
students, and available
resources.
Instructional outcomes
represent important
learning suitable to
most students. Most
elements of the
instructional design,
including the
assessments, are
aligned to the goals.
Teacher’s plans based
on extensive content
knowledge and
understanding of
students, are designed
to engage students in
significant learning.
All aspects of the
teacher’s plans –
instructional
outcomes, learning
activities, materials,
resources, and
assessments – are in
complete alignment
and are adapted as
needed for individual
students.
6
Revised July 2014 II. Classroom
Environment - 30%
Classroom
environment is
characterized by chaos
and conflict, with low
expectations for
learning, no clear
standards of student
conduct, poor use of
physical space, and
negative interactions
between individuals.
Classroom
environment functions
somewhat effectively,
with modest
expectations for
student learning and
conduct, and
classroom routines and
use of space that
partially support
student learning.
Students and the
teacher rarely treat one
another with
disrespect.
Classroom
environment functions
smoothly, with little or
no loss of instructional
time. Expectations for
student learning are
high, and interactions
among individuals are
respectful. Standards
for student conduct are
clear, and the physical
environment supports
learning.
Students themselves
make a substantive
contribution to the
smooth functioning of
the classroom, with
highly positive
personal interactions,
high expectations and
student pride in work,
seamless routines,
clear standards of
conduct, and a
physical environment
conducive to highlevel learning.
III. Instruction 30%
Instruction is
characterized by poor
communication, lowlevel questions, little
student engagement or
participation in
discussion, little or no
use of assessment in
learning, and rigid
adherence to an
instructional plan
despite evidence that it
should be revised or
modified.
Only some students
are engaged in
learning because of
only partially clear
communication,
uneven use of
discussion strategies,
and only some suitable
instructional activities
and materials. The
teacher displays some
use of assessment in
instruction and is
moderately flexible in
adjusting the
instructional plan and
in response to
All students are
engaged in learning as
a result of clear
communication and
successful use of
questioning and
discussion techniques.
Activities and
assignments are of
high quality, and
teacher and students
make productive use
of assessment. The
teacher demonstrates
flexibility in
contributing to the
success of the lesson
All students are highly
engaged in learning
and make material
contributions to the
success of the class
through their
participation in
discussions, active
involvement in
learning activities, and
use of assessment
information in their
learning. The teacher
persists in the search
for approaches to meet
the needs of every
7
IV. Professional
Responsibilities 20%
The teacher
demonstrates low
ethical standards and
levels of
professionalism, with
poor recordkeeping
systems and skill in
reflection, little or no
communication with
families or colleagues,
and avoidance of
school and LEA
responsibilities and
participation in
activities for
professional growth.
students’ interests and
their success in
learning.
and of each student.
student.
The teacher
demonstrates moderate
ethical standards and
levels of
professionalism, with
rudimentary
recordkeeping systems
and skills in reflection,
modest
communication with
families or colleagues,
and compliance with
expectations regarding
participation in school
and LEA projects and
activities for
professional growth.
The teacher
demonstrates high
ethical standards and a
genuine sense of
professionalism by
engaging in accurate
reflection on
instruction,
maintaining accurate
records,
communicating
frequently with
families, actively
participating in school
and LEA events, and
engaging in activities
for professional
development.
The teacher’s ethical
standards and sense of
professionalism are
highly developed,
showing perceptive
use of reflection,
effective systems for
recordkeeping and
communication with
families, leadership
roles in both school
and LEA projects, and
extensive professional
development
activities. Where
appropriate, students
contribute to the
systems for
recordkeeping and
family
communication.
Ratings and weighted scoring. The four domains of teacher observation and practice in Part (A) of the form are each
assigned a percentage factor. Each domain shall be scored on the 0-to-3-point scale. The individual score or rating for each
domain is adjusted by the percentage factor attributed to that domain. The score of zero, one, two or three for each domain is
calculated into points based on its percentage factor. The sum of the points for all domains will be the total Teacher
Observation and Practice Rating. The calculation for each domain is set forth in Table D.
Revised July 2014 8
Table D: Teacher Observation and Practice Rating
Domain
Title
Rating (A)
Factor (B)
Earned Points (A x B)
Max Points
I.
Planning & Preparation
20%
0.60
II.
Classroom Environment 30%
0.90
III.
IV.
Instruction
Professional
Responsibilities
Teacher Observation & Practice Points/Rating
30%
20%
0.90
0.60
3.00
Rating
Form
PDE 82-1
The rating form and related documents are available in electronic versions and Excel worksheet format for the scoring and
rating tabulation at the Department’s website www.education.state.pa.us .
A rating form tool is provided to facilitate the final entry and calculation of all measures associated with determining the
final performance rating for a teacher. For part (A) Teacher Observation and Practice, the tool allows entry of the
individual ratings for each domain in the *Rating* column and automatically calculates (1) Teacher Observation &
Practice Rating which is used as the final Observation and Practice measure combined with the other multiple measures
to determine the final performance rating.
The pie chart following the regulations serves as a visual depicting the rating tool of the Teacher Effectiveness System for
professional and temporary professional employees serving as classroom teachers.
Revised July 2014 9
Revised July 2014 10
Summative
Evaluation
The data from Danielson’s Framework for Teaching(FFT), and other observational data will be used to determine the teacher
observation and practice rating. Summative process of evaluation. LEAs shall utilize classroom practice models (e.g.,
Danielson, Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching) that address the areas related to classroom
observation and practice contained in section 1123(1)(i) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 11-1123(1)(i)) and are approved
by the Department.
The Department shall publish a list of approved practice models for assessing the four domains annually on the Department's
website.
A classroom teacher must be given a rating in each of the four domains. In determining a rating for an employee, a LEA may
use any combination of the components in the practice model related to the domains. The four domains in the classroom
practice models establish a framework for the summative process of evaluating classroom teachers. The form and standards do
not impose mandates on the supervisory and formative processes utilized by a LEA.
Rating and
Evaluation
Procedure
Rating and Evaluation Procedure: The rater shall determine and assign a performance rating for teacher practice. The rater
shall base the evaluation upon the preponderance of evidence gathered.
Evidence/
Documentation
Evidence/documentation. As appropriate, records for the employee and his/her placement in a classroom and educational
program shall be documented by the rater. Documentation may include, but not be limited to a combination of any of the
following items:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Documented notations of classroom observations, teacher/rater conferences or interviews, or informal observations or
visits.
Lesson unit plans (types, titles and numbers), materials, technology, teacher resource documents, visual technology,
space, student assignment sheets, student work, instructional resources, student records, grade book, progress reports
and report cards.
Student Surveys
Interaction with student’s family
Family, parent, school and community feedback
Act 48 documentation
Use of teaching and learning reflections
The documentation, evidence and findings of the rater, shall provide the basis for the rating of the employee’s complete tool
in each of the four domains.
Revised July 2014 11
Formative
Supervision
Framework for
Teaching
The Pennsylvania Department of Education is recommending a supervision system consisting of two models:
Formal Observation and Differentiated Supervision.
Formal Observation of the teacher practice is accomplished through formal and informal observations measured by research
supported best practices: Danielson's Framework for Teaching. The assessment supported by Danielson’s Framework for
Teaching, and other observational data is formative. The collaborative reflections of the observational data may focus the
efforts of the teacher on a professional development plan to improve instructional practices and student achievement.
Pennsylvania Department of Education has recognized Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching as the model for the
supervision of classroom teachers. Classroom observations by the principal/supervisor will include demonstrated behaviors
associated with improving student achievement. There are four (4) Domains that describe the effective teaching process:
– Domain 1 - Planning and preparation, including selecting standards-based lesson goals and designing effective
instruction and assessment;
– Domain 2 - Classroom environment, including establishing a culture for learning and appropriate classroom
management techniques that maximize instructional time;
– Domain 3 - Instruction, including the use of research-based strategies which engage students in meaningful learning
and utilize assessment results to make decisions about student needs; and
– Domain 4 - Professional responsibilities, including using systems for managing student data and
communicating with student families.
Revised July 2014 12
Formal
Observation
Process
A Formal Observation should include the following three elements:
A Pre-observation conference should be held before the observation. Prior to the pre-conference, the teacher should
provide the observer a copy of the lesson plan (Domain 1). The teacher should add additional input to the lesson plan that
emerges from the pre-observation conference.
The Observation conference should begin with the observer arriving prior to the start of the lesson. The evaluator provides
the teacher a completed observation form as soon as possible after the observation. Prior to the post conference, the teacher
should complete a self-assessment rubric for the observer prior to the post-conference.
The Post-observation conference should be held in a reasonable timeframe after the observation. At the post-observation
conference, the comparison of the observer’s report and the teacher’s summary should be reviewed. The evaluator notes the
components of agreement and then invites the teacher to take the lead in discussing the other components where agreement
does not occur.
Informal
Observation
Process
Informal Observations may include but are not limited to the following: walkthroughs, presentations, meetings,
communications, and other evidence of classroom practice.
Differentiated
Supervision
Differentiated Supervision recognizes the level of experience, the effectiveness, and professionalism of teachers as well as
the intensity and time commitment to Formal Observation. Professional employees will develop an action plan for
professional development unique to their needs and interests. Professional employees in Differentiated Supervision do
require an overall performance rating in each domain and must receive an annual rating. Additional Guidance on
Differentiated Supervision can be found in Chapter 4.
Revised July 2014 13
Chapter 1: Classroom Teachers - Section 2: Building Level Data
Multiple
Measures of
Student
Achievement
Act 82
According to Act 82 student performance will comprise fifty percent (50%) of the overall rating of the professional
employee or temporary professional employee serving as a classroom teacher and will be based upon multiple measures of
student achievement. The fifty percent (50%) shall be comprised of the following: fifteen percent (15%) Building Data,
fifteen percent (15%) Teacher-Specific Data and twenty percent (20%) Elective Level Data.
Building Level
Data (15%)
Building level data will be represented using the academic score determined via the Pennsylvania School Performance
Profile (SPP). This profile will be provided by PDE and will include data from the following, when applicable:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Regulation
PSSA Assessments/Keystone Exams
Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments
Closing the Achievement Gap (All Students and Historically Underperforming Students)
PVAAS Growth Measures
Graduation Rate
Promotion Rate
Attendance Rate
International Baccalaureate and/or Advanced Placement and/or College Level Course Enrollments
SAT Performance
PSAT Participation
ACT Performance
Aspire
Advanced Placement Performance (extra credit only)
Teachers without building level data: The following is the language from Paragraph (IV)a)(5) in the regulation about
substituting “Danielson” for SPP or “Building Level Rating”:
For classroom teachers in positions for which there is no Building Level Score reported on the Department website,
the LEA shall utilize the rating from the teacher observation and practice portion of the rating form in Part (A)(1)
[“Danielson” portion of rating form] in place of the Building Level Rating.
Revised July 2014 14
Pennsylvania
School
Performance
Profile
The Pennsylvania School Performance Profile will provide a quantitative academic score based upon a 100-point scale
to represent the overall academic performance of each school in Pennsylvania. Scores are calculated based upon defined
weighted data elements. If a school is missing a data element and thus, its representative performance measures, the
display area will reflect that circumstance and the calculation for the academic score will be adjusted accordingly. For
Educator Effectiveness System, the 100-point scale is converted to a 0 – 3 scale to facilitate combining with the other
multiple measures. The score for a school is based upon indicators that define a high performing school. Many data
elements come together to create the academic score. These indicators are categorized into five areas.
The first three areas represent 50% of the building level score when all applicable data elements are available:
x
x
x
Indicators of Academic Achievement (40%) include PSSA, PASA, and/or Keystone Exam performance, industry
standards-based competency assessment performance (NOCTI/NIMS), grade 3 reading proficiency, and SAT/ACT
college ready benchmarks.
Indicators of Closing the Achievement Gap (5%) - All Students measure how well a school is making progress
toward proficiency of all students in the school who take the PSSA, PASA, and/or Keystone Exam.
Indicators of Closing the Achievement Gap (5%) – Historically Underperforming Students measure how well a
school is making progress toward proficiency of high needs students who have historically not demonstrated
proficiency. Students with disabilities, English Language Learners and economically disadvantaged students in
a non-duplicated count form this group. Applicable assessments are the PSSA, PASA, and/or Keystone Exams.
