Trimble County SchoolsEvery Student, Every Day…No Excuses

Certified Evaluation Plan

Trimble County Board of Education68 Wentworth Ave.

Bedford, Kentucky 40006

Approval Date: May 21, 2014

Board Approval Number: #7487

Superintendent Signature/Date ___Marcia Haney Dunaway – May 21, 2014__

Board Chairman Signature/Date __________Kim Temple – May 21, 2014_________

Trimble County SchoolsMarcia Haney Dunaway, Superintendent

The Trimble Co. School District and its employees live by and are committed to the

following…Our Mission:

It’s About Every Student, Every Day… No Excuses

Our Vision:

The Trimble County School District will develop graduates who are College and Career Ready.

Our Belief Statements:

This We believe….

1. A student’s success is the responsibility of students, teachers, parents, and community.

2. Students become contributing members of society by maximizing their personal potential.

3. Our focus for all students will be thinking and learning in reading, writing, and math. (literacy and numeracy)

4. Every student needs a safe, nurturing environment to achieve at high levels.

2 | P a g e

5. Data drives our decision-making.6. Instructional time is valued and protected.7. Students are partners in their learning.8. Parent involvement is essential to students’ success.9. Communication is critical between the school and home.10. All students learn differently.

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of certified personnel is an important tool that our district utilizes to help assure the public, community, parents, and students that providing a quality education is the priority of our school system.

Evaluation is the process of assessing or determining the effectiveness of performances and products to: Promote the continuation of professional competence Identify areas for professional growth Assist in making personnel decisions

The purpose of evaluation is improving instruction, curriculum, assessment, and other professional responsibilities.

The principal or designee is primarily responsible for evaluating teachers. Non-tenured teachers will be evaluated yearly and tenured teachers will be evaluated at least every three years following the requirement of the TPGES system.

Administrators will be evaluated annually by the superintendent or by the superintendent’s designee following the requirements of the PPGES system.

The Superintendent will be evaluated annually by the local school board.

3 | P a g e

ASSURANCESCERTIFIED EVALUATION PLAN

The Trimble County School District hereby assures the Commissioner of Education that:

This evaluation plan was developed by an evaluation committee composed of an equal number of teachers and administrators.

The evaluation process and criteria for evaluation will be explained to and discussed with all certified personnel annually within one month of reporting for employment. This shall occur prior to the implementation of the plan. The evaluation of each certified staff member will be conducted or supervised by the immediate supervisor of the employee.

All certified employees shall develop an Individual Professional Growth Plan (PGP) that shall be aligned with the school/district improvement plan and comply with the requirements of 704 KAR3:345. The PGP will be reviewed annually.

All administrators, to include the superintendent and non-tenured teachers will be evaluated annually.

All tenured teachers will be evaluated a minimum of once every three years.

Each evaluator will be trained and approved in the use of the appropriate evaluation techniques and the use of local instruments and procedures.

Each person evaluated will have both formative and summative evaluations with the evaluator regarding his/her performance.

Each evaluatee shall be given a copy of his/her summative evaluations with the evaluator regarding his/her performance.

Each evaluatee shall be given a copy of his/her summative evaluation and the summative evaluation shall be filed with the official personnel records.

The local evaluation plan provides for the right to a hearing as to every appeal, an opportunity to review all documents presented to the evaluation appeals panel, and a right to presence of evaluatee’s chosen representative.

The evaluation plan will not discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, religion, marital status, sex, or disability.

This evaluation plan will be reviewed as needed and any substantive revisions will be submitted to the Department of Education for approval.

4 | P a g e

The local board of education approved the evaluation plan as recorded in the minutes of the meeting held on May 21, 2014.

___________________________________________ _____________________________ Signature of District Superintendent Date

___________________________________________ _____________________________ Signature of Chairperson, Board of Education Date

Trimble County SchoolsCertified Personnel Evaluation Plan

Trimble County 502-255-3201 Name of District Telephone

Marcia Haney Dunaway Superintendent

68 Wentworth Ave. Bedford, KY 40006 Street Address City/State Zip Code

Jessica P. Wilcoxson Asst. Superintendent Evaluation Contact Person Position

Evaluation Plan 50/50 Committee Members and Their Position Titles:(Voting Members)

NAME POSITION

Debbie Beeles Bedford Elementary School PrincipalJanice Gross Bedford Elementary School TeacherSharon James Milton Elementary School PrincipalBecky Phillips Milton Elementary School TeacherMike Genton Trimble County Middle School PrincipalSteve Gamble Trimble County Middle School TeacherRachael Adams Trimble County High School PrincipalBonnie Peugeot Trimble County High School Teacher

(Non-Voting Member)Facilitator: Jessica P. Wilcoxson Assistant Superintendent

5 | P a g e

The two (2) Appeals Panel Committee Teacher Members are elected in an annual district wide election and serves from July 1 to June 30; another certified member is appointed by the school board annually.

Table of Contents

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFECTIVENESS SYSTEM OVERVIEW.........................................................................Professional Growth and Effectiveness System – Certified Teacher..........................................................................

Assurances.............................................................................4Roles and Definitions......................................................................................7

Timeline……………………………………………………………..…………8 The Kentucky Framework for Teaching………………………………………………………………..………….11 Professional Practice........................................................................................12 Professional Growth Planning and Self-Reflection............................................... Observation Model........................................................... Observation Conferencing......................................................13 Observation Schedule .......................................................... Observer Certification...........................................................14 Observer Calibration........................................................... Peer Observation............................................................15 Student Voice......................................................... Student Growth...................................................16 State Contribution – Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs).............................. Local Contribution – Student Growth Goals (SGGs)......................................17 Rigor of SGGs......................................................................................... Determining Growth for a Single SGG...................................................20 Products of Practice/Other Sources of Evidence…………………………………………………….22

Determining the Overall Performance Category..................................................24Rating Professional Practice.....................................................................25Rating Student Growth............................................................23Determining the Overall Performance Category...................................................25

Professional Growth Plan and Summative Cycle..........................................................25Appeals Process....................................................................................................................................26

Professional Growth and Effectiveness System – Principal and Assistant Principal...................................................Roles and Definitions.............................................................27Timeline.........................................................28

Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Components – Overview and Summative Model......29 Principal Performance Standards.................................................31 Professional Practice………………….......................................32

Professional Growth Plan and Self-Reflection..............................................Site-Visits………………………………………..........Val-Ed 360º......................................................33Working Conditions Goal…................................................Products of Practice......................................35

Student Growth....................................................................................State Contribution – School Report Cards (Accountability)…….............................Local Contribution – ASSIST (School Improvement Plan)...................................36

6 | P a g e

Determining the Overall Performance Category....................................................37.Rating Overall Professional Practice.........................................................37Rating Overall Student Growth………………………………………………………38

Determining Overall Performance Category………………………………………………………………….40Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Appendix A: KY Framework for Teaching………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Appendix B: KY Principals Performance Standards……………………………………………………………………………………… Appendix C: Trimble County Pre-existing Certified Evaluation Plan………………………………………………………….. Appendix D: Trimble County Board Policy and Procedures for Evaluation and Appeals……………………………….. Appendix E: Student Voice Survey Confidentiality Agreement……………………………………………………………………

Trimble County DistrictProfessional Growth & Effectiveness Plan

Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Overview

Effective teaching and school leadership depend on clear standards and expectations, reliable feedback, and the tools, resources and support for professional growth and continuous improvement. The Kentucky Department of Education, with the guidance and oversight of various steering committees, designed, developed, field tested and piloted a new statewide Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES). The PGES is designed to measure teacher and leader effectiveness and serve as a catalyst for professional growth and continuous improvement. Effective teaching, supported by effective leadership, will ensure all Trimble County students are successful and graduate from high school college/career-ready. The Assistant Superintendent shall be the person responsible for monitoring evaluation training and implementing the Professional Growth and Effectiveness System in the Trimble County Public Schools.

Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (TPGES)

Professional Growth and Effectiveness System – Certified TeacherThe vision for the Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES) is to have every student taught by an effective teacher. The goal is to create a fair and equitable system to measure teacher effectiveness and act as a catalyst for professional growth.

Roles and Definitions 1. Administrator: An EPSB certified administrator who devotes the majority of employed time in

the role of principal or district administrator, for which administrative certification is required by the Education Professional Standards Board pursuant to 16 KAR 3:050

2. Evaluator: The immediate supervisor of certified personnel, who has satisfactorily completed all required evaluation training and, if evaluating teachers, observation certification training.

3. Evaluatee: District/School certified personnel being evaluated.4. Peer Observer: A trained certified colleague, selected as described in the district’s Certified

Evaluation Plan, who observes and documents another teacher’s professional practice and provides supportive and constructive feedback that can be used to improve professional practice.

5. Professional Growth Plan: An individualized plan that is focused on improving professional practice and leadership skills; is aligned with educator performance standards and student performance standards; is developed using a variety of sources and types of student data that

7 | P a g e

reflect student needs and strengths, educator data, and school/district data; and is produced in consultation with the evaluator.

6. Self-Reflection: The process by which certified personnel assess the effectiveness and adequacy of their knowledge and performance for the purpose of identifying areas for professional learning and growth

7. Student Voice: The state-approved student perception survey, administered each year, which provides data on specific aspects of the classroom experience and of teaching practice.

8. For Additional Definitions and Roles, see 704KAR 3:370 Professional Growth and Effectiveness System.

Timeline

Explanation and Review of Certified Evaluation Plan and Processes with Administration and Staff Within one calendar month after reporting to work

Self-reflection / Professional Growth Plan Completed by Sept. 15th

Student Growth Goal(s) Completed by Oct. 1st

1st (mini) observation and post-conference Completed by Oct. 15th

2nd (mini) observation and post-conference Completed by Dec. 15th

3rd (mini) observation and post-conference Completed by Feb. 15th

Student Voice Survey Completed in March

4th (full) observation and post- conference Completed by Apr. 15th

Summative Evaluation (including summative conference on PGP, SGGs, and all applicable PGE data)

Completed by Apr. 30th; to Assistant Superintendent by May 1st

8 | P a g e

Annual Review of PGP and SGGs for teachers not in summative year of evaluation cycle.

Summative Evaluation Appeal Within five (5) working days of the summative conference

Plan Orientation

Within one calendar month of reporting for employment, each primary evaluator shall meet with all her/his certified personnel for the purpose of reviewing the certified personnel evaluation plan and process. At this time, the evaluator shall explain the purposes of evaluation, clarify expectations, and discuss the process and performance criteria on which evaluatees are to be evaluated. Staff shall be made aware that anytime the evaluator is present in the line of duty, an informal observation may be occurring.

Certified staff shall sign an attendance roster and the Kentucky Professional Code of Ethics. These documents shall be submitted to the Central Office, with copies retained by the evaluator as needed.

9 | P a g e

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE/FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING ALIGNMENT

FRAM

EWO

RK fo

r TEA

CHIN

G (F

fT)

Domain Planning & Preparation

Classroom Environment

Instruction Professional Responsibilities

Component

1a -K

now

ledg

e of

cont

ent/

peda

gogy

1b-D

emon

stra

te k

now

ledg

e of

stud

ents

1c- S

etting

Ins

truc

tiona

l Out

com

es

1d-D

emon

stra

tes

know

ledg

e of

reso

urce

s

1e-D

esig

ning

Coh

eren

t Ins

truc

tion

1f- D

esig

ning

Stu

dent

Ass

essm

ent

2a-C

reati

ng E

nv. o

f Res

pect

& R

appo

rt2b

-Est

ablis

h Cu

lture

of L

earn

ing

2c-M

aint

aing

Cla

ssro

om P

roce

dure

s2d

-Man

agin

g St

uden

t Beh

avio

r2e

-Org

anizi

ng P

hysic

al S

pace

3a-C

omm

unic

ating

with

Stu

dent

s3b

-Que

stion

ing

& D

iscus

sion

Tec

hniq

ues

3c-E

ngag

ing

Stud

ents

in L

earn

ing

3d-U

sing

Asse

ssm

ent i

n Le

arni

ng3e

-Dem

onst

ratin

g Fl

exib

ility

& R

espo

nsiv

e

4a-R

eflec

ting

On

Teac

hing

4b-M

aint

aini

ng A

ccur

ate

Reco

rds

4c-C

omm

unic

ating

With

Fam

ilies

4d-P

artic

ipati

ng in

Pro

fess

. Lea

rnin

g Co

mm

.4e

-Gro

win

g &

Dev

elop

ing

Prof

essi

onal

ly

4f-S

how

ing

Prof

essio

nalis

m

SOU

RCES

OF

EVID

ENCE

To

Info

rm P

rofe

ssio

nal P

racti

ce

Supervisor Observatio

n

Evidence(pre and post conferences)

Observation Evidence(pre and post conferences)

Student Voice Kentucky Student Voice Survey

Professional Growth

Professional Growth Planning and Self ReflectionSelf-

Reflection

Peer Observatio

nObservation

10 | P a g e

The Kentucky Framework for Teaching (see Appendix A)

The Framework for Teaching is designed to support student achievement and professional practice through the domains of Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities. The Framework also includes themes such as equity, cultural competence, high expectations, developmental appropriateness, accommodating individual needs, effective technology integration, and student assumption of responsibility. It provides structure for feedback for continuous improvement through individual goals that target student and professional growth, thus supporting overall school improvement. Evidence supporting a teacher’s professional practice will be situated within one or more of the four domains of the framework. Performance will be rated for each component according to four performance levels: Ineffective, Developing, Accomplished, and Exemplary. The summative rating will be a holistic representation of performance, combining data from multiple sources of evidence across each domain.

The use of professional judgment based on multiple sources of evidence promotes a more holistic and comprehensive analysis of practice, rather than over-reliance on one individual data point or rote calculation of practice based on predetermined formulas. Evaluators will also take into account how educators respond to or apply additional supports and resources designed to promote student learning, as well as their own professional growth and development. Finally, professional judgment gives evaluators the flexibility to account for a wide variety of factors related to individual educator performance, such as: school-specific priorities that may drive practice in one domain; an educator’s number of goals, experience level and/or leadership opportunities; and contextual variables that may impact the learning environment, such as unanticipated outside events or traumas.

Evaluators must use the following categories of evidence in determining overall ratings: Professional Growth Planning and Self-ReflectionObservationStudent VoiceStudent Growth Percentiles and/or Student Growth Goals

Evaluators may use the following categories of evidence in determining overall ratings:Other Measures of Student LearningProducts of Practice Other Sources (e.g., surveys)

All components and sources of evidence related supporting an educator’s professional practice and student growth ratings will be completed and recorded in the Educator Development Suite (EDS) housed within the Continuous Instructional Improvement Technology System (CIITS).

11 | P a g e

Professional Practice

Professional Growth Planning and Self-Reflection

The Professional Growth Plan will address realistic, focused, and measurable professional goals. The plan will connect data from multiple sources, including classroom observation feedback, data on student growth and achievement, and professional growth needs identified through self-assessment and reflection. In collaboration with the administrator, teachers will identify explicit goals which will drive the focus of professional growth activities, support, and on-going reflection.

Reflective practices and professional growth planning are iterative processes. The teacher (1) reflects on his or her current growth needs based on multiple sources of data and identifies an area or areas for focus; (2) collaborates with his or her administrator to develop a professional growth plan and action steps; (3) implements the plan; (4) regularly reflects on the progress and impact of the plan on his or her professional practice; (5) modifies the plan as appropriate; (6) continues implementation and ongoing reflection; (7) and conducts a summative reflection on the degree of goal attainment and the implications for next steps.

All teachers will participate annually in the self-reflection process, using the Self-Reflection tool based on the Framework for Teaching in CIITS, and will submit this documentation to their principal for feedback.