Note: Comprehensive CTC’s academic achievement is weighted at 44% while Closing the Achievement Gap is weighted at 3% for
each group.
The fourth area represents 40% of the building level score when all applicable data elements are available:
x Indicators of Academic Growth/PVAAS measure the school’s impact on the academic growth of students from yearto-year on PSSA and/or Keystone Exams.
The fifth area represents 10% of the building level score when all applicable data elements are available:
x Other Academic Indicators assesses factors that contribute to student achievement. They include graduation rate
(or promotion rate), attendance rate, enrollments in courses of rigor (International Baccalaureate Diploma,
Advanced Placement, enrollments in college courses credit programs), and PSAT/ASPIRE participation.
Schools may earn additional points via Extra Credit for Advanced Achievement (up to 7 Points) depending on school
configuration based on advanced performance on state assessments, industry standards-based competency assessments,
and advanced placement exams.
Revised July 2014 15
Converting SPP
Score to 0 – 3
Scale
In order to combine the School Performance Profile (SPP) score with the other multiple measures of student achievement, it
is necessary to convert the SPP score to a 0 to 3 scale. Although based on a 100 point scale, the SPP score can actually reach
a final score of 107 due to the potential of earning up to 7 points of extra credit for advanced achievement. However, the
maximum value on the conversion to the 0 to 3 scale will be 3.00. The following table illustrates the conversion from the
SPP score to a 0 to 3 scale. Values between the displayed values are scaled proportionally. The rating tool illustrated in the
next section will automatically calculate the value of the SPP score converted to the 0 to 3 scale.
Conversion From 100 Point Scale to 0 - 3 Scale
SPP Score
0 - 3 Scale
90.0 to 107*
2.50 - 3.00
70.0 to 89.9
1.50 - 2.49
60.0 to 69.9
0.50 - 1.49
00.0 to 59.9
0.00 - 0.49
School Performance Profile score could exceed 100 with maximum score and credit for advanced achievement
Rating Tool
A rating tool is provided to facilitate the final entry and calculation of all measures associated with determining the final
performance rating for a teacher. For part (B), the tool allows entry of the building level score and automatically calculates
the building level score converted to a 3 point rating which is combined with the other multiple measures to determine the
final performance rating. The rating tool and related documentation are available at www.education.state.pa.us under the
Educator Effectiveness System.
Revised July 2014 16
Chapter 1: Classroom Teachers - Section 3: Teacher Specific Data
Teacher Specific
Data Act 82
According to Act 82 student performance will comprise fifty percent (50%) of the overall rating of the professional
employee or temporary professional employee serving as a classroom teacher and will be based upon multiple measures of
student achievement. The fifty percent (50%) will be comprised of the following: fifteen percent (15%) Building Data,
fifteen (15%) Teacher-Specific Data and twenty percent (20%) Elective Data.
Regulation
Beginning in 2014-15 Teacher Specific Data will comprise 15% of the overall rating for classroom teachers. Any data used
for a rating must be attributable to the specific classroom teacher who is being evaluated and rated.
LEAs shall use the Student Learning Objective (SLO) process to document, determine, and validate the weight assigned to
the Teacher Specific Data measures that establish the Teacher Rating where applicable. See SLO Template on page 26.
PDE has developed a FAQ for Student Performance Measures for Classroom Teachers which is posted on the Department’s
website.
Revised July 2014 17
Teacher Specific Fifteen (15%) of the evaluation will be based on Teacher Specific Data for teachers:
Data (15%)
Fifteen percent (15%) teacher-specific data, shall include, but not limited to the following when data is available and
applicable to a specific classroom teacher:
1. Student performance on assessments (percent proficient and advanced) – not more than 5%
2. Value-added assessment system data made available by the department under section 221 -must be at least 10%
3. Progress in meeting the goals of student individualized education plans required under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (Public Law 91-230, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.) – not more than 5%
4. Locally developed school district rubrics – not more than 15%
Teachers
Without a
PVAAS Score
Professional Employees/Temporary Professional Employees Not Eligible for a PVAAS Score Include:
Those teachers who do NOT have full or partial responsibility for content specific instruction of assessed eligible content as
measured by PA’s assessments (PSSA and/or Keystone exams).
Teachers who provide instruction in non-state assessed grades/subjects/courses only (e.g. Social Studies) are NOT eligible
for a PVAAS score. While teachers in these areas may be supporting reading and math skills in their content areas, the
Building Level Data reflects the influence of these teaching staff on school-wide academic results.
Teachers who provide instruction on the standards in non-tested subjects/grades/courses, such as Standards for Literacy in
History/Social Sciences, Science, and Technical Subjects, do NOT receive a PVAAS score. PVAAS teacher-specific
reporting is aligned to those teachers providing content specific instruction of the assessed eligible content on PSSA and
Keystone exams. The Standards for Literacy in History/Social Sciences, Science, and Technical Subjects are not assessed on
the PSSA and/or the Keystone exams.
For teachers without eligible PVAAS scores the final evaluation will be based upon the following components:
Observation/Practice based upon the Danielson Framework (50%)
Building Level Data (15%)
Teacher Specific Data (15%)
Elective Data (20%)
Revised July 2014 18
Teachers with
Eligible PVAAS
Score
Teachers receiving PVAAS teacher-specific reporting are permanent or temporary professional employees who hold a valid
PA teaching certificate and who have full or partial responsibility for content specific instruction of assessed eligible content
as measured by Pennsylvania’s assessments (PSSA and/or Keystone exams). This may include teachers other than those
who are the teacher of record. Pennsylvania defines the teacher of record as “a professional or temporary professional
educator assigned by a school entity as the primary instructor for a group of students.” (Source: Highly Qualified Teacher
Guidelines on PDE website)
x This includes PA certified teachers providing content-specific instruction in assessed eligible content in
subjects/grades / courses assessed by the PSSA and Keystone exams (with and without
accommodations).
x This includes the subjects/grades/courses of PSSA English/Language Arts and mathematics in grades four through
eight; PSSA science in grades four and eight, and Keystone-related courses.
Note: Pennsylvania’s Alternate System of Assessment (PASA) is not included in PVAAS analyses as there are a very low
number of students tested statewide. A significant number of students are needed for each grade level and subject to
build a statistical model to yield value-added measures for teachers from this assessment.
Therefore, teachers who may be eligible for a PVAAS score include, but are not limited to: regular education teachers,
special education teachers, intervention specialists, reading/math specialists, ESL teachers, and gifted teachers. If they plan
the instruction of the assessed eligible content, provide the instruction of the assessed eligible content, AND assess the
effectiveness of the instruction of the assessed eligible content as measured by a PA state assessment- responsible for
Domains 1 AND 3 of the Framework for Teaching, they may be eligible for a PVAAS score. There may be more than one
teacher responsible for both Domains 1 and 3 (ex. co-teaching, team teaching, etc.).
For teachers with eligible PVAAS scores the final evaluation will be based upon the following components:
Observation/Practice based upon the Danielson Framework (50%)
Building Level Data (15%)
Teacher Specific Data (15%)
Elective Data (20%)
Revised July 2014 19 Pennsylvania
Value - Added
Assessment
System
(PVAAS)
The Department has contracted with SAS Inc., SAS EVAAS for K-12, to provide PVAAS teacher-specific reporting for
local education agencies (LEAs) as one measure of teacher effectiveness. Teachers will receive single-year PVAAS
teacher specific reporting for each year, subject/grade/course for which it is available. Teacher-specific data (PVAAS)
will not be included as a part of the summative evaluation rating until a teacher has a PVAAS 3 year rolling average –
based on 3 consecutive school years of PVAAS teacher specific reporting.
A teacher needs three consecutive school years of value-added reporting, in any state assessed subject/grade/course, to
receive a PVAAS 3-year rolling average. This does not need to be in the same subject/grade/course each year. No single
year PVAAS data or 2-year PVAAS data will be used on a teacher’s final rating form.
For information about PVAAS professional development, supports and resources: https://pvaas.sas.com
PVAAS teacher-specific reporting should fairly represent the proportion of instructional responsibility that a teacher has for
each student for a teacher for each state assessment. This proportion may vary by student. The percent of Instructional
Responsibility represents the amount that each student will be weighted in the value-added analyses for PVAAS teacherspecific reporting. Students with less than 100% instructional responsibility are weighted less than those with 100%
instructional responsibility. LEAs will determine the percent of instructional responsibility for individual students for each
teacher who is eligible for a PVAAS score.
Instructional
Responsibility
There are two pieces of information used to determine the total “Percent of Instructional Responsibility” for each student
instructed by a teacher:
Part 1 of 2: Percent of Student + Teacher Enrollment
x The percent of school days that a student and a teacher are concurrently enrolled together in a state
assessed subject/grade/course from day 1 of the subject/grade/course until the last school day before the
LEA‘s testing window opens in that subject/grade/course.
Part 2 of 2: Percent of Teacher Instruction for Students
x The percent of content specific instruction for which a teacher is responsible for a state assessment
(subject/grade/course).
x The Percent of Instruction is 100% if there is only one PA certified teacher who is fully responsible for
the instruction.
x The Percent of Instruction will be less than 100% if there is more than one PA certified teacher who
is responsible for the instruction, such as co-teaching and team teaching.
Details on the attribution of students to teachers and the Percent of Instructional Responsibility are on the PVAAS FAQ on
the PVAAS website at https://pvaas.sas.com
20 PVAAS Reporting
The Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System (PVAAS) teacher-specific reporting estimates the academic growth of
the teacher’s group of students. The PVAAS reports are based on the Education Value-Added Assessment System
(EVAAS™) methodology provided to Pennsylvania (PA) by the SAS Institute Inc., SAS® EVAAS® for K-12 division.
Although measuring academic achievement is important, achievement only identifies where students are at a specific point
in time rather than identifying how much academic growth has been made by students. PVAAS provides a measure of
academic growth for students by taking into account both their endpoint and their entering achievement level. Growth
depends on the effectiveness of the instructional program in meeting the needs of students. Students arrive at school at
different levels of achievement. By concentrating on growth, PVAAS puts the emphasis on what educators can influence.
The goal is to provide accurate PVAAS teacher-specific reporting for use in PA’s Educator Effectiveness System. This
requires the correct teachers, linked to the correct students, for the correct state assessment (subjects/grades/courses) for the
correct proportion of instructional responsibility for each student. While PIMS collects data linking students to a teacher(s),
PVAAS provides a roster verification process and web-based system for teachers, school administrators and district
administrators in LEAs to verify this information. This is to ensure accurate data, verified by teachers, school administrators
and district administrators, to yield PVAAS teacher-specific reporting.
These linkages between students, teachers, and the proportion of instructional responsibility will be a local determination
based on PDE guidance and policy. Once the PVAAS teacher-specific reporting is released each year, teachers and
administrators will be able to drill-down within the reporting and see that the students reflect those verified in the PVAAS
roster verification process/system.
Teachers will receive a value added report for each subject/grade/course for which they have an instructional responsibility
in a specific school year. Diagnostic reports will also be provided for the teacher as data for continuous improvement of
professional practice. This includes diagnostic reporting to assess the growth of students categorized by high-achieving,
low-achieving, and middle-achieving students, as well as demographic subgroups of students served by a specific teacher.
PVAAS teacher-specific reporting is provided for each PA assessed subject/grade/course for a teacher for each year it
is available. PVAAS teacher-specific reporting is not provided by sections for a teacher.
x Example: If a teacher provides instruction for grade 5 reading, mathematics, and writing, the teacher will
receive single year PVAAS teacher-specific reporting for grade 5 reading, grade 5 mathematics, and grade 5
writing separately.
x Example: If a teacher provides instruction for 5 sections of students for Algebra I, the teacher will receive
ONE PVAAS report for Algebra I.
21 If desired, the teacher can do a PVAAS Custom Report to look at the academic growth for a specific group of students.
See the PVAAS website at http://pvaas.sas.com for details on how to create this report.
A teacher will only have access to his/her own PVAAS teacher specific reporting. A teacher’s school administrator(s) and
district administrator(s) will have access to teacher-specific reporting for his/her specific teachers. School administrators and
district administrators will also receive summary reports across all PVAAS teacher specific reporting. LEAs will determine
if anyone else has additional access to PVAAS teacher specific reporting.
How to Use
PVAAS
Using PVAAS Teacher Specific Reporting to Improve Student Progress
PVAAS Teacher Specific Reports can be used to:
1. Identify teachers who have students yielding high academic growth as they may serve as powerful resources for
school-wide improvement of academic progress.
2. Identify teachers who need support in yielding academic growth with students in order to provide targeted
supervision and/or peer support to teacher.
3. Target professional development activities to teacher needs.
4. Identify school-wide strengths and areas of need.
The Principal/Teacher Dialogue: Collaborating with Teachers Using the PVAAS Value Added Teacher Report
A collaborative, reflective, and focused discussion between the principal and the teacher is highly important to the effective
use of the PVAAS teacher-specific reports. In addition to the PVAAS Teacher Value Added Report, this dialogue between a
teacher and administrator should take into consideration all other information and measures one deems relevant about the
teacher’s performance and effectiveness from sources such as classroom observations, student learning objectives, working
interactions, and student and parent feedback.
22 Guiding Questions
1. Where did you see the expected progress this year?
2. Where do you want to see students making better progress this year?
3. *Why might the students not have made the expected progress last year?
4. Given the issue(s) we’ve identified, what strategies would make a difference for students at that achievement level
in your classroom?
5. Who are the students in this your classroom now that would fall within that achievement level?
6. What supports are needed from the principal to carry out those actions?
*This is probably the most important question for reflection and discussion. Some teachers have a clear idea of what needs
to be changed to improve the progress of their students, but others may be challenged in that regard. A discussion from
both the teacher perspective and the perspective of the principal based on his/her classroom observation and knowledge and
experience may lead to better identification of productive changes that should be made. Once a possible reason(s) for a
lack of growth is agreed upon, the teacher, with support from the principal, can move to finding a solution(s).
Pulling it all together—summing up the conversation
x Restate the achievement level of students the actions are intended to address.
x Restate the identified need and the specific strategy or strategies the teacher is to implement.
x Schedule a time and method for continued discussion of the effectiveness of the strategies to monitor and adjust
implementation.
x Plan for classroom observation and follow-up. Provide support as needed.
23 Converting
PVAAS Teacher
3-Year Rolling
Average
In order to combine the PVAAS 3 year rolling average score with the other multiple measures of student achievement, it is
necessary to convert the PVAAS 3 year rolling average score to a 0 to 3 scale. The following table illustrates the conversion
from the PVAAS 3 year rolling average to a 0 to 3 scale. Values between the displayed values are scaled proportionally. The
rating tools (illustrated below) will automatically crosswalk the value of the PVAAS 3 year rolling average score converted
to the 0 to 3 scale.
PVAAS Color
PVAAS 3-Year Rolling
Average Growth Index
PVAAS 100 point Scale
PVAAS Teacher Rating 03 Scale
Dark Blue
Dark Blue
Light Blue
Green
Yellow
Red
Red
+3.00 or Greater
+2.00 to +2.99
+1.00 to +1.99
-1.00 to +.99
-2.00 to -1.01
-3.00 to -2.01
-3.01 or Less
100
90.00 to 99.99
80.00 to 89.99
70.00 to 79.99
60.00 to 69.99
50.00 to 59.99
49.00
3.00
2.50 to 2.99
2.00 to 2.49
1.50 to 1.99
0.50 to 1.49
0.41 to 0.49
0.40
24 Chapter 1: Classroom Teachers Section 4: Elective Data
According to Act 82 student performance will comprise fifty percent (50%) of the overall rating of the professional
employee or temporary professional employee serving as a classroom teacher and will be based upon multiple measures of
student achievement. The fifty percent (50%) will be comprised of the following: fifteen percent (15%) Building Data,
fifteen (15%) Teacher-Specific Data and twenty percent (20%) Elective Data.
Elective
Data 20%
Twenty percent (20%) of the overall performance rating for all teachers, summative evaluation, will include measures of
student achievement that are locally developed and selected by the school district from a list approved by PDE and published
in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by June 30 of each year. The list includes but is not limited to the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
District Designed Measures and Examinations
Nationally Recognized Standardized Tests
Industry Certification Examinations
Student Projects Pursuant to Local Requirements
Student Portfolios Pursuant to Local Requirements
Beginning in 2014-15 Elective Data will comprise 20% of the overall rating for classroom teachers. Any data used for a
rating must be attributable to the specific classroom teacher who is being evaluated and rated.
LEAs shall use the SLO process document to determine, and validate the weight assigned to the Elective Data measures that
establish the Elective Rating.
Regulation
Student Learning It is recommended that the SLO process be a collaborative effort between the evaluator and classroom teacher. PDE requires
Objective (SLO) the Student Learning Objective (SLO) process be implemented as described in the template provided below. More
information on the SLO Process and the SLO template is available in an electronic version. It is located at the Homeroom
Process
icon on the SAS portal, http://www.pdesas.org
Following are SLO development tools available at that site:
1. Electronic templates
2. Content specific models
3. Training modules to complete the template
4. Assessment literacy information as appropriate to the SLO process
For the SLO process the ratings of Distinguished (3), Proficient (2), Needs Improvement (1), and Failing (0) will be applied
by the LEA to the Elective Rating on the teacher evaluation form.
25 STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE (SLO) PROCESS TEMPLATE
SLO is a process to document a measure of educator effectiveness based on student achievement of content standards. SLOs are a
part of Pennsylvania’s multiple-measure, comprehensive system of Educator Effectiveness authorized by Act 82 (HB 1901).
Context Goal Measures Indicators Ratings 1. Classroom Context
1a. Name
1d. Class/
Course Title
1g. Typical
Class Size
1b. School
1e. Grade
Level
1h. Class
Frequency
1c. District
1f. Total # of
Students
1i. Typical
Class Duration
2. SLO Goal
2a. Goal Statement
2b. PA Standards
2c. Rationale
3. Performance Measures (PM)
3a.
Name
PM #1:
PM #2:
PM #3:
PM #4:
PM #5:
3c.
Purpose
PM #1:
PM #2:
PM #3:
PM #4:
PM #5:
3b.
Type
District-designed Measures and Examinations
Nationally Recognized Standardized Tests
Industry Certification Examinations
Student Projects
Student Portfolios
Other:___________________________
3d.
Metric
Growth (change in student performance
across two or more points in time)
Mastery (attainment of a defined level of
achievement)
Growth and Mastery
3e.
Administration
Frequency
PM #1:
PM #2:
PM #3:
PM #4:
PM #5:
3g.
Resources/
Equipment
PM #1:
PM #2:
PM #3:
PM #4:
PM #5:
3h.
Scoring Tools
PM #1:
PM #2:
PM #3:
PM #4:
PM #5:
3i.
Administration
& Scoring
Personnel
PM #1:
PM #2:
PM #3:
PM #4:
PM #5:
3j.
Performance
Reporting
PM #1:
PM #2:
PM #3:
PM #4:
PM #5:
3f.
Adaptations/
Accommodations
IEP
Gifted IEP
ELL
Other
R Revised July 2014 evis 26 4. Performance Indicators (PI)
4a.
PI Targets:
All Student Group
4b.
PI Targets:
Focused Student Group
(optional)
PI Target #1:
PI Target #2:
PI Target #3:
PI Target #4:
PI Target #5:
PI Target #1:
PI Target #2:
PI Target #3:
PI Target #4:
PI Target #5:
4c.
PI Linked
(optional)
4d.
PI Weighting
(optional)
PI
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Weight
5. Elective Rating
5a. Level
Failing
0% to ___ % of
students will meet the
PI targets.
Needs Improvement
___% to ___% of
students will meet the
PI targets.
Proficient
___% to ___% of
students will meet the
PI targets.
Distinguished
___% to 100% of
students will meet the
PI targets.
Teacher Signature _________________________Date______ Evaluator Signature _____________________Date______
5b. Rating
Distinguished (3)
Proficient (2)
Needs Improvement (1)
Failing (0)
Notes/Explanation
Teacher Signature _________________________Date______ Evaluator Signature _____________________ R Revised July 2014 evis Chapter 1: Classroom Teachers- Section 5: Teaching Professionals with Unique Roles and Functions
Professionals
with Unique
Roles and
Functions
Teaching Professionals with Unique Roles and Functions serve in many different capacities across the Commonwealth given
their varied roles, function and contexts and may be considered classroom teachers if they meet the two prong test (see
below). LEA administrators need to categorize professional (temporary or permanent) employees as either teaching or nonteaching professionals (see Chapter 3). Under Act 82, if you are working under your instructional certification you will be
evaluated with the Danielson Framework for Teaching regardless of your status as a teaching or non-teaching professional
(see two-prong test). In an effort to support the implementation of the Danielson Framework for Teaching for instructional certifications with
unique roles and functions, PDE convened professionals from across the Commonwealth to support implementation. As a
result, PDE developed general and specific examples as an optional and potentially useful supplement to the existing and
already validated Danielson Framework for use with instructionally certified personnel.
Please note that these are examples only and are not meant to represent the full range of training, experience or unique roles
and functions that a given educator may provide. Discussion of examples may help the evaluator and the person being
evaluated facilitate meaningful conversation and were not developed to be used as evidence or lack thereof within practice
and the evaluation process. These examples are available on the SAS portal by accessing the Instruction component under
Teacher Effectiveness at. http://www.pdesas.org/Instruction/Frameworks
Teaching Professional Employees with Unique Roles and Functions include:
x Gifted Teachers
x Special Education Teachers
x ESL Teachers
x Reading Specialists
x Early Childhood and Early Intervention Teachers
x Career Technology Education Teachers
x Speech Language Pathologists
x School Librarians
x Instructional Coaches
To determine whether you are a teaching professional, you must be able to answer yes to the following two questions:
1) Are you working under your instructional certification?
2) Do you provide direct instruction* to students in a particular subject or grade level?
*Direct instruction is defined as planning and providing the instruction, and assessing the effectiveness of the instruction.
Revised July 2014 28
Revised July 2014 29
Commonwealth of Pennsy lvania
DEPARTM ENT OF EDUCATION
333 M arket St., Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
CLAS S ROOM TEACHER RATING FORM
PDE 82-1 (4/14)
Last Name
First
District/LEA
S chool
Rating Date
Middle
Evaluation (Check One)
(A) Classroom Teacher Observation and Practice
Domain
Title
*Rating*
(A)
Factor
(B)
Periodic
Earned
Points
(A x B)
Max
Points
Semi-annual
Annual
*Domain Rating
Assignment*
0 to 3 Point S cale (A)
Rating
Value
Failing
0
I.
Planning &
Preparation
20%
0.60
II.
Classroom
Environment
30%
0.90
Needs Improvement
Proficient
1
30%
0.90
Distinguished
3
20%
0.60
III.
IV.
Instruction
Professional
Responsibilities
(1) Classroom Teacher Observation and Practice Rating
2
3.00
(B) Multiple Measures - Building Level Data, Correlation Data, and Elective Data
Building Level S core (0 - 107)
(3) Teacher S pecific Rating
(2) Building Level S core Converted to 3 Point Rating
(4) Elective Rating
(C) Final Classroom Teacher Effectiveness Rating - All Measures
Measure
Rating
Factor
(C)
(D)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Earned
Points
(C x D)
Max
Points
Observation and Practice Rating
Building Level Rating (or substitute)*
Teacher S pecific Rating (or substitute)*
Elective Rating (or substitute)*
1.50
50%
0.45
15%
15%
0.45
20%
0.60
Total Earned Points
3.00
* Substitutions p ermissible p ursuant to 22 Pa. Code §§ 19.1 (IV)(a)(5), (b)(2)(ix), (b)(3)(vi), (c)(3),
or (d)
Rating: Professional Employee,
OR
and ending
(mont h/day/year)
Proficient
Total Earned Points
0.00 - 0.49
Rating
Failing
0.50 - 1.49
Needs
Imp rovement
1.50 - 2.49
2.50 - 3.00
Proficient
Distinguished
P erformance Rat ing
Rating: Temporary Professional Employee
I certify that the above-named emp loy ee for the p eriod beginn
Distinguished
Conversion to Performance Rating
has received a p erformance rating of
(mont h/day/year)
Needs Improvement
Failing
resulting in a final rating of:
S atisfactory
Unsatisfactory
A performance rating of Distinguished, Proficient or Needs Improvement shall be considered satisfactory, except that the second Needs Improvement rating issued by the same
employer within 10 years of the first final rating of Needs Improvement where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered unsatisfactory. A rating of Failing shall be
considered unsatisfactory.