Each teacher will then use the results of that self-reflection, together with data from the multiple sources listed above, to develop a specific, goal-oriented, individual Professional Growth Plan (PGP) that is aligned with the school/district improvement plans and is targeted toward improvement in the areas of need determined in collaboration with the evaluator. This plan is then to be submitted to the evaluator through CIITS for approval prior to implementation.

The Self-Reflection process and development of the PGP are to be completed by every teacher annually no later than Sept. 15th. Annual review of all Professional Growth Plans will occur by April 30th .

ObservationThe observation process is one source of evidence to determine teacher effectiveness; it includes supervisor and peer observations for each certified teacher. All observations will be made using the KY Framework for Teaching as the criteria for rating professional performance. The immediate supervisor shall be the primary evaluator. (See “Observation Certification” for cases in which the immediate supervisor is not certified in observation.) The supervisor observation will provide documentation and feedback to measure the effectiveness of a teacher’s professional practice. Only the supervisor observation will be used to determine a summative rating. Peer observation will be used only for formative feedback on teaching practice in a collegial atmosphere of trust and common purpose. No summative ratings will be given by the peer observer. The rationale for each type of observation is to encourage continued professional learning through critical reflection.

12 | P a g e

Observation ModelThe observation model is comprised of a minimum of four (4) classroom observations (three (3) mini observations and one (1) full observation) over the summative evaluation cycle for each certified teacher. Observers will conduct three mini observations of approximately 20-30 minutes each. Because these are shorter sessions, the observer will make note of the components observed in order to identify "look-fors" in the next mini observation session. The final, full observation is a formal observation consisting of a full class or lesson observation.

A minimum of three (3) observations shall be conducted by the supervisor, including the one (1) required full observation; at least one (1) mini observation is to be conducted by the peer observer and must occur in the final year of the summative cycle prior to the full observation by the supervisor (for teachers on a three (3) year summative cycle, the peer observation should occur in the fall by Dec. 15 th

of the summative year). The final, full observation in the summative evaluation cycle must be conducted by the supervisor and is to be an observation of a complete lesson or class period. All observations must be made with the teacher’s full awareness and must be documented in CIITS. Additional observations may be made by the supervisor at her/his discretion or at the request of the teacher.

Non-tenured teachers or tenured teachers who are on a one-year professional growth and evaluation cycle will have all four (4) observations during that summative year, with one of the three mini observations completed by a peer observer and the final, full observation completed by the supervisor. Tenured teachers shall have a summative evaluation at least once every three (3) years. Tenured teachers who are on a three-year evaluation cycle will have all four (4) observations over the course of that cycle, with a mini observation by the supervisor in each of the first two (2) years of the cycle, and a mini observation by a peer observer and a full observation by the supervisor in the third / summative year of the cycle. If extenuating circumstances do not allow for a mini observation to occur in a formative year, then the mini observation will be included in the following year, with at most 3 principal observations during the summative year.

Observation Conferencing and Schedule

A post-conference must be held between the observer and the teacher observed for all observations, whether mini or full, within five (5) working days of the observation. The summative evaluation conference shall be held between the supervisor and the teacher observed at the end of the summative evaluation cycle, whether a one-year or three-year cycle. Pre-conferences are not required, but may occur at the request of the supervisor or teacher. Observations may begin 30 days after the evaluation training takes place within the first month of reporting to work.

All observations during the evaluation cycle may occur according to the dates set in the following schedule:

First (mini) observation and post-conference Completed by October 15

Second (mini) observation and post-conference Completed by December 15

Third (mini) observation and post-conference Completed by February 15

Final (full) observation and post-conference Completed by April 15

13 | P a g e

Observer Certification

To ensure consistency of observations, all evaluators must successfully complete the state-approved certification process through the current approved state platform (currently, Teachscape Observation Proficiency Training). The system allows observers to develop a deep understanding of how the four domains of the Kentucky Framework for Teaching (FfT) are applied in observation. There are three (3) sections of the proficiency system:

Framework for Teaching Observer TrainingFramework for Teaching Scoring PracticeFramework for Teaching Proficiency Assessment

The cycle for observation certification established is as follows [NOTE: This evaluation certification cycle mirrors the existing 704 KAR 3:370 related to initial and update training for certified evaluators]:

Year 1 CertificationYear 2 CalibrationYear 3 CalibrationYear 4 Recertification

Only supervisors who have passed the proficiency assessment can conduct mini and full observations for the purpose of evaluation. In the event that a supervisor has not yet completed the proficiency assessment, or if the supervisor does not pass the assessment, the district will provide the following support:

Coaching from a district / building administrator who has successfully passed the assessment. This person will serve as a mentor until the evaluator achieves proficiency. If the evaluator is unsuccessful in a second attempt, the mentor will collaborate with him/her to develop a plan for professional learning to be completed before a third assessment attempt is made.

In order to ensure that all teachers have access to a certified observer, in cases where the immediate supervisor is not certified though the proficiency system and is therefore unable to conduct observations during the observation window, the district will use the following process:

If the immediate supervisor is not certified to evaluate, another trained / certified district administrator or building principal will conduct the observations in collaboration with the immediate supervisor, modeling the process for him/her, and providing feedback for the teacher. Observation data provided by a substitute observer is considered a valid source of evidence only if the supervisor participated (passively) in the observation.

Observer Calibration

14 | P a g e

As certified observers may tend to experience “drift” in rating accuracy over time, a calibration process will be completed each year where certification is not required (see chart under Observer Certification). The KDE-outlined process for calibration (currently offered through Teachscape, the state approved technology) will be completed in years two (2) and three (3) after certification. Calibration ensures ongoing accuracy in scoring teaching practice, an awareness of the potential risk for rater bias, and that observers regularly refresh their knowledge of the training and scoring practice. The complete state-approved re-certification process must be completed by every certified observer after year 3.

Peer Observation

A Peer Observer will observe, collect, share evidence, and provide feedback to teachers for formative purposes only. The Peer Observers will not score a teacher’s practice, nor will peer observation data be shared with anyone other than the Observee unless permission is granted. All required peer observations must be documented in CIITS. Principals will know only that the observation took place, via the Observation Progress Report in CIITS; specific observation data from the peer observation is not accessible to the principal and will not be used in determining any rating of professional practice. A peer observation and post-conference will take place in each evaluatee’s summative year, to be completed prior to the full observation by the immediate supervisor (by December 15th for teachers in a three-year summative cycle); additional peer observations may take place at any time in the evaluation cycle at the teacher’s request.

Peer Observers All Peer Observers participating during the summative year observations will complete the state approved training for peer observation once every three (3) years. Each principal will select a minimum of five (5) teachers to be peer observers at her/his school. Teachers selected as peer observers must have at least 3 years’ successful teaching experience and should have a demonstrated understanding of effective teaching and learning, as well as the interpersonal skills to coach colleagues in improving their practice. Teachers on a three-year evaluation cycle may select the peer observer they prefer from among the pool of peer observers at their school. Teachers on a one-year evaluation cycle may submit their preferred peer observer to the principal, but must have principal approval of their choice. Peer observer selections must be submitted to the principal by September 15th of the summative year.

Student Voice

The Student Voice Survey is a confidential, on-line survey that collects student feedback on specific aspects of the classroom experience and teaching practice.

All teachers will participate in the state-approved Student Voice Survey annually with a minimum of one (1) identified group of students. At the elementary level, that group of students shall be the students in the teacher’s homeroom class or the students on that teacher’s caseload. At the middle school and high school levels, each principal will determine which period of the day the students will take the survey. Teachers who do not have a class during that period will have their students take the survey during another period as determined by the principal. Collaborating teachers may have the students in the collaborating class complete the survey for them. Teachers shared between schools shall have the designated group of students at the school which serves as their home school for evaluation take the survey for them according to that school’s schedule. All students who have been enrolled for at least 15 days will have the opportunity to complete the survey for at least one of their teachers.

15 | P a g e

The state-approved Student Voice Survey will be administered at each school, during regular school hours, within the state-designated calendar window. All teachers and appropriate administrative staff must read, understand, and sign the district’s Student Voice Survey Confidentiality Agreement (See Appendix E). The Assistant Superintendent will serve as the District Student Voice Survey Point-of-Contact. Survey results will be made available to the teacher through CIITS and will be used to inform Professional Practice; formative years’ data will be used to inform Professional Practice in the summative year. Survey data results will be available only when 10 or more students respond.

Student Growth

The student growth measure is comprised of two (2) possible contributions: a state contribution and a local contribution. All teachers will create a local contribution Student Growth Goal. The state contribution affords an additional piece of data that pertains only to teachers of the following content areas and grade levels participating in state assessments: Reading and/or Math in grades 4-8. The state contribution is reported using Student Growth Percentiles (SGP). The local contribution uses the Student Growth Goal Setting Process and applies to all teachers in the district, including those who receive SGP. The following graphic provides a means for determining which teachers receive which contributions:

State Contribution – Student Growth Percentiles (SGP)

The state contribution for student growth is a rating based on each student’s rate of change compared to other students with a similar test score history (“academic peers”) expressed as a percentile. The median SGP for a

16 | P a g e

Do you teach students in grades 4-

8?

Do you teach in the math or reading content areas?

Do your students participate in the

Math or Reading K-PREP Assessment?

LOCAL & STATE CONTRIBUTION

LOCAL CONTRIBUTION

ONLY

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

teacher’s class is compared to that of the state. The scale for determining acceptable growth will be determined by the Kentucky Board of Education and provided to the district by the Kentucky Department of Education. A student can achieve at a low level but still improve relative to his or her academic peers, while another student may achieve well but not improve much from year to year. Thus, SGP provides evidence of improvement even among those with low achievement and ensures our districts will continue to strive to support learning beyond proficiency for high achieving students.

Local Contribution – Student Growth Goals (SGG)

The local contribution for the student growth measure is a rating based on the degree to which a teacher meets the growth goal for a set of students over an identified interval of instruction (i.e. course-long, year-long) as indicated in the teacher’s Student Growth Goal (SGG). All teachers, regardless of grade level and content area, will develop a SGG for inclusion in the student growth measure. T h e SGG will be determined by the teacher in collaboration with the principal using the S.M.A.R.T. goal Rigor Rubric and be grounded in the fundamentals of assessment quality (Clear Purpose, Clear Targets, Sound Design, Effective Communication, and Student Involvement).

Student Growth Goal Criteria:

The SGG is congruent with Kentucky Core Academic Standards and appropriate for the grade level and content area for which it was developed.

The SGG represents or encompasses an enduring skill, process, understanding, or concept that students are expected to

The SGG will allow high- and low-achieving students to adequately demonstrate their knowledge. The SGG provides access and opportunity for all students, including students with disabilities, ELLs, and

gifted/talented students. The SGG will include all students that have been enrolled a minimum of 100 instructional days or 60%

of the instructional time allocated to the course.

Rigor of Student Growth Goals

For the purpose of goal-setting for student growth, rigor means congruency to the standards. In other words, the sources of evidence demonstrate where students are in meeting or exceeding the intent of the standard(s) being assessed. Additionally, growth and proficiency targets included in a student growth goal are challenging for students, but attainable with support. The district developed rigor rubric is organized around the key components of the S.M.A.R.T. goal setting process. The Rigor Rubric provides descriptors that the SGG is a Specific, Measurable goal that is Appropriately aligned with identified standards, that the SGG is a Relevant, results-oriented growth goal for all students and is timebound to a particular instructional interval (course, year). The rigor rubric criteria will assess the SGG components as acceptable or needs revision.

Comparability of Student Growth Goals

Comparability means that data generated from similar classrooms (i.e., those addressing the same standards) would be interpreted in a comparable way (i.e., use of common success criteria/rubric/performance expectations/performance levels) with respect to the intent of the standard. Rubrics based on standards and

17 | P a g e

developed by teams of teachers of the same content or course is a best practice for meeting comparability. The Trimble County Student Growth Goal Assessment Data Rubric, a standards-congruent rubric, will provide an aggregate tool that is comparable and rigorous across grades and subjects within the district.

Assessing the Rigor and Comparability of SGG

To fulfill the criteria of measuring student growth at the local level, the following protocol will be followed:

By October 1st of the current school year all teachers will develop one student growth goal (SGG) as directed below:

o identify an area of need based on baseline data of current students aligned to content standards

o develop one student growth goal (SGG) anchored in baseline data that includes: - a growth target – describe the growth target that 100% of students will achieve- a proficiency target - describe the proficiency target that exceeds the growth target

expectations and identify the percent of students that will achieve this targeto self-assess the SGG using the Trimble County SGG Rigor and Comparability Rubric

- determine that the SGG fits the “acceptable” criteria of rigor - determine that the SGG is comparable among similar classrooms/across district (i.e.

those addressing similar standards) Once the Trimble County Student Growth Goal (SGG) Rigor and Comparability Rubric protocol has been

applied to the SGG it will then be submitted to the principal for approval. Teachers will submit their SGG through CIITS by October 1st at the beginning of the current school year.

Throughout the duration of the SGG, the teacher will: a. provide students a variety of opportunities to demonstrate understanding of the content and

their progress (rubrics, scoring guides, specific feedback etc.). b. analyze assessments that evidence student growth towards the identified SGG throughout the

interval of instruction (course/year)

TRIMBLE COUNTY CERTIFIED EVALUATION PLAN STUDENT GROWTH GOAL (SGG) RIGOR AND COMPARABILITY RUBRIC

PART A: SGG RIGOR RUBRIC

‘SPECIFIC’ ACCEPTABLE NEEDS REVISIONDoes baseline data

identify the SGG area of need?

Does the SGG focus on a specific area of need based on an enduring skill or understanding/ overarching goal?

Identifies an area of need pertaining to current students’ abilities

Identifies a specific area of need, but lacks supporting data for current students

Or is not focused on a specific area of need

Includes growth and proficiency targets that establish and differentiate expected performance for ALL students (e.g. Spec. Ed, GT, ELL etc.)

Includes both a growth target and a proficiency target, but fails to differentiate expected performance for one or both targets, or Includes only a growth or a proficiency target

‘MEASURABLE’ ACCEPTABLE NEEDS REVISIONAre appropriate measures

selected to assess the goal?Anchored in baseline data; identifies

appropriate measures for mid-course, and end of year/course data

Identifies multiple measures that demonstrate where students are in meeting or exceeding the intent of the standard(s) being

Uses measures that fail to clearly demonstrate performance for the identified skill

Or, uses no baseline data or uses irrelevant data

The goal allows students to demonstrate competency of part, but not all aspects of the standards being assessed

18 | P a g e

assessed Or, does not assess the level of competency intended in the standards

‘APPROPRIATE’ ACCEPTABLE NEEDS REVISIONIs the SGG rigorous,

realistic, and standards based?

Does the SGG address critical content or enduring skill?

Congruent to KCAS grade level standards (or international, national, state, local or industry recognized standards) appropriate for the grade level and content area for which it was developed Address critical content, enduring skill(s) which students are expected to master

Congruent to content, but not aligned to grade level standards;

Is not congruent or appropriate for grade level/content area standards

Focuses on a standards-based skill that does not match enduring skill criteria· Goal is too narrow; focusing on a narrow skill or topic· Goal is written in a general context and encompasses too much content· Goal lists multiple enduring skills/overarching goals of adopted state standards

‘RELEVANT’ ACCEPTABLE NEEDS REVISIONIs the SGG results-

oriented and relevant; includes both a growth target and a proficiency target?

Includes growth and proficiency targets that are rigorous for students, but attainable with support

Includes targets that are achievable, but fail to stretch attainability expectations for all students

Includes targets that do not articulate expectations AND/OR targets are not achievable

‘TIME-BOUND’ ACCEPTABLE NEEDS REVISIONDoes the SGG specify an

appropriate instructional interval?