Date
Designated Rater / Position:
Date
Chief School Administrator
I acknowledge that I have read the rep ort and that I have been given an op p ortunity to discuss it with the rater.
Revised July 2014 M
y signature does not necessarily mean that I agree with the p erformance evaluation.
30
Chapter 2 – Section 1: Principal Effectiveness and Act 82
Overview of
Principal
Effectiveness Act
82
Beginning in the 2014–15 school year, principal effectiveness shall be measured using a rating tool designed specifically
for professional employees and temporary professional employees serving as principals. The rating tool gives due
consideration to the following:
The Leadership/Observation/Practice model, Framework for Leadership, shall comprise fifty percent (50%) of the
principal’s overall rating:
1.
2.
3.
4.
ACT 82
Planning and preparation
School environment
Delivery of service
Professional development
-
* Framework for Leadership
Strategic and cultural leadership
Systems leadership
Leadership for learning
Professional and community leadership
* See Framework for Leadership/Act 82/Principal Inspired Leadership Crosswalk on Page 34. Multiple Measures of Student Performance shall comprise fifty percent (50%) of the principal’s overall rating in the
following areas:
x
x
x
Fifteen percent (15%) Building-Level Data
Fifteen percent (15%) Correlation Data based on teacher-level measures
Twenty percent (20%) Elective Data, including measures of student achievement that are locally developed and
selected by the school district from a list approved by the Department of Education and published in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin by June 30 each year.
The term Principal includes the following:
• Principal
• Assistant Principal
x
x
Charter Schools
Vice Principal
Director of an Area Vocational-Technical School (CTC Director)
Charter schools are not included in this rating system, but may choose to participate.
Revised July 2014 31 Principal/School
Leader Regulation
§ 19.2. Principal/School Leader Effectiveness Rating Tool.
Authority to
Develop
Rating Tool
Professional employees and temporary professional employees shall be rated through the use of an approved rating tool
developed by the Department of Education. The development process shall include research and collaboration conducted
with key stakeholder groups as conducted by the Department of Education.
The rating tool functions as a framework for the evaluation and summative process for principals, assistant principals, vice
principals and directors of vocational education, and is designed for local education agencies providing early childhood,
elementary or secondary education across the Commonwealth. The rating tool is comprised of the form and the companion
instructions. The form 82-2 shall be used to record the results of the summative evaluation..
Each rating form shall identify the overall performance rating of the professional employees and temporary professional
employees serving as classroom teachers, principals, and non-teaching professional employees as one of the following:
1. Distinguished – shall be considered satisfactory
2. Proficient – shall be considered satisfactory
3. Needs Improvement – shall be considered satisfactory, except that any subsequent overall rating of “needs
improvement” issued by the same employer within (10) years of the first overall rating of “needs improvement”
where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered unsatisfactory
4. Failing – shall be considered unsatisfactory
Revised July 2014 32 Chapter 2: Principal Effectiveness – Section 2: Observation/Practice Framework The Framework for Leadership (domains, components, and performance levels) can be found on the PDE website at
Observation
Framework for www.education.state.pa.us.
Leadership
(FFL)
The four domains for Leadership Observation and Practice in the rating form give due consideration to and incorporate the professional practice
areas of planning and preparation, school environment, delivery of service, and professional development, as set forth in sections 1123(c)(1)(i)(iv) of the Public School Code (24 P.S. §§ 11-1123(c)(1)(i)-(iv)). Descriptions of the four domains in Part (A) Leadership Observation and
Practice are summarized in Table A.
Table A: Descriptions of Four Domains
Domain
Description
I. Strategic/Cultural
Leadership*
25%
Principals/School Leaders systematically and collaboratively develop a positive culture to promote continuous student growth and staff
development. They articulate and model a clear vision of the school’s culture that involves students, families, and staff.
II. Systems
Leadership*
25%
Principals/School Leaders ensure that there are processes and systems in place for budgeting, staffing, problem solving, communicating
expectations and scheduling that result in well organized work routines in the building. They must manage efficiently, effectively and
safely to foster student achievement.
III. Leadership For
Learning*
25%
Principals/School Leaders ensure that a Standards Aligned System is in place to address the linkage of curriculum, instruction,
assessment, data on student learning and teacher effectiveness based on research and best practices.
IV. Professional and
Community
Leadership*
25%
Principals/School Leaders promote the success of all students, the positive interactions among building stakeholders and the
professional growth of staff by acting with integrity, fairness in an ethical manner.
Revised July 2014 33 Table B summarizes leadership performance levels for each of the Domain Rating Assignments and for the ratings to be assigned for each domain in
the Rating (A) column.
Table B: Four Levels of Performance in Four Domains Domain I. Strategic/Cultural Leadership 25% Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Distinguished The Principal/School Leader provides little or no strategic direction with most work being done by staff in isolation. Decisions are not student-­‐focused and reflect opinion with little use of data. Despite the need for change, ineffective practices continue. The Principal/School Leader provides some strategic direction with a few collaborative processes in place. Data are used sparingly to make decisions with some focus on improvement. The culture is moderately student-­‐centered. Change occurs when required by external forces. The Principal/School Leader utilizes a data-­‐
based vision that is student-­‐centered. The culture is collaborative with a focus on continuous improvement. All staff members are held accountable for student success. Change is evidence based. The Principal/School Leader establishes a future-­‐
focused, data-­‐based vision around individual student success. The culture is highly collaborative with all staff members accepting responsibility for the achievement of each student. Change for continuous improvement is embraced. II. Systems Leadership 25% The Principal/School Leader establishes an educational environment that is characterized by chaos and conflict with no plan evident for school safety. Resources are allocated with little or no focus on the needs of students. The majority of the staff is low performing with no system designed to improve instruction. The Principal/School Leader establishes an educational environment that is moderately orderly with rules and regulations that partially support school safety. Teacher evaluations are completed as an administrative process. Resources are allocated solely on individual teacher requests. The Principal/School Leader establishes and communicates a clear plan for the safety of all students and staff. An effective teacher evaluation system is used to improve instruction. Time schedules, student scheduling and other resources are structured to meet the needs of all students. The Principal/School Leader clearly involves all staff in the development and implementation of a safe school plan. Peer observations, coaching and cooperative lesson planning are mainstays of a plan for improvement of instruction. All staff and students are highly respectful of each other. Resources are allocated based upon student need and are aligned with a clearly stated vision. III. Leadership for Learning 25% The Principal/School Leader establishes an educational environment that is characterized by low expectations for both students and staff with curriculum, instruction and assessment viewed as independent entities. No plan for improvement exists. Significant interruptions produce disruptions to instruction. The Principal/School Leader establishes an educational environment that is characterized by varying and inconsistent expectations. Some effort is being made to align curriculum, instruction and assessment. School improvement efforts are sporadic and unclear while the quality of instruction is inconsistent. A moderate number of interruptions disrupt instruction. The Principal/School Leader regularly and consistently communicates high expectations to staff, students and families. All curriculum, instruction and assessment are aligned. The Principal/School Leader is at the forefront of all improvement efforts and assures high quality instruction is delivered to all students. Instructional time is maximized with few or no interruptions. The Principal/School Leader ensures students and staff support and maintain high expectations. The Principal/School Leader and staff meet on a consistent basis to align curriculum, instruction and assessment. School improvement efforts are jointly developed by the Principal/School Leader and staff. Instructional time is highly valued and maximized. Interruptions occur only when absolutely necessary. IV. Professional and Community Leadership 25% The Principal/School Leader establishes little or no communication among school, families and the community. Staff members exhibit low ethical standards and levels of professionalism. Little or no professional development exists. The Principal/School Leader establishes moderate levels of communication among school, families and the community. Staff members exhibit moderate levels of ethical standards and professionalism. Isolated professional development activities exist. The Principal/School Leader ensures all staff members communicate regularly with families about their children’s progress. Family and community members are partners in the educational program. All staff members exhibit high ethical standards and levels of professionalism. Professional development is based upon identified needs and is aligned with instructional priorities. The Principal/School Leader ensures high levels of two-­‐way communication exist between staff, families and the community. Staff members are involved in student participation opportunities outside the school day that support students’ academic needs. Staff members are highly involved in developing and implementing staff development aligned with instructional priorities. Revised July 2014 34 Framework for Leadership/Act 82/PIL Crosswalk Crosswalks pertaining to the four domains in Leadership Observation and Practice in the rating form and the professional practice areas of planning and preparation, school
environment, delivery of service, and professional development, as set forth in sections 1123(c)(1)(i)-(iv) of the Public School Code (24 P.S. §§ 11-1123(c)(1)(i)-(iv)) will be
available at the Department’s website. The crosswalk is used to compare the Framework for Leadership with the alignment to Act 82 and the PIL program. Domain
Domain 1: Strategic/Cultural Leadership Framework for Leadership Components
Alignment with Legislative Categories (Act 82)
1a: Creates an Organizational Vision, Mission, and
Strategic Goals
1b: Uses Data for Informed Decision Making
Planning and Preparation
1c: Builds a Collaborative and Empowering Work
Environment
1d: Leads Change Efforts for Continuous Improvement School Environment
Delivery of Service
Planning and Preparation
School Environment
School Environment
Delivery of Service
Planning and Preparation
Delivery of Service
Planning and Preparation
Delivery of Service
Planning and Preparation
School Environment
Domain 2: Systems Leadership 1e: Celebrates Accomplishments and Acknowledges
Failures
2a: Leverages Human and Financial Resources
2b: Ensures a High Quality, High Performing Staff
2c: Complies with Federal, State, and LEA Mandates
2d: Establishes and Implements Expectations for
Students and Staff
2e: Communicates Effectively and Strategically
2f: Manages Conflict Constructively
2g: Ensures School Safety
Domain 3: Leadership for Learning 3a: Leads School Improvement Initiatives
3b: Aligns Curricula, Instruction, and Assessments
3c: Implements High Quality Instruction
Planning and Preparation
Planning and Preparation
School Environment
School Environment
Planning and Preparation
School Environment
Delivery of Service
Planning and Preparation
Delivery of Service
Professional Development
Planning and Preparation
Delivery of Service
Planning and Preparation
Delivery of Service
Alignment with the Pennsylvania
Inspired Leadership (PIL) Program
Core Standards 1,3
Corollary Standard 3
Core Standard 3
Corollary Standards 3, 6
Corollary Standards 3, 6
Core Standard 1
Corollary Standards 1,2
Corollary Standard 1
Corollary Standards 2,3, 4
Corollary Standards 2, 3, 4
Corollary Standard 2
Corollary Standard 3
Core Standard 1
Corollary Standard 3
Corollary Standards 2, 3, 4
Core Standard 3
Corollary Standards 2,3
Core Standard 1
Corollary Standards 1, 2, 3, 4
Core Standards 2, 3
Corollary Standards 1, 3
Core Standard 3
Corollary Standards 1, 3, 6
Revised July 2014 35 Framework for Leadership/Act 82/PIL Crosswalk Crosswalks pertaining to the four domains in Leadership Observation and Practice in the rating form and the professional practice areas of planning and preparation, school
environment, delivery of service, and professional development, as set forth in sections 1123(c)(1)(i)-(iv) of the Public School Code (24 P.S. §§ 11-1123(c)(1)(i)-(iv)) will be
available at the Department’s website. The crosswalk is used to compare the Framework for Leadership with the alignment to Act 82 and the PIL program. Framework for Leadership Domain
Components
Domain 3: Leadership for Learning 3d: Sets High Expectations for All Students
Domain 4: Professional and Community Leadership 4a: Maximizes Professional Responsibilities Through
Parent Involvement and Community Engagement
4b: Shows professionalism
4c: Supports Professional Growth
3e: Maximizes Instructional Time
Alignment with Legislative Categories (Act 82)
Professional Development
School Environment
Delivery of Service
Delivery of Service
Planning and Preparation
School Environment
Delivery of Service
School Environment
School Environment
Delivery of Service
Professional Development
Alignment with the Pennsylvania
Inspired Leadership (PIL) Program
Core Standards 1, 2, 3
Corollary Standards 1, 3
Core Standard 3
Corollary Standards 1, 2, 3 Corollary Standards 2, 3, 4, 5
Corollary Standards 2, 4, 5
Core Standard 2
Corollary Standard 6
Guidance and
Direction
The Department will provide guidance and direction for LEAs to use in applying the Framework for Leadership and validating
the Framework for Leadership for a Principal/School Leader. (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(III)) The direction and guidance for LEA
employees to use in applying the Framework for Leadership can be found at www.education.state.pa.us.