Is appropriate for the instructional interval defined and explicitly states year-long/course-long interval of instruction

Specifies less than/more than a year-long/course-long interval of instruction

Fails to specify an interval of instruction

PART B: COMPARABILITY OF SGG ASSESSMENT DATA ‘SPECIFIC’ Acceptable Needs Revision

Are assessments congruent to the standards identified in the SGG? Aligns all assessment items (performances,

tasks, questions) to the content standards identified in the SGG.

“Loosely” aligned or, there is little to no evidence of congruency of assessment items to the content standards identified in the SGG.

‘MEASURABLE’ Acceptable Needs RevisionAre multiple items used to measure if/when specific standards have been met?

The SGG is assessed using multiple items to determine if/when standards have been ‘met’.

Some of the SGG learning content is assessed using multiple items to determine if/when standards have been ‘met’.

‘APPROPRIATE’ Acceptable Needs RevisionIs the data collected comparable across similar classrooms, subjects, schools across the district?

Uses comparable criteria across similar classrooms (classrooms that address the same standards) to determine progress toward mastery of standards/enduring skills.

For similar classrooms, data collected for the student growth goal does not reflect common criteria used to determine progress.

‘RELEVANT’ Acceptable Needs RevisionAre assessments rigorous but attainable?

Assessment includes test items that are varied in difficulty.

Assessment includes test items that are too low or too high in difficulty.

‘TIME-BOUND’ Acceptable Needs RevisionDuration Assessment includes an adequate amount of

questions to assess student knowledge of the critical content/enduring skill.

Assessment includes a limited or excessive amount of questions to assess student knowledge of the critical content/enduring skill.

19 | P a g e

Determining Growth for a Single Student Growth Goal

Pre-Test/Post-Test Teachers will use pre- and post-tests to determine the growth identified in their goal. These

assessments can be comparable or identical versions. If the identical test is to be used as the post-test it may be used only for the mid-course update so that students do not show improvement over time simply due to familiarity with the assessment.

For example, a music teacher could evaluate a student’s knowledge of scales using a performance task at the beginning of the year and then again at the end of the year. If the teacher asked students to perform the same four scales, this would be an example of identical assessments; if he or she asked the students to perform different scales, this would be a comparable version of the same assessment. Assessment used in this option must meet the district assurance of rigor and comparability as defined in the previous section.

For example, a writing assessment that uses an identical prompt may result in more accurate growth scores, but students may not benefit from repeating the exact same writing assignment. Thus, the prompt for the two writing assessments may be different.

Measures in Determining Student Growth Rating as Low, Expected, or HighThe student growth rating will be determined by the identified components of the Student Growth Goal with a confidence interval of +/- 10%.

Growth Target: 100% of all identified students will achieve growth based on the rubric of performance levels in the SGG

Proficiency target: the percent of the students that will meet the proficiency target based on the proficiency rubric in the SGG

Points will be awarded as follows: 3 points for meeting or exceeding the growth goal 3 points for meeting or exceeding the proficiency goal 1 point for not meeting the growth goal 1 point for not meeting the proficiency goal

After evaluating growth based on student results the following protocol will be applied:SGG growth points added to SGG proficiency points divided by the two goals identified in the SGG will yield the student growth rating.

Average of 3 – High Average of 2 – Expected Average of 1 – Low

The following Student Growth Goal Rating Outcomes chart provides the possible outcomes:

Student Growth Goal (SGG) Rating OutcomesMet Identified SGG Growth Goal Met Identified SGG Proficiency

GoalStudent Growth Rating

Yes – 3 points Yes – 3 Points Average of 3 - HIGHYes – 3 points No - 1 point Average of 2 - EXPECTEDNo - 1 point Yes – 3 point Average of 2 - EXPECTED

20 | P a g e

No – 1 point No - 1 point Average of 1 - LOW

Determining the Overall Performance Category

Evaluators are responsible for determining an Overall Performance Category for each teacher at the conclusion of their summative evaluation year. The Overall Performance Category is informed by the educator’s ratings on professional practice and student growth. The evaluator determines the Overall Performance Category based on professional judgment informed by evidence that demonstrates the educator's performance against the Domains, district-developed rubrics (see local contribution for student growth), and decision rules that establish a common understanding of performance thresholds to which all educators are held. What follows is a description of each component used to inform the Overall Performance Category.

Rating Professional Practice

The Kentucky Framework for Teaching stands as the critical rubric for providing educators and evaluators with concrete descriptions of practice associated with specific domains. Each element describes a discrete behavior or related set of behaviors that educators and evaluators can prioritize for evidence-gathering, feedback, and eventually, evaluation. Evaluators will organize and analyze evidence for each individual educator based on these concrete descriptions of practice.

Supervisors and educators will be engaged in ongoing dialogue throughout the evaluation cycle. The process concludes with the evaluator’s analysis of evidence and the final assessment of practice in relation to performance described under each Domain at the culmination of an educator’s cycle.

The Framework for Teaching is designed to support student achievement and professional practice through the domains of Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities. The Framework also includes themes such as equity, cultural competence, high expectations, developmental appropriateness, accommodating individual needs, effective technology integration, and student assumption of responsibility. It provides structure for feedback for continuous improvement through individual goals that target student and professional growth, thus supporting overall school improvement. Evidence supporting a teacher’s professional practice will be situated within one or more of the four domains of the framework. Performance will be rated for each component according to four performance levels: Ineffective, Developing, Accomplished, and Exemplary. The summative rating will be a holistic representation of performance, combining data from multiple sources of evidence across each domain.

21 | P a g e

Framework for Teaching (Charlotte Danielson)Domain 1: Planning and Preparation 1a Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy 1b Demonstrating Knowledge of Students 1c Setting Instructional Outcomes 1d Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources 1e Designing Coherent Instruction 1f Designing Student Assessments

Domain 2: Classroom Environment 2a Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport 2b Establishing a Culture for Learning 2c Managing Classroom Procedures 2d Managing Student Behavior 2e Organizing Physical Space

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities 4a Reflecting on Teaching 4b Maintaining Accurate Records 4c Communicating with Families 4d Participating in a Professional Community 4e Growing and Developing Professionally 4f Showing Professionalism

Domain 3: Instruction 3a Communicating With Students 3b Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques 3c Engaging Students in Learning 3d Using Assessment in Instruction 3e Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

The use of professional judgment based on multiple sources of evidence promotes a more holistic and comprehensive analysis of practice, rather than over-reliance on one individual data point or rote calculation of practice based on predetermined formulas. Evaluators will also take into account how educators respond to or apply additional supports and resources designed to promote student learning, as well as their own professional growth and development. Finally, professional judgment gives evaluators the flexibility to account for a wide variety of factors related to individual educator performance, such as: school-specific priorities that may drive practice in one domain, an educator’s number of goals, experience level and/or leadership opportunities, and contextual variables that may impact the learning environment, such as unanticipated outside events or trauma.

Required Products of Practiceo observations conducted by certified supervisor observer(s)o student voice survey(s)o self-reflection and professional growth plans

Additional Products of Practice - evidence provided in support of educator practice may include anything from the following list (not a comprehensive list) if documented in CIITS:

Program Review evidence team-developed curriculum units lesson plans communication logs timely, targeted feedback from mini or informal observations student data records student work student formative and/or summative course evaluations/feedback minutes from PLCs teacher reflections and/or self-reflections teacher interviews teacher committee or team contributions parent engagement surveys records of student and/or teacher attendance video lessons engagement in professional organizations action research Others – as agreed upon by supervisor and evaluatee

All components and sources of evidence related supporting an educator’s professional practice and student growth ratings will be completed and recorded in the Educator Development Suite (EDS) housed within the Continuous Instructional Improvement Technology System (CIITS).

I = Ineffective, D = Developing, A = Accomplished, E = Exemplary

22 | P a g eDOMAIN 4: [I,D,A,E]

DOMAIN 3: [I,D,A,E]

DOMAIN 2: [I,D,A,E]PROFESSIONAL

JUDGMENT

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

DOMAIN 1: [I,D,A,E]

DOMAIN RATINGS

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

REQUIRED• Observation• Student Voice• Professional Growth Plans and Self

ReflectionOPTIONAL

• Other Sources of evidence–as identified in the CEP

The evaluator must provide a summative rating for each domain based on evidence. All ratings must be recorded in CIITS.

Rating Overall Student Growth

The overall Student Growth Rating is a result of a combination of professional judgment and the district-developed instrument for summative student growth ratings. The designed instrument aids the supervisor in applying professional judgment to multiple evidences of student growth over time. The Student Growth Rating must include data from SGG and SGP (where available), and will be considered in a three year cycle (when available).

SGG and SGP (when available) will be used to determine overall Student Growth Rating Three years of student growth data (when available) will be averaged to determine overall

Student Growth Rating when and if available.

LOW = 1EXPECTED = 2HIGH = 3

The sum of all ratings available will then be divided by the total number of ratings received. The average of all SGG ratings will result in an overall student growth rating as follows:

LOW = 1.0 – 1.49EXPECTED = 1.5 – 2.49HIGH = 2.5 – 3.0

DETERMINING THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY

An educator’s Overall Performance Category is determined by the following steps:1. Determine the individual domain ratings through the use of sources of evidence and professional

judgment. 2. Apply State Decisions Rules for determining an educator’s Professional Practice.

23 | P a g e

REQUIRED• Observation• Student Voice• Professional Growth Plans and Self

ReflectionOPTIONAL

• Other Sources of evidence–as identified in the CEP

PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND

DISTRICT-DETERMINED

RUBRICS

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT GROWTH

STUDENT GROWTH [H, E, L]

STUDENT GROWTH RATING

STUDENT GROWTH

STATE• SGPs• State Predefined Cut Scores

LOCAL• SGG• Maintain current process• Rate on H/E/L

3. Implement the Overall Performance Category process for determining effectiveness.

MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’S PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING**

IF . . . THEN . . .

Domains 2 AND 3 rated INEFFECTIVE Professional Practice Rating shall be INEFFECTIVE

Domain 2 OR 3 rated INEFFECTIVE Professional Practice Rating shall be DEVELOPING OR INEFFECTIVE

Domain 2 OR 3 rated DEVELOPING Professional Practice Rating Shall NOT be EXEMPLARY

Domain 1 OR 4 rated INEFFECTIVE Professional Practice Rating Shall NOT be EXEMPLARY

Two Domains are rated DEVELOPING, and two Domains are rated ACCOMPLISHED

Professional Practice Rating shall be ACCOMPLISHED

Two Domains are rated DEVELOPING, and two Domains are rated EXEMPLARY

Professional Practice Rating shall be ACCOMPLISHED

Two Domains are rated ACCOMPLISHED, and two Domains are rated EXEMPLARY

Professional Practice Rating shall be EXEMPLARY

MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR DETERMING AN EDUCATOR’S OVERALL STUDENT GROWTH RATING(AS DEFINED UNDER OVERALL STUDENT GROWTH RATING)

HIGH 2.5 – 3.0

EXPECTED 1.5 – 2.49

LOW 1.0 – 1.49

Apply State Overall Decision Rules for determining educator’s Overall Performance Category

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EDUCATOR’SOVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY

PROFESSIONALPRACTICE RATING

STUDENTGROWTH TREND

RATINGOVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY

Exemplary High OR Expected EXEMPLARY

Low ACCOMPLISHED

24 | P a g e

AccomplishedHigh EXEMPLARY

Expected ACCOMPLISHED

Low DEVELOPING

Developing High ACCOMPLISHED

Expected OR Low DEVELOPING

Ineffective High DEVELOPNG

Expected OR Low INEFFECTIVE

Professional Growth Plan and Summative Cycle

Based on the overall Professional Practice rating and Student Growth rating, supervisors will help tenured teachers determine the type of Professional Growth Plan and the length of the summative cycle. The Type and Length of Educator Plan for Tenured Teachers matrix determines the evaluation cycle for tenured teachers. Non-tenured teachers will be evaluated using the same matrix, except for duration of plan which will be annually, and growth plans determined. The Type and Length of Educator Plan for Tenured Teachers matrix details the type and length of the plan based on ratings as defined in the following chart:

25 | P a g e

STUDENT GROWTH TREND RATING

For example, in determining the ‘Type and Length of Educator Plan for Tenured Teachers’, if a teacher is ranked as developing in performance (The Professional Practice Rating) and has low student growth (Student Growth Trend Rating) then they will be put on a one year directed cycle as determined by the matrix. Another example would be if a teacher is ranked as ‘developing’ in performance and has ‘expected’ student growth then they will be put on a three year self-directed cycle (center box).

Appeals Process (See Appendix D)

In accordance with Board policy 03.18, any certified employee who believes that he or she was not fairly evaluated on the summative evaluation may appeal to the district evaluation appeals panel within five (5) working days of the receipt of the summative evaluation.

Appeal may be made regarding the substance or procedures used in the evaluation process. Ratings based on professional judgments may not be appealed.

See Appendix D: Board Policy 03.18, Board Procedure 03.18AP.11, and Evaluation Appeal Form 03.18AP.21

Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PPGES)

Professional Growth and Effectiveness System – Principal and Assistant Principal

The vision for the Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES) is to have every school led by an effective principal. The goal is to create a fair and equitable system to measure principal effectiveness and act as a catalyst for professional growth.

Roles and Definitions

1. Administrator: An administrator who devotes the majority of employed time in the role of principal or district administrator, for which administrative certification is required by the Education Professional Standards Board pursuant to 16 KAR 3:050

2. Evaluator: The immediate supervisor of certified personnel, who has satisfactorily completed all required evaluation training and, if evaluating teachers, observation certification training.

3. Evaluatee: District/School certified personnel being evaluated.4. Professional Growth Plan: An individualized plan that is focused on improving professional

practice and leadership skills; is aligned with educator performance standards and student performance standards; is developed using a variety of sources and types of student data that reflect student needs and strengths, educator data, and school/district data; and is produced in consultation with the evaluator.

5. Self-Reflection: The process by which certified personnel assess the effectiveness and adequacy of their knowledge and performance for the purpose of identifying areas for professional learning and growth.

26 | P a g e

6. Val-Ed 360°: An assessment that provides feedback of a principal’s learning-centered behaviors by using input from the principal, her/his supervisor, and teachers. The survey looks at core components (the what), as well as key processes (the how).

7. TELL Kentucky: A working conditions survey of all school staff conducted every two years to provide feedback on specific aspects of the school’s work environment.

8. For Additional Definitions and Roles, please see 704KAR 3:370 Professional Growth and Effectiveness System

PPGES Timeline

Explanation and Review of Certified Evaluation Plan and Processes with Administration and Staff Within one calendar month after reporting to work

Reflective Practice / Professional Growth PlanStudent Growth Goals and

Working Conditions Goal (TELL)Completed by Oct. 1st

1st site visit and post-conference; Completed by Dec.15th

Mid-year review of goals Completed by Jan. 30th

27 | P a g e

VAL-ED or TELL KY Survey Completed in March

2nd site visit and post- conference Completed by Apr. 15th

Summative Evaluation (including end-of-year review of PGP and Student Growth Goals) Completed by Apr. 30th

28 | P a g e

29 | P a g e

Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Components – Overview and Summative Model

All principals and assistant principals will be evaluated annually.

The following graphic outlines the summative model for the Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System.

Evaluators will look for trends and patterns in practice across multiple types of evidence and apply their professional judgment based on this evidence when evaluating a principal. The role of evidence and professional judgment in the determination of ratings on standards and an overall rating is paramount in this process; however, professional judgment is grounded in a common framework: the Principal Performance Standards.