The use of the Framework for Leadership is mandatory unless an LEA has a PDE approved alternative rating tool. The
Department will make available guidance documents for implementation, but these documents are optional.
Revised July 2014 36 Chapter 2: Principal Effectiveness – Section 3: Building Level Data
Building Level
Data 15%
The Building Level Score will be provided by the Department of Education when data are available. Building Level
Data/School Performance Profile (SPP) will be determined by the following:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PSSA Assessments/Keystone Exams
Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments
PVAAS Growth Measures
Graduation Rate
Promotion Rate
Attendance Rate
International Baccalaureate Diploma and/or Advanced Placement and/or College Level Course Enrollments
SAT Performance
PSAT Participation
ACT Performance
ASPIRE Participation
Advanced Placement Performance (extra credit only)
Information regarding the Building Level Data can be found on the PDE website at www.paschoolperformance.org.
Each LEA shall utilize the conversions in Table F below to calculate the Student Performance Rating derived from the
Building Level Score for each building with eligible building level data.
Table F: Conversion from 100 Point Scale to
0 - 3 Scale for Student Performance Rating
Building Level Score
0 - 3 Rating Scale*
90.00 to 107.00
2.50 - 3.00
70.00 to 89.90
1.50 - 2.49
60.00 to 69.90
0.50 - 1.49
00.00 to 59.90
0.00 - 0.49
*PDE will publish the full conversion table on its website.
LEAs shall add the Student Performance Rating to (B) (2) and (C)(2) of the Rating Form.
Revised July 2014 37 Chapter 2: Principal Effectiveness – Section 4: Correlation Data
Correlation
Data 15%
Correlation data will comprise 15 percent % of the final Principal/School Leader Effectiveness Rating and features
correlation data based on teacher-level measures. For the purpose of Paragraph (IV)(b), the term “student performance data”
shall include, but not be limited to, any combination of one or more of the following data for classroom teachers evaluated by
the Principal/School Leader:
(i) Building level data (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(a)).
(ii) Teacher specific data (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(b)).
(iii) Elective data (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(c)).
The Department will provide direction and guidance for LEAs to use in applying the Correlation Data Performance Level
Descriptors in Table H in validating the Correlation Rating for a Principal/School Leader. (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(III))
The Correlation Data Performance Level Descriptors in Table H below are provided for the rater to use as a basis for
developing a rating of 0, 1, 2 or 3 for the Correlation Rating in Subparts (B)(3) and (C)(3) of the Principal/School Leader
Rating Form. The descriptors are designed to be used in evaluating the Principal/School Leader’s knowledge, understanding
and intended application of evidence presented regarding the relationship between student performance measures data and
observation and practice ratings (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(III)) for classroom teachers who are evaluated by the Principal/School
Leader. The rater shall provide the Principal/School Leader with the opportunity to present evidence and sources to justify the
data.
Revised July 2014 38 Table H: Correlation Data Performance Level Descriptors
Correlation Rating (15%)
0 – Failing
1 - Needs Improvement
2 - Proficient
3 - Distinguished
Degree of understanding of evidence presented
regarding the relationship between teacher-level
measures and teacher observation and practice
ratings.
Responses demonstrate no
understanding of:
Responses demonstrate a
limited understanding of:
Responses demonstrate a
solid understanding of:
Responses demonstrate a
comprehensive understanding of:
x
The presented teacherlevel measures
x
The presented teacher
level measures
x
The presented teacherlevel measures
x
The presented teacher-level
measures.
Quality of explanation provided for observed
relationship between teacher-level measures and
teacher observation and practice ratings.
x
The nature and
plausible cause of the
observed relationship
between teacher-level
measures and teacher
observation and
practice ratings.
x
The nature and
plausible cause of the
observed relationship
between teacher-level
measures and teacher
observation and
practice ratings.
x
The nature and
plausible cause of the
observed relationship
between teacher-level
measures and teacher
observation and
practice ratings.
x
The nature and plausible cause of
the observed relationship
between teacher-level measures
and teacher observation and
practice ratings.
Plans for how the data will be used to support
school and LEA goals.
x
How to use these data
to support the
attainment of school
and LEA goals.
x
How to use these data
to support the
attainment of school
and LEA goals.
x
How to use these data
to support the
attainment of school
and LEA goals.
x
How to use these data to support
the attainment of school and
LEA goals.
Guidance and
Direction
The Department will provide direction and guidance for LEA employees to use in applying the Correlation Data Performance
Level Descriptors in Table H and validating the Correlation Rating for a Principal/School Leader. (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(III))
The direction and guidance for LEA employees to use in applying the Correlation Data Performance Level Descriptors can be
found at www.education.state.pa.us The use of the Correlation Data is mandatory unless an LEA has a PDE approved alternative rating tool. The
Department will make available guidance documents for implementation, but these documents are optional.
Revised July 2014 39 Chapter 2: Principal Effectiveness – Section 5: Elective Data Elective
Data/Student
Learning
Objectives
20%
Elective data will comprise 20 percent% of the final Principal/School Leader Effectiveness Rating. Elective Data shall
consist of measures of student performance that are locally developed and selected by the LEA from a list approved by the
Department and published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by June 30 of each year, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) District-designed measures and examinations.
(2) Nationally recognized standardized tests.
(3) Industry certification examinations.
(4) Student projects pursuant to local requirements.
(5) Student portfolios pursuant to local requirements
Principal SLO
PDE requires the principal to employ the Student Learning Objective (SLO) process. The LEA employees shall use an SLO to
document the process when determining and validating the weight assigned to Elective Data measures that establish the
Elective Rating. A SLO shall be used to record and verify quality assurance in validating measures of Elective Data on the 0,1,
2, and 3 point scale and the assigned weight of a measure in the overall performance rating of a Principal/School Leader.
The Department will provide direction, guidance and templates for LEA staff to use in selecting, developing and applying
Elective Data measures for SLOs.
Revised July 2014 40 All LEAs shall have SLOs in place for collecting Elective Data and ratings for school year 2015-2016. If Elective Data are
unavailable in school year 2014-2015, an LEA shall use the rating in Subpart (A)(1) total Principal/School Leader Observation
and Practice Rating of the form for a Principal/School Leader. The rating from Subpart (A)(1) in the form shall be used in
Subparts (B)(4) and (C)(4) for the 20 percent of the Principal/School Leader’s overall performance rating.
If multiple Elective Data/SLO measures are used for one Principal/School Leader, the LEA administration shall determine the
percentage weight given to each Elective Data measure.
Revised July 2014 41 Elective Data
Template
Elective Data /SLO for Principals/School Leaders
Template
Elective Data (Per Regulations)
22 Pa. Code Ch. 19 requires the Pennsylvania Department of Education to provide templates for LEAs. LEA staff must use the following
templates for SLOs. Based on this regulation, the Department has developed the Principal SLO Template as shown below:
Principal/School Leader Name __________________ School/Position ___________________ Date ___________________ Components Student Learning Objective Principal / School Leader Responses 1.
State your measurable student academic SLO. Data Evidence 2.
Student Population 3.
Describe the data used to create and measure your SLO. Describe the evidence used to create and measure your SLO Identify the student population(s) selected for this SLO. Timeframe 4.
Describe the timeframe in reference to implementation, analysis of data, and reporting for this SLO. Performance Measures 5.
Describe the performance measures to be used to determine student progress. Performance Indicators 6.
Describe the expected results for students included in this SLO. Principal Expectations 7. Describe what criteria will be used to determine the levels of Distinguished, Proficient, Needs Framework for Leadership 8.
Improvement, and Failing. Describe your leadership role in facilitating the attainment of this SLO by referencing appropriate components within the four domains of the Framework for Leadership. Revised July 2014 42 Principal / School Leader Reflection To be completed by the principal/school leader being evaluated. Principal / School Leader’s Comments / Signature Comments: Initial Conference Signature: _____________________ Date: _________ Signature: _____________________ SLO Approved Date: _________ Comments: Mid-­‐Year Review Signature: _____________________ Date: _________ End of Year Review Comments: Signature: _____________________ Date: _________ Activity Supervising Administrators Comments / Signature Comments: Signature: _____________________ Date: _________ Signature: _____________________ Date: _________ Comments: Signature: _____________________ Date: _________ Comments: Signature: _____________________ Date: _________ Final Rating & Score 3 – Distinguished (0 – 3) 2 – Proficient 1 – Needs Improvement 0 – Failing Criteria for each level will be determined by the supervising administrator and the principal/school leader during the initial conference with the approval of the administrator. Revised July 2014 43 Guidance,
Direction, and
Templates
The Department will provide guidance, direction, and templates for LEA administrators to use in applying the Elective Data and
validating the Elective Data Rating for a Principal/School Leader. (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(III)) The direction and guidance for
LEA administrators to use in applying the Elective Data process can be found at www.education.state.pa.us. The use of the Elective Data/SLO template is mandatory unless an LEA has a PDE approved alternative rating tool.
The Department will make available guidance documents for implementation, but these documents are optional.
Rating Tool
PDE 82-2
The system for Principal Effectiveness is called the Rating Tool. The Tool is comprised of two areas: Leadership/Principal
Framework and Multiple Measures. The final rating tool will be a form to be filled out by the evaluator on a Rating Scale.
Evaluators will use the rating tool to gather data for the rating form. Professional employees and temporary professional
employees shall be rated through the use of an approved rating tool developed by the Secretary of Education in consultation
with education experts, parents of school age children enrolled in public school, teachers and administrators. The development
process shall include research and collaboration with the groups listed as conducted by the Department of Education.
Revised July 2014 44 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
DEPARTM ENT OF EDUCATION
333 M arket St., Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
PRINCIPAL/S CHOOL LEADER RATING FORM
PDE 82-2 (4/14)
Last Name
First
District/LEA
S chool
Middle
Evaluation (Check One)
Rating Date
(A) Principal/S chool Leader Observation/Evidence
*Rating* Factor (B)
Domain
Title
(A)
Periodic
Earned
Points
(A x B)
Semi-annual
*Domain Rating
Assignment*
0 to 3 Point S cale (A)
Rating
Value
Failing
0
Max
Points
I.
S trategic/Cultural
Leadership
25%
0.75
25%
0.75
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Distinguished
II.
S ystems Leadership
III.
Leadership for
Learning
25%
0.75
IV.
Professional and
Community
Leadership
25%
0.75
(1) Principal/S chool Leader Observation/Evidence Rating
3.00
(B) Multiple Measures - Building Level Data, Correlation Data, and Elective Data
Building Level S core (0 - 107)
(2) Building Level S core Converted to 3 Point Rating
(C) Final Principal/S chool Leader Effectiveness Rating - All Measures
Rating
Factor
Measure
(C)
(D)
(1) Observation/Evidence Rating
(2) Building Level Rating (or substitute)*
(3) Correlation Data Rating (or substitute)*
(4) Elective Rating (or substitute)*
Annual
Earned
Points
(C x D)
1
2
3
(3) Correlation Data Rating
(4) Elective Rating
Max
Points
50%
15%
15%
1.50
0.45
0.45
20%
Total Earned Points
Conversion to Performance Rating
Total Earned Points
0.00 - 0.49
Rating
Failing
0.50 - 1.49
Needs
Improvement
0.60
3.00
* Substitutions permissible pursuant to 22 Pa. Code §§ 19.2(IV)(a)(6), (b)(4), (c)(3), or (d).
1.50 - 2.49
Proficient
2.50 - 3.00
Distinguished
Performance Rating
Rating: Professional Employee,
OR
Rating: Temporary Professional Employee
I certify that the above-named employee for the period beginning
and ending
(month/day/year)
Distinguished
Proficient
has received a performance rating of:
(month/day/year)
Needs Improvement
Failing
resulting in a final rating of:
S atisfactory
Unsatisfactory
A performance rating of Distinguished, Proficient or Needs Improvement shall be considered satisfactory, except that the second Needs Improvement rating issued by the same
employer within 10 years of the first final rating of Needs Improvement where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered unsatisfactory. A rating of Failing shall be
considered unsatisfactory.