30 | P a g e

PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT &

STATE-DETERMINED DECISION RULES

establishing a common understanding of

performance thresholds to which all

educators are held

STATE CONTRIBUTION: High, Expected, Low Growth Rating

PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND

DISTRICT-DETERMINED

RUBRICS

LOCAL CONTRIBUTION: High, Expected, Low Growth Rating

STUDENT GROWTH RATINGS

PERFORMANCE TOWARD

TRAJECTORYAND

Local Contribution –

Student Growth Goals

(SGGs) based on school need

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT

GROWTH

State Contribution – ASSIST/NGL Goal

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

STANDARD 1: Instructional LeadershipSTANDARD 2: School Climate

STANDARD 3: Human Resource Management

STANDARD RATINGS

PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT

STUDENT GROWTH

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

OVERALL PERFORMANCE

CATEGORY

STANDARD 4: Organizational Management

Professional Growth Plans and Self- ReflectionSite-VisitsVal-Ed 360°Working Conditions Growth Goal

STANDARD 5: Communication & Community RelationsSTANDARD 6: Professionalism

Principal Performance Standards (See Appendix B)

The Principal Performance Standards are designed to support student achievement and professional best-practice through the standards of Instructional Leadership; School Climate; Human Resource Management; Organizational Management; Communication & Community Relations; and Professionalism. Included in the Performance Standards are Performance Indicators that provide examples of observable, tangible behaviors that provide evidence of each standard. The Performance Standards provide the structure for feedback for continuous improvement through individual goals that target professional growth, thus supporting overall student achievement and school improvement. Evidence supporting a principal’s professional practice will be situated within one or more of the 6 standards. Performance will be rated for each standard according to the four performance levels: Ineffective, Developing, Accomplished, and Exemplary. It is important to note that the expected performance level is “Accomplished,” but a good rule of thumb is that it is expected that a principal will “live in Accomplished but occasionally visit Exemplary”. The summative rating will be a holistic representation of performance, combining data from multiple sources of evidence across each standard.

The use of professional judgment based on multiple sources of evidence promotes a more holistic and comprehensive analysis of practice, rather than over-reliance on one individual data point or rote calculation of practice based on predetermined formulas. Evaluators will also take into account how principals respond to or apply additional supports and resources designed to promote student learning, as well as their own professional growth and development. Finally, professional judgment gives evaluators the flexibility to account for a wide variety of factors related to individual principal performance. These factors may include school-specific priorities that may drive practice in one standard, an educator’s number of goals, experience level and/or leadership opportunities, and contextual variables that may impact the learning environment, such as unanticipated outside events or traumas.

Evaluators must use the following categories of evidence in determining overall ratings:

Professional Growth Planning and Self-ReflectionSite-VisitsVal-Ed 360°Working Conditions Goal (Based on TELL KY Survey results)State and Local Student Growth Goal data

Evaluators may use the following categories of evidence in determining overall ratings:

Other Measures of Student LearningProducts of PracticeOther Sources (e.g. surveys)

31 | P a g e

Professional Practice

Professional Growth Plan and Self-Reflection

The Professional Growth Plan will address realistic, focused, and measurable professional goals. The plan will connect data from multiple sources including site-visit conferences, data on student growth and achievement, and professional growth needs identified through self-assessment and reflection. Self-reflection improves principal practice through ongoing, careful consideration of the impact of leadership practice on student growth and achievement. In collaboration with district administrators, principals will identify explicit goals which will drive the focus of professional growth activities, support, and on-going reflection.

Reflective practices and professional growth planning are iterative processes. The principal (1) reflects on his or her current growth needs based on multiple sources of data and identifies an area or areas for focus; (2) collaborates with his or her supervisor to develop a professional growth plan and action steps; (3) implements the plan; (4) regularly reflects on the progress and impact of the plan on his or her professional practice; (5) modifies the plan as appropriate; (6) continues implementation and ongoing reflection; (7) and, finally, conducts a summative reflection on the degree of goal attainment and the implications for next steps.

Self-reflection improves principal practice through ongoing, careful consideration of the impact of leadership practice on student growth and achievement. The Professional Growth Plan is the vehicle through which the outcomes of self-reflection are organized, articulated as specific goals, contextualized in a support framework, and monitored through pre-determined methods. Together, the multiple measures of self-reflection and professional growth planning provide critical information in determining a rating for each standard.

All principals and assistant principals will participate in self-reflection and professional growth planning each year. The Self-Reflection process and development of the PGP are to be completed in CIITS by every principal and assistant principal annually no later than October 1st.

Site-Visits

Site visits are a method by which the superintendent or her/his designee may gain insight into the principal’s practice in relation to the Principal Performance Standards. During a site visit, the superintendent / designee will discuss various aspects of the job with the principal, and will use the principal’s responses to collect evidence of proficiency in each of the Principal Performance Standards and progress on the PGP and SGGs, as well as to determine issues to further explore with the faculty and staff. Additionally, the principal may explain the successes and trials the school community has experienced in relation to school improvement.

Site visits are to be conducted by the superintendent /designee at least twice each year, once each semester. The fall site visit is to be completed no later than December 15 th; the spring site visit is to be completed in time to be utilized in the principal’s summative conference, which is to be completed no later than April 15th. Formal site-visits are not required for the assistant principal.

32 | P a g e

A post-conference will be held within five (5) work days of the site visit, in which the superintendent / designee will provide specific feedback to the principal on each of the Principal Performance Standards.

VAL-ED 360°

The VAL-ED 360° is an assessment that provides feedback on a principal’s learning-centered behaviors by using input from the principal, her/his supervisor, and teachers. All teachers will participate in the VAL-ED 360°. The results of the survey will be included as a source of data to inform each principal’s Professional Practice rating.

The VAL–ED 360° is to be conducted every two years in the school year that the Working Conditions Survey (currently the TELL Kentucky Survey) is not administered. The survey will be administered in the spring, during the month of March. The superintendent/designee will serve as the district point-of-contact for the VAL-ED 360° and will oversee the administration of the survey. Only the principal and superintendent/designee will have access to the results of the survey. Assistant principals do not participate in the VAL-ED 360°.

Working Conditions Goal (Based on TELL KY) Goal inherited by Assistant Principal

Principals are responsible for setting a 2-year Working Conditions Growth Goal based on the most recent TELL Kentucky Survey. The principal’s effort to accomplish the Working Conditions Growth Goal is a powerful way to enhance professional performance and, in turn, positively impact school culture and student success.

Working Conditions Goal

Number of Goals Principals are responsible for setting one (1) 2-year Working Conditions Goal that is based on information in the most recent TELL Kentucky Survey and any additional relevant data which might include VAL-ED surveys, school level documentation, etc. The principal, in collaboration with the superintendent/designee, will review the results from the TELL Kentucky Survey. 1. Principals will identify a TELL survey question that indicates a need for growth and then identify related TELL survey questions that may affect results. 2. Once identified, these questions will be connected to one or more of the Principal Performance Standards. 3. The principal will develop a Working Conditions Growth Goal statement that will identify a measurable target to be addressed during the next 2 school years. 4. A rubric will be developed by the principal and superintendent that will set the goal for Accomplished. The rubric will also establish what will constitutes each level of achievement of the goal (ineffective, developing, accomplished, or exemplary). 5. The steps the principal will take to accomplish the established goal will then be prioritized. 6. Ongoing reflection and modification of the strategies will occur as needed.

33 | P a g e

Working Conditions Goal Rubric

The rubric will be a collaborative effort between the principal and superintendent/supervisor using the categories of Ineffective, Developing, Accomplished, and Exemplary. The rating scale for the rubric will reflect growth toward the goal with a + or – 10% confidence interval.Example: Exemplary: Above Accomplished Goal Accomplished: + or - 10% of goal Developing: baseline set for the goal Ineffective: below the baseline

Example-A principal has identified a WCG area and has set a goal of increase from 30% to 60% agreement on the identified question(s). The rubric with a built in range of + or - 10% would be:Exemplary: Above 70% Agreement Accomplished: 50-69% Agreement Developing: 31-49% Agreement Ineffective: 30% or below Agreement *See the chart below

Mid-Point Review During mid-year review, principals may choose for one or more of the following as evidence of growth:

Engage staff in informal conversations that provide feedback on the progress of meeting the WCG.