Date
Designated Rater / Position:
Date
Chief School Administrator
I acknowledge that I have read the report and that I have been given an opportunity to discuss it with the rater.
M y signature does not necessarily indicate that I agree with the performance evaluation.
Date
Signature of Employee
Revised July 2014 45 Chapter 3: Non-Teaching Professionals – Section: 1 Overview and Act 82
Non-Teaching
Professionals Act
82
Beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, the evaluation of the effectiveness of professional and temporary professional
employees serving as Non-Teaching Professional Employees (NTPE), shall give due consideration to the following:
1. The Pennsylvania Department of Education shall develop a rating tool to reflect student performance measures and
employee observation results.
2. Classroom observation and practice models that are related to student achievement shall comprise eighty percent
(80%) of the overall rating in each of the following areas:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Planning and Preparation
Educational Environment
Delivery of Service
Professional Development
3. Student Performance, which shall comprise twenty percent (20%) of the overall rating of the professional employee
or temporary employee serving as a non-teaching professional employee shall be comprised of the Building Level
Score which will be provided by the Department or its designee, and published annually on the Department’s
website.
Charter Schools
Charter schools are not included in this rating system but may choose to participate. Non-Teaching
Professionals
Regulation Act 82
§ 19.3. Non-teaching professional employee effectiveness rating tool
The rating tool functions as a framework for the evaluation and summative process for nonteaching professional
employees, and is designed for local education agencies providing early childhood, elementary or secondary education
across the Commonwealth. The tool is comprised of the form and instructions. The rating form PDE 82-3 shall be used to
record the results of the summative evaluation.
The Department shall publish a list of approved practice models for assessing the four domains annually on the
Department’s website. The list of approved practice models will include frameworks for professional observation and
practice, and relevant crosswalks linking frameworks to the four domains for professional and temporary professional
employees holding certificates issued by the Department who are not assigned classroom teacher or principal positions.
Examples of certificates for professional and temporary employees include, but are not limited to, the following:
Revised July 2014 46 1) Education specialist (22 Pa. Code §§ 49.101-105).
x
PDE will post practice/observation rubrics for all specialists.
2) Instructional (22 Pa. Code §§ 49.82-83, 49.142-143).
x
Instructionally certified staff in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must be evaluated with the Framework for
Teaching (See the following two prong test to determine teaching/non-teaching professional status and the
crosswalk between the legislative intent of Act 82 for non-teaching professionals and the Framework for
Teaching.)
3) Administrative and supervisory (22 Pa. Code §§ 49.111 and 49.121). Employees holding administrative or
supervisory certification issued by the PDE and are not categorized as principals
x
Supervisors will be evaluated with the Framework for Leadership (see cross-walk between the legislative intent of
Act 82 for non-teaching professionals and Framework for Leadership.)
LEA administrators shall assign the appropriate practice model to each NTPE position description. LEAs shall notify
NTPEs of the professional practice models assigned to the NTPEs positions. NTPEs must be given a rating in each of the
four domains. In determining a rating for an employee, an LEA may use any portion or combination of the practice
models related to the domains. The four domains and practice models establish a framework for the summative process of
evaluating NTPEs. The form and standards do not impose mandates on the supervisory and formative processes utilized
by an LEA.
The Student Performance score shall be comprised of the Building Level Score which will be provided by the Department
or its designee, and published annually on the Department’s website.
Revised July 2014 47 Chapter 3: Non-Teaching Professionals – Section 2: Listing of Non-Teaching Professionals
Instructionally
Certified
Under Act 82, if an employee is working under an instructional certification and does not provide direct instruction to
students, the employee is considered a non-teaching professional (see Chapter 1 Section 5 two prong test).
Educational
Specialists
Educational Specialists are defined under the Pennsylvania School Code with the scope of their certificates and
assignments described in the Certification and Staffing Policies and Guidelines (CSPG).
Currently CSPG 75-81 lists the following specialists certifications:
CSPG – 75
CSPG – 76
CSPG – 77
CSPG – 78
CSPG – 80
CSPG – 81
Non-Teaching
Professional
Supervisors
Dental Hygienist
Elementary and Secondary School Counselor
Home and School Visitor
Instructional Technology Specialists
School Nurse
School Psychologists
Educational Supervisors are defined under the Pennsylvania School Code with the scope of their certificates and
assignments described in the Certification and Staffing Policies and Guidelines (CSPG).
Currently CSPG 88-92 lists the following specialists certifications:
CSPG – 88 Supervisor of Curriculum and Instruction
CSPG – 89 Supervisor of Pupil Services
CSPG – 90 Supervisor of s Single Area (Subject)
CSPG – 91 Supervisor of Special Education
CSPG – 92 Supervisor of Vocational Education
Non-Teaching
Professional
Employees
Beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, the evaluation of the effectiveness of professional and temporary professional
employees serving as non-teaching professionals will be evaluated using the rating form PD 82-3. Revised July 2014 48 Revised July 2014 49 Chapter 3: Non-Teaching Professionals – Section 3: Observation/Practice
Descriptions of the four domains in Part (A) NTPE Observation and Practice are summarized in Table A.
Table A: Descriptions of Four Domains
Domain
I. Planning &
Preparation
25%
Description
Effective nonteaching professional employees (NTPEs) plan and prepare to deliver high-quality
services based upon extensive knowledge of their discipline/supervisory position relative to
individual and systems-level needs and within the context of interdisciplinary collaboration.
Service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual
and/or system.
II. Educational
Environment
25%
Effective NTPE assess and enhance the quality of the environment along multiple dimensions
toward improved academic, behavioral and social-emotional outcomes. Environmental dimensions
include adult-student relationships, staff interactions, security and maintenance, administration,
student academic orientation, student behavioral values, student-peer relationships, parent and
community-school relationships, instructional and intervention management and student activities.
III. Delivery
of Service
25%
Effective NTPE service delivery and practice emanates from a problem-solving process that can be
applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to: (a) identify priority areas for
improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors
within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of
effectiveness of services.
IV. Professional
Development
25%
NTPEs have high ethical standards and a deep sense of professionalism, focused on improving
their own service delivery and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record keeping
systems are efficient and effective. NTPEs communicate with all parties clearly, frequently and
with cultural sensitivity. These professionals assume leadership roles within the system and engage
in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen their practice.
Reflection on their practice results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional
learning communities and contribute to improving the practice of others.
Revised July 2014 50 Table B summarizes NTPE performance levels for each of the Domain Rating Assignments and for the ratings to be assigned for each
domain in the Rating (A) column.
Table B: Four Levels of Performance in Four Domains Domain Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Distinguished I. Planning & Preparation 25% NTPE planning and preparation reflects little understanding of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and systems-­‐level needs. Service delivery outcomes, as a function of planning and preparation, are not clear, not measurable and do not represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. NTPE planning and preparation reflects moderate understanding of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and systems-­‐level needs. Some service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. NTPE planning and preparation reflects solid understanding of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and systems-­‐level needs. Most service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. NTPE planning and preparation reflects extensive understanding of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and systems-­‐level needs. All service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. II. Educational Environment 25% Environment is characterized by chaos and conflict, with low expectations for improved academic, behavioral and social-­‐emotional outcomes. There are no clear standards for interactions, student behavior, use of physical space, instruction and intervention with students, maintaining confidentiality, etc. Adults communicate modest expectations for improved academic, behavioral and social-­‐
emotional outcomes. There are some clearly defined standards for interactions, student behavior, use of physical space, instruction and intervention with students, maintaining confidentiality, etc. Environment functions smoothly, with little or no loss of service delivery time. Expectations for interactions, student behavior, use of physical space, instruction and intervention with students, and maintaining confidentiality are high. Standards for student conduct are clear and the environment supports academic, behavioral and social-­‐emotional growth. Recipients of services make a substantive contribution to various dimensions of the environment and contribute to improved academic, behavioral and social-­‐emotional outcomes. III. Delivery of Service 25% Effective service delivery and practice does not emanate from a problem-­‐
solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is not used to: (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. Effective service delivery and practice partially emanates from a problem-­‐solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. Effective service delivery and practice almost always emanates from a problem-­‐solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to: (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. Effective service delivery and practice emanates from a problem-­‐solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to: (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. As a function of interdisciplinary collaboration and problem-­‐solving, student and systems-­‐level outcomes improve over time. IV. Professional Development 25% NTPE does not adhere to ethical standards or convey a deep sense of professionalism. There is an absence of focus on improving their own service delivery and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record NTPE partially adheres to ethical standards and conveys an emerging sense of professionalism. There is some focus on improving their own service delivery and supporting the ongoing learning of NTPE fully adheres to ethical standards and conveys an emerging sense of professionalism. There is a solid focus on improving their own service delivery and supporting NTPE has exceptional adherence to ethical standards and professionalism. There is always evidence of improvement of practice and support to the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record keeping systems are Revised July 2014 51 keeping systems are inefficient and ineffective. NTPEs communicate ineffectively with all parties as evidenced by lack of clarity, limited frequency and absence of cultural sensitivity. NTPE do not assume leadership roles within the system and do not engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that would serve to strengthen their practice. Reflection on their practice does not result in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others. colleagues. Their record keeping systems are approaching efficiency and effectiveness. NTPE communicate effectively, albeit inconsistently, with all parties through clarity, frequency and cultural sensitivity. NTPE inconsistently assume leadership roles within the system and engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen their practice. Reflection on their practice is beginning to result in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others. the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record keeping systems are efficient and effective. NTPE communicate effectively with all parties through clarity, frequency and cultural sensitivity. NTPE consistently assume leadership roles within the system and engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen their practice. Reflection on their practice results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others. exceptionally efficient and effective. NTPE always communicate effectively with all parties through clarity, frequency and cultural sensitivity. NTPE always assume leadership roles within the system and engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen their practice. Reflection on their practice always results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others. Revised July 2014 52 Chapter 3: Non-Teaching Professionals – Section 4: Student Performance
Multiple
Measures
(20%)
Standards of Use for Student Performance Measures
(a) Building, school or configuration. For the purposes of Paragraph (IV) relating to Standards of Use for Student Performance
Measures, the term “building” shall mean a school or configuration of grades that is assigned a unique four-digit identification
number by the Department unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(b) Percentage. The student performance for all students in the school building in which the NTPE is employed will be derived
from the Building Level Score. As set forth in 22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(a)(3), the Department will provide the Building Level Score
for each building within an LEA based on available data. Building Level Scores will be published annually on the Department’s
website. The Student Performance Rating shall comprise 20 percent of the final NTPE Effectiveness Rating.
(c) Student performance measure. The student performance measure derived from the Building Level Score shall include, but is not
limited to, the following when data are available and applicable to a building where the NTPE is employed:
(1) Student performance on assessments.
(2) Value-added assessment system data made available by the Department under section 221 of the Public School
Code (24 P.S. § 2-221).
(3) Graduation rate as reported to the Department under section 222 of the Public School Code (24 P.S. § 2-222).
(4) Promotion rate.
(5) Attendance rate as reported to the Department under section 2512 of the Public School Code (24 P.S. § 252512).
Revised July 2014 53 (6) Industry certification examinations data.
(7) Advanced placement course participation.
(8) Scholastic aptitude test and preliminary scholastic aptitude test data.
(d) Comparable to 22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(a), the Student Performance Rating shall be determined through
conversion of the Building Level Score. The percentage weight given to each measure component contained in Appendix
A will be utilized in Building Level Score computations using available data. The Department or its designee will
provide the Building Level Score for each building within an LEA based on available data. Building Level Scores will be
published annually on the Department’s website.
(e) Each LEA shall utilize the conversions in Table F below to calculate the Student Performance Rating derived
from the Building Level Score for each building with eligible building level data.
Table F: Conversion from 100 Point Scale to
0 - 3 Scale for Student Performance Rating
Building Level Score
0 - 3 Rating Scale*
90.00 to 107.00
2.50 - 3.00
70.00 to 89.90
1.50 - 2.49
60.00 to 69.90
0.50 - 1.49
00.00 to 59.90
0.00 - 0.49
*PDE will publish the full conversion table on its website.