Conduct a sample survey using identified questions from TELL (3-5) as an interim measure of growth. Principal will use results to determine if growth has occurred according to the WCG.

Use results for a variety of sources to linked to TELL Data questions that support growth according to the WCG

Additional Surveys or Evidence

Principals can choose to complete on-line surveys from Survey Monkey, paper/pencil surveys, etc. to measure growth in their WCG.

PRINCIPAL’S WORKING CONDITIONS GROWTH GOAL (Two Year Goal Based on Tell Kentucky Survey Results)

WORKING CONDITIONS GROWTH GOAL RUBRICIneffective Developing Accomplished Exemplary

_____% and below _____% to _____% _____% to _____% _____% and aboveWORKING CONDITIONS GOAL ACTION PLAN

34 | P a g e

Working ConditionsWhat do I want to change about my leadership or role that will effectively impact working conditions in my school and their impact on student learning?

Strategies/ActionsWhat will I need to do in order to impact the target standard and target question(s)? How will I apply what I have learned?How will I accomplish my goal?

Resources/SupportWhat resources will I need to complete my plan?What support will I need?

Targeted Completion Date

When will I complete each identified strategy/ action?

Products of Products of Practice/Other Sources of Evidence

Principals/Assistant Principals may provide additional evidence to support assessment of their own professional practice. This evidence should yield information related to the principal’s/assistant principal’s practice within the Principal Performance Standards.

SBDM MinutesFaculty Meeting Agendas and MinutesDepartment/Grade Level Agendas and MinutesPLC Agendas and MinutesLeadership Team Agendas and MinutesWalk-through documentationBudgetsEILA/Professional Learning experience documentationSurveysProfessional Organization membershipsParent/Community engagement surveysParent/Community engagement events documentationSchool schedulesOther: Describe

STUDENT GROWTH*

The following sections provide a detailed overview of the various sources of evidence used to inform Student Growth Ratings. At least one (1) of the Student Growth Goals set by the Principal must address gap populations. Assistant Principals will inherit the SGGs (both state and local contributions) of the Principal.

The Student Growth measure is comprised of two contributions: a STATE contribution and a LOCAL contribution. Both Goals are inherited by the Assistant Principal and at least one goal must be based on Gap Population. The local goal may be developed to parallel the State Contribution.

STATE CONTRIBUTION – ASSIST/Next Generation Learners (NGL) Goal Based on Trajectory (Goal inherited by Assistant Principal)

35 | P a g e

The principal will collaborate with the Superintendent/designee to determine the grade appropriate assist goal, specific strategies, and the interim trajectory with the state target as a minimum. Principals are responsible for setting at least one student growth goal that is tied directly to the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan located in ASSIST. The school report card reports trajectory data under the Delivery Target Tab and also through the link to School Trend data. The superintendent/designee and the principal will meet to discuss the trajectory for the goal and to establish the year’s goal that will help reach the long-term trajectory target. New goals are identified each year based on the ASSIST goals. The goal should be revised annually with the intent of improving student achievement and reaching the long term goals.

Determining the high, expected, or low growth for the principal’s state growth goal will be based on the following information with a +/- 10% confidence interval:

3 points for exceeding the percent proficient/distinguished trajectory 2 points for meeting percent proficient/distinguished trajectory 1 point for not meeting the percent proficient/distinguished delivery target

For example, if the goal was set that 80% of the gap population would reach proficient/distinguished then the following percentages would result in high, expected or low growth.

Example of H,E,L Growth (If Trajectory Target was 80% P/D)Low Expected High

69% or Below 70%-90% 90% and above

LOCAL CONTRIBUTION – Based on School Need (Goal inherited by Assistant Principal) as evidenced by Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Professional Growth Planning (APPENDIX)

The local Student Growth Goal shall be based on school need and may be developed parallel to the State Contribution or with a different focus. It shall be centered on gap population unless the State Contribution is gap based.

Each principal will be required to develop one (1) Local Growth Goal. The Local Growth Goal process includes: Determining needs based on multiple data sources if available Creating a specific growth goal grounded in baseline data Creating and implementing leadership and management strategies Monitoring progress through on-going data collection Creating a growth goal rubric Determining goal attainment based on the growth goal rubric Developing the goal using the Trimble County SGG Rigor Rubric

The Local Growth Goal shall be based on actions that can be taken by the principal to impact results as opposed to actions assigned to others by the principal and shall be connected to other school/district initiatives where possible.

Measures in Determining Student Growth Rating as Low, Expected, or High

The student growth rating will be determined by the identified components of the Principal’s Student Growth Goal with a confidence interval of +/- 10%. Points will be awarded as follows:

3 points for meeting or exceeding the growth goal 1 point for not meeting the growth goal

36 | P a g e

After evaluating growth based on student results the following protocol will be applied:SGG growth points for the State Contribution will be added to SGG growth points for the Local Contribution and divided by the two goals identified in the SGG to yield the student growth rating.

Average of 3 – High Average of 2 – Expected Average of 1 – Low

The following Student Growth Goal Rating Outcomes chart provides the possible outcomes:

Student Growth Goal (SGG) Rating OutcomesMet Identified SGG State

Contribution Growth GoalMet Identified SGG Local

Contribution Growth GoalStudent Growth Rating

Yes – 3 points Yes – 3 Points Average of 3 - HIGHYes – 3 points No - 1 point Average of 2 - EXPECTEDNo - 1 point Yes – 3 point Average of 2 - EXPECTEDNo – 1 point No - 1 point Average of 1 - LOW

DETERMINING THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY

The Superintendent/designee is responsible for determining an Overall Performance Category for each principal at the conclusion of their summative evaluation year. The Overall Performance Category is informed by the educator’s ratings on professional practice and student growth. The evaluator determines the Overall Performance Category based on professional judgment informed by evidence that demonstrates the educator's performance against the Standards, district-developed rubrics, and decision rules that establish a common understanding of performance thresholds to which all educators are held. Following is a description of each component used to inform the Overall Performance Category.

RATING OVERALL PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

The overall performance rating will follow the PPGES time for completion of the process annually and will be recorded in CIITS.

The Kentucky Principal Performance Standards stand as the critical rubric for providing principals and evaluators with concrete descriptions of practice associated with specific standards. Each standard describes a behavior or related set of behaviors that principals and evaluators can prioritize for evidence-gathering, feedback, and eventually, evaluation. Evaluators will organize and analyze evidence for each individual principal based on these concrete descriptions of practice.

Evaluators and principals will be engaged in ongoing dialogue throughout the evaluation cycle. The process concludes with the evaluator’s analysis of evidence and the final assessment of practice in relation to performance described under each Standard at the culmination of an educator’s cycle.

37 | P a g e

Overall Student Growth Rating results from a combination of professional judgment and the district-developed instrument. The instrument is designed to aid the evaluator in applying professional judgment to multiple evidences of student growth over time. Student growth ratings must include data from both the local and state contributions.

Timeline for rating Professional Practice will be a minimum of two reviews conducted annually. The mid-year will be conducted by the supervisor/designee by January 30th and the summative review will be conducted by April 15th of each year.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A PRINCIPAL’S or ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RATING

IF THENPrincipal or Assistant Principal is rated EXEMPLARY in at least four of the standards and no standard is rated DEVELOPING or INEFFECTIVE

Professional Practice Rating shall be EXEMPLARY

Principal or Assistant Principal is rated ACCOMPLISHED in at least four standards and no standard is rated INEFFECTIVE

Professional Practice Rating shall be ACCOMPLISHED

Principal or Assistant Principal is rated DEVELOPING in at least five standards

Professional Practice Rating shall be DEVELOPING

Principal or Assistant Principal is rated INEFFECTIVE in two or more standards

Professional Practice Rating shall be INEFFECTIVE

38 | P a g e

STANDARD 5: [I, D, A, E]

STANDARD 6: [I, D, A, E]

STANDARD 