LEAs shall add the Student Performance Rating to (B)(2) and (C)(2) of the Rating Form.
Revised July 2014 54 (e) Multiple building assignments. If an NTPE performs professional work in two or more buildings where the
NTPE is employed, the LEA will use measures from each building based on the percentage of the employee’s work
performed in each building in calculating the whole 20 percent for this portion of the final rating.
(f) Absence of Building Level Score. For NTPEs employed in buildings for which there is no Building Level Score
reported on the Department website, the LEA shall utilize the rating from the NTPE observation and practice portion of
the rating form in Part (A)(1) in place of the Student Performance Rating.
(g) Administrative action based on available data. Nothing in these standards of use for student performance
measures, this section or this chapter shall be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator
of an LEA administration to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of an NTPE, based on
information and data available at the time of the action. Rating Tool
PDE 82-3 Each rating form shall identify the overall performance rating of the professional employees and temporary professional
employees serving as classroom teachers, principals, and non-teaching professional employees as one of the following:
1. Distinguished – shall be considered satisfactory
2. Proficient – shall be considered satisfactory
3. Needs improvement – shall be considered satisfactory, except that any subsequent overall rating of "needs
improvement" issued by the same employer within ten (10) years of the first overall performance rating of "needs
improvement" where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered unsatisfactory
4. Failing – shall be considered unsatisfactory
Professional Employees shall be rated at least annually and temporary professional employees shall be rated at least twice
annually.
Revised July 2014 55 Non-Teaching Professionals who receive an overall performance rating of Needs Improvement or Failing are required by
Act 82 to participate in a Performance Improvement Plan. A Performance Improvement Plan shall be designed with the
professional employee's input addressing the area(s) of concern, recommendations for Professional Development, types of
data (evidence) that will be collected to determine improvement, and an observation schedule with Intensive Supervision.
The rating form, 82-3, and related documents are available in electronic versions and Excel worksheet format for the
Rating Form
Professional/Temp scoring and rating tabulation at the Department’s website at www.education.state.pa.us.
orary
Professionals
Serving as NonTeaching
Professionals
Revised July 2014 56 DEPARTM ENT OF EDUCATION
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
333 M arket St., Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
NON TEACHING PROFES S IONAL RATING FORM
PDE 82-3 (4/14)
Last Name
First
District/LEA
Middle
S chool
Rating Date
Evaluation (Check One)
(A) Non Teaching Professional Observation and Practice
Domain
Title
*Rating*
Factor
(A)
(B)
I.
Planning &
Preparation
Educational
Environment
Delivery of
S ervice
Professional
Development
Periodic
Earned
Points
(A x B)
Max
Points
25%
0.75
25%
0.75
25%
0.75
25%
0.75
(1) Non Teaching Professional Observation and Practice
Rating
3.00
II.
III.
IV.
Semi-annual
Annual
*Domain Rating
Assignment*
0 to 3 Point S cale (A)
Rating
Value
0
Failing
Needs
1
Improvement
2
Proficient
3
Distinguished
(B) S tudent Performance/Multiple Measures - Building Level Data
Building Level S core (0 - 107)
(2) Building Level S core Converted to 3 Point Rating
(C) Non Teaching Professional Effectiveness Rating - All Measures
Measure
Rating
Factor
(C)
(D)
Earned
Points
(C x D)
Max
Points
Conversion to Performance
Rating
(1) Observation and Practice Rating
80%
2.40
Total Earned
Points
Rating
(2) Building Level Rating (or substitute)*
20%
0.60
0.00 - 0.49
Failing
3.00
0.50 - 1.49
Total Earned Points
* Substitutions permissible pursuant to 22 Pa. Code §19.3(IV)(f).
1.50 - 2.49
2.50 - 3.00
Needs
Improvement
Proficient
Distinguished
Performance Rating
Rating: Professional Employee, OR
Rating: Temporary Professional Employee
I certify that the above-named employee for the period beginning
and ending
(month/day/year)
Distinguished
Proficient
has received a performance rating of:
(month/day/year)
Needs Improvement
Failing
resulting in a final rating of:
S atisfactory
Unsatisfactory
A performance rating of Distinguished, Proficient or Needs Improvement shall be considered satisfactory, except that the second Needs Improvement rating issued by the same
employer within 10 years of the first final rating of Needs Improvement where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered unsatisfactory. A rating of Failing shall be
considered unsatisfactory.
Date
Designated Rater / Position:
Date
Chief School Administrator
I acknowledge that I have read the report and that I have been given an opportunity to discuss it with the rater.
M y signature does not necessarily mean that I agree with the performance evaluation.
Date
Signature of Employee
Revised July 2014 57 Chapter 3: Non-Teaching Professionals – Section 6: Legislative Alignment
Legislative Alignment for NTPEs Who Do Not Provide Direct Instruction will align the domains with the legislative categories and components. Domain Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Domain 3: Instruction Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Alignment with Legislative Categories Component x Planning and Preparation
1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy x Planning and Preparation
1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students x Planning and Preparation
1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes x Planning and Preparation
1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources x Planning and Preparation
1e: Designing Coherent Instruction x Planning and Preparation
1f: Designing Student Assessments x Educational Environment
2a: Creating an Environment of Respect x Educational Environment
2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning x Educational Environment
2c: Managing Classroom Procedures x Educational Environment
2d: Managing Student Behavior x Educational Environment
2e: Organizing Physical Space x Delivery of Service
3a: Communicating with Students x Delivery of Service
3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques x Delivery of Service
3c: Engaging Students in Learning x Delivery of Service
3d: Using Assessment in Instruction x Delivery of Service
3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness x Professional Development
4a: Reflecting on Teaching x Professional Development
4b: Maintaining Accurate Records x Professional Development
4c: Communicating with Families x Professional Development
4d: Participating in the Professional Community x Professional Development
4e: Growing and Developing Professionally Revised July 2014 58 Domain Domain 1: Strategic/Cultural Leadership Domain 2: Systems Leadership Domain 3: Leadership for Learning Legislative Alignment for Administrative and Supervisory Certifications will align the domains with the legislative categories and components Alignment with Legislative Component Categories x Planning and Preparation
1a: Creates an Organizational Vision, Mission, and Strategic Goals x Planning and Preparation
1b: Uses Data for Informed Decision Making x Educational Environment
x Delivery of Service
1c: Builds a Collaborative and Empowering Work Environment x Planning and Preparation
x Educational Environment
1d: Leads Change Efforts for Continuous Improvement x Educational Environment
x Delivery of Service
1e: Celebrates Accomplishments and Acknowledges Failures x Planning and Preparation
x Delivery of Service
2a: Leverages Human and Financial Resources x Planning and Preparation
x Delivery of Service
2b: Ensures a High Quality, High Performing Staff x Planning and Preparation
2c: Complies with Federal, State, and LEA Mandates x Educational Environment
2d: Establishes and Implements Expectations for Students and Staff x Planning and Preparation
x Educational Environment
2e: Communicates Effectively and Strategically x Educational Environment
2f: Manages Conflict Constructively x Planning and Preparation
x Educational Environment
x Delivery of Service
2g. Ensures School Safety x Planning and Preparation
x Delivery of Service
x Professional Development
3a: Leads School Improvement Initiatives: x Planning and Preparation
x Delivery of Service
3b: Aligns Curricula, Instruction, and Assessments x Planning and Preparation
x Delivery of Service
x Professional Development
3c: Implements High Quality Instruction x Educational Environment
x Delivery of Service
3d: Sets High Expectations for All Students x Delivery of Service
3e: Maximizes Instructional Time Revised July 2014 59 Domain 4: Professional and Community Leadership x Planning and Preparation
x Educational Environment
x Delivery of Service
4a: Maximizes Professional Responsibilities Through Parent Involvement and Community Engagement x Educational Environment
4b: Shows professionalism x Educational Environment
x Delivery of Service
x Professional Development
4c: Supports Professional Growth Revised July 2014 60 Chapter 4: Differentiated Supervision
Eligibility to
Participate in
Differentiated
Supervision
PDE recommends that professional employees who have received a Satisfactory summative rating in the previous two years
should be eligible to participate in Differentiated Supervision. Prior to the 2013-2014 school year, a Satisfactory performance
rating using a previously approved rating form, e.g., PDE 5501, PDE 426, PDE 427, or PDE 428 may be used to qualify for
participation in Differentiated Supervision. PDE recommends that professional employees newly hired by a district should be
eligible to participate in Differentiated Supervision, but only after successfully completing their first year in the Formal
Observation Model. PDE recommends that temporary professional employees should not participate in Differentiated
Supervision.
Differentiated Supervision Models do not need to be submitted to the Department of Education for approval. The supervision of
teachers is a local decision.
Revised July 2014 61 Cycle of
Supervision
LEAs should create a Cycle of Supervision based on the number of teachers requiring Formal Observations.
x
x
x
x
Temporary professional employees
Professional employees new to a district
Employees assigned to a performance improvement plan
Employees assigned to their required year of Formal Observation
Professional employees should be assigned to Differentiated Supervision Modes for the length of the Cycle of Supervision
except for the required year of Formal Observation, e.g., if a district has a three year Cycle of Supervision and a teacher is
assigned to the Formal Observation Model in the second year of the cycle, the teacher would be placed in Differentiated
Supervision in years one and three of the cycle. A Cycle of Supervision usually lasts for three (3) or four (4) years; however,
this is a local decision.
The principal and the professional employee should collaboratively create a timeline to ensure the successful completion of
the professional’s Differentiated Supervision Action Plan. The professional employee should be required to complete a midyear review and an end-of-the-year self-reflection report with respect to his/her goal setting, planning, progress, and results.
It is also recommended that the professional employee report the findings of his/her action plan to a Professional Learning
Community (faculty meeting, in-service gathering, PTA/PTO); however, this is also a local decision.
The supervising administrator should select a Differentiated Supervision Mode in collaboration with the teacher. All
Differentiated Supervision Modes must be aligned to the Danielson’s Framework for Teaching or a PDE approved
alternative system and/or related to a district or school initiative designed to improve instructional practices and impact
student achievement.
Additionally, while formal observations may not occur in Differentiated Supervision, it is recommended informal
observations occur throughout the school year. PDE recommends that the principal also reserves the right to remove a
teacher from Differentiated Supervision at any time and place the teacher in the Formal Observation Model or assign the
teacher to a Performance Improvement Plan with Intensive Supervision.
Revised July 2014 62 Differentiated
Supervision
Modes
While the nomenclature applied to the various Differentiated Supervision Modes may be unique to each LEA, they are
generally grouped by common subject matter. Districts are not limited to the following categories as long as the mode meets
the requirements and rigor of the PDE Educator Effectiveness System.
The following descriptions of Differentiated Supervision Modes are to serve as examples:
1. Peer-Coaching Mode - professional employees work in dyads or triads to discuss and observe their own or another
professional employee's pedagogy, student learning, curriculum aligned to the Pennsylvania Core Standards and
other pertinent issues in a collaborative manner. The professionals will work together to define their professional
needs and develop plans to assist them in the successful completion of the identified tasks including: specific target
area(s), the evidence to be collected, observation dates, and a reflective session. Meeting notes, data collection tools,
results of the observations, and the reflective sessions should be shared with the principal and used as evidence in the
supervision and evaluation of the employee.
2. Self-Directed Model/Action Research Mode - professional employees will develop a structured, on-going
reflection of a practice-related issue (Danielson’s Framework for Teaching or a PDE approved alternative system).
Professionals may work individually or in small groups, dyads or triads, to complete the action research project.
Meeting notes, resources, data collection tools, and the results of the reflective sessions should be shared with the
principal and used as evidence in the supervision and evaluation of the employee.
3. Portfolio Mode - professional employees will examine their own practice in relation to the Danielson’s Framework
for Teaching or a PDE approved alternative system and reflect in a written report and/or documented discussions
with colleagues. Portfolios may be developed according to criteria established collaboratively by the administrator
and the teacher based upon their interests or needs. Resources, data collection tools, and the results of the reflective
sessions should be shared with the principal and used as evidence in the supervision and evaluation of the employee.
*Book/research reviews are unacceptable for a separate Differentiated Supervision mode; however, they may be used to
develop the research for an action plan.
Revised July 2014 63 Performance
Improvement
Plan
Teachers who receive an overall performance rating of Needs Improvement or Failing are required by Act 82 to
participate in a Performance Improvement Plan. A Performance Improvement Plan shall be designed with the
professional employee's input addressing the area(s) of concern, recommendations for Professional Development, types of
data (evidence) that will be collected to determine improvement, and an observation schedule with Intensive Supervision.
PDE recommends that an Intensive Supervision timeline is established to implement the Performance Improvement Plan.
At the conclusion of the allotted time, the data will be analyzed and used to make a determination of the employee’s level
of performance and ultimately his/her employment status. It is recommended that the administrator recruit a colleague such
as an assistant principal or the administrator’s immediate supervisor in this process to provide additional reliability to the
final determination of the professional employee's continuation of employment.
When the Performance Improvement Plan has been successfully completed and a Proficient rating has been achieved, it is
recommended that the professional employee should be placed in the Formal Observation Model for at least a full school
year and temporary professional employee remains in the Formal Observation Model until tenure is granted.
Guidelines
The complete guidelines can be found at the following link: www.education.state.pa.us on the Educator Effeteness System
Revised July 2014 64 Chapter 5: Professional Development
Online
Professional
Development
for Teachers
Online Professional Development Courses focused on various components in the Danielson Framework for Teaching are
available on the SAS portal. The courses offer Act 48 credit upon successful completion, are self-paced, and free of charge.
These coursed can be found at: www.pdesas.org. Click on Teacher Tools, PD Center, Class Registration, Charlotte
Danielson: the Framework for Teaching
Resources for the Danielson Framework for Teaching Effectiveness Instrument can be found at:
http://www.pdesas.org (click on the Teachscape icon)
Teachscape for
Classroom
Teachers
The Teaching Effecting Series is located on the SAS portal www.pdesas.org. Teachers may review modules for 2 hours of
Act 48 Professional Development
Introduction to
PVAAS
Questions? Contact the PVAAS Statewide Team for PDE
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (717) 606-1911
If educators understand the current district and school-level PVAAS reporting, they will be much better prepared to
understand PVAAS teacher-specific reporting, including both value-added and diagnostic reporting. The concept behind
measuring growth for groups of students is the same and applies for district, school, grade, subgroup, and teacherspecific reporting. Resources about this information are located at https://pvaas.sas.com
PDE provides professional development specific to the roster verification process and web-based system. This will
include statewide webinars, Virtual Learning Modules, PDE guidance documents, and FAQs. When PVAAS teacherspecific reporting is released, PDE will provide statewide webinars, Virtual Learning Modules, live professional
development sessions across the commonwealth, resource documents, PowerPoint templates, and detailed help menus.
Additionally, IU PVAAS contact(s) and the PVAAS Statewide Team for PDE are available to answer questions and assist
LEAs in understanding and making use of the PVAAS process
Revised July 2014 65 Training Videos, Powerpoints, Templates, and SLO Development/Implementation Resources for Teachers and School
Leaders can be accessed by clicking on the “Homeroom” icon found at www.pdesas.org
Elective /SLOs
Additional Materials to support understanding of Assessment Literacy can also be found on the “Homeroom” by clicking
the “Quickstart” icon at www.pdesas.org.
Online
Professional
Development
Principals
Online Professional Development Modules will be available on the SAS portal. Modules are being developed and will be
available in 2015.
for
Revised July 2014 66 Chapter 6: Process for Submitting Locally-Developed Rating Tools
Section 1123 (e) of Act 82 of 2012 states that “professional employees and temporary professional employees serving as
classroom teachers, principals and nonteaching professional employees may be evaluated through the use of a rating tool
developed by an individual school district, intermediate unit or area vocational-technical school that the department has
approved as meeting or exceeding the measures of effectiveness established under this section.” The rating tool functions as
a framework for the evaluation and summative process for classroom teachers, principals, and nonteaching professionals;
the tool is comprised of the rating form and instructions. Any locally-developed alternative rating tool must be approved by
the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) before it is implemented. During its review process, PDE will determine
whether an alternative rating tool meets or exceeds the measures of effectiveness developed under 24 P.S. § 11-1123. In
addition, any alternative rating tool proposed shall be at least as rigorous as Pennsylvania’s model for classroom teachers
(PDE 82-1), principals/school leaders (PDE 82-2), and Nonteaching Professional Employees (PDE 82-3), which were
published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on June 22, 2013 and June 14, 2014, so Pennsylvania educators are held to similar
standards across the state. Since aggregate evaluation performance data will not be available for several years for
Pennsylvania’s model rating tools or for any approved alternative rating tools, initial evaluations of rigor will be made on
the basis of the proposed design and the evidence/research provided by LEAs to support its locally-developed rating tool
Guidelines for
Submitting
LocallyDeveloped
Alternative
Rating Tools
PDE developed the following guidelines for school districts, intermediate units or area vocational-technical schools to use to
submit a locally-developed alternative rating tool:
1. Guidelines for Submission and Review of Locally-Developed Alternative Classroom Teacher Effectiveness Rating
Tool that Modifies only Teacher Observation/Practice Component;
2. Guidelines for Submission and Review of Locally-Developed Alternative Principal/School Leader Effectiveness
Rating Tool that Modifies only Observation/Practice Component;
3. Guidelines for Submission and Review of Locally-Developed Alternative Non-teaching Professionals Effectiveness
Rating Tool that Modifies only Observation/Practice Component.
The Guidelines for Approval for Alternative Educator Effectiveness Systems can be found at www.education.state.pa.us .
As soon as the guidelines outlining the process for modifying the multiple performance measures are finalized the
document will be available at www.education.state.pa.us.
Revised July 2014 67 Alternative
Rating Tools
The Department shall publish a list of approved practice models for assessing the four domains annually on the
Department’s website. Approved practice models will be posted for the Classroom Teacher System, the Non-Teaching
Professional System, and the Principal System.
Regulation
The Department will review at the request of an LEA an alternative rating tool that has been approved by the LEA governing
board. The Department may approve for a maximum period of not more than five years any alternative rating tool that
meets or exceeds the measures of effectiveness established under 3ௗ6† 1123.
Revised July 2014 68 Glossary
ACT 82 – Passed on June 30, 2012 with requirements for evaluation in Section 1123 of the School Code
Alternative Evaluation Plan – An Individual School District Evaluation Plan (Must be approved by PDE).
Assessment - The term shall mean the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment, the Keystone Exam, an equivalent local assessment or
another test established by the State Board of Education to meet the requirements of section 2603-B(d)(10)(i) and required under the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425) or its successor statute or required to achieve other standards established by the
Department for the school or school district under 22 Pa. Code § 403.3 (relating to single accountability system).
CDT – Classroom Diagnostic Tools
Chief School Administrator – An individual who is employed as a school district superintendent, an executive director of an intermediate
unit or a chief school administrator of an area vocational-technical school or career technology centers.
Classroom Teacher – A professional or temporary professional employee who provides direct instruction to students related to a specific
subject or grade level and usually holds one of the following:
Instructional I Certificate (see § 49.82)
Instructional II Certificate (see § 49.83)
Vocational Instructional I Certificate (see § 49.142
Vocational Instructional II Certificate (see § 49.143)
Department - The Pennsylvania Department of Education of the Commonwealth.
Differentiated Supervision Model – Used by schools to diversify evaluations of Instructional II Staff.
Revised July 2014 69 Direct instruction is defined as planning and providing the instruction, and assessing the effectiveness of the instruction.
Distinguished – The employee’s performance consistently reflects the employee's professional position and placement at the highest level
of practice.
District-designed measures and examinations, and locally developed school district rubrics – A measure of student performance created
or selected by an LEA. The development or design of the measure shall be documented via a Student Learning Objective.
Education Specialist – A person who holds an educational specialist certificate issued by the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to,
a certificate endorsed in the area of elementary and secondary school counselor, school nurse, home and school visitor, school psychologist,
dental hygienist, or instructional technology specialist.
Employee – A person who is a professional employee or temporary professional employee.
Educator Effectiveness System– The program developed by PDE to improve teaching and learning.
EVAAS™ – Education Value-Added Assessment System is the methodology used for PVAAS.
Failing – The employee does not meet performance expectations required for the position.
FFL - Framework For Leadership
FFT – Framework For Teaching (Danielson)
FFTES – Framework For Teacher Effectiveness Series (Teachscape)
FOCUS – The inter-reliability course PDE is currently offering to PA evaluators (formerly called FFTPS – Framework for Teaching
Proficiency System).
Keystone Exam – An assessment developed or caused to be developed by the Department pursuant to 22 Pa. Code §4.51 (relating to state
assessment system).
Revised July 2014 70 LEA - A local education agency, including a public school district, area vocational-technical school, career technology center and
intermediate unit, which is required to use a rating tool established pursuant to section 1123 of the Public School Code (24 P.S. § 11-1123).
Needs Improvement – The employee is functioning below proficient for performance expectations required for continued employment.
Non-Teaching Professional Employee - A person who is an education specialist or a professional employee or temporary professional
employee who provides services other than classroom instruction.
Performance Improvement Plan - A plan, designed by a LEA with input of the employee, that may include mentoring, coaching,
recommendations for professional development and intensive supervision based on the results of the rating provided for under this chapter.
Principal/School Leader – A building principal, an assistant principal, a vice principal or a director of vocational education.
Professional Employee – An individual who is certificated as a teacher, supervisor, principal, assistant principal, vice-principal, director of
vocational education, dental hygienist, visiting teacher, home and school visitor, school counselor, child nutrition program specialist, school
nurse, or school librarian.
Proficient – The employee’s performance consistently reflects practice at a satisfactory level.
PSSA – The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment established in 22 Pa. Code §4.51 (relating to state assessment system).
PVAAS – The Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System established in compliance with 22 Pa. Code §403.3 (relating to single
accountability system) and its data made available by the Department under Section 221 of the Public School Code (24 P.S. § 2-221).
Multiple Measures – The right side of the effectiveness pie chart that looks at student performance
Needs Improvement – The employee is functioning below proficient for performance expectations required for continued
employment.
Non-teaching Professional Employee – A person who is an education specialist or a professional employee or temporary professional
employee who provides services other than classroom instruction.
Revised July 2014 71 Overall Performance Ratings – Distinguished, Proficient, Needs Improvement, Failing
PDE – Pennsylvania Department Of Education
Performance Improvement Plan – District plan to improve performance of professional employees based on contents of the rating tool
for ratings of failing and needs improvement with the evaluator and employee input
Principal - An individual who is certified as a building principal, an assistant principal, a vice principal or a director of vocational education
Principal Effectiveness Instrument – The rating tool used to evaluate a principal.
Professional Employee – An individual who is certificated as a teacher, supervisor, principal, assistant principal, vice-principal, director
of vocational education, dental hygienist, visiting teacher, home and school visitor, school counselor, child nutrition program specialist, school
nurse, or school librarian.
Proficient – The employee's performance consistently reflects practice at a professional level.
PIL – Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership
PIMS – Pennsylvania Information Management System
PPID – Pennsylvania Personal Identification Number.
PSSA – The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment established in 22 3Dௗ&RGH§ 4.51 (relating to state assessment system).
PVAAS – The Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System established in compliance with 22 3Dௗ&RGH§ 403.3 (relating to single
accountability system) and its data made available by the Department under Section 221 of the Public School Code (24 3ௗ6† 2-221).
Rating Tool – An instrument used to determine an evaluation.
RTTT – Race To The Top
Rubric – Information used to determine an evaluation.
SAS – Standards Aligned System
School Profile – Evaluation score determine by student performance and school assessments.
Revised July 2014 72 SIG Schools – School Improvement Grant Schools
SLO – The Student Learning Objective is a record of the development and application of student performance measures selected by a LEA.
It documents the process used to determine a student performance measure and validate the assigned weight. This record will provide for quality
assurance in rating a student performance measure on the zero-to-three-point rating scale.
Teacher Level Measures – A compilation of performance measures of all students in the school building in which the NTPE is employed
as set forth in Part (IV).
Temporary Professional Employee - An individual who has been employed to perform for a limited time the duties of a newly created
position or of a regular professional employee whose service has been terminated by death, resignation, suspension or removal.
Revised July 2014 73 
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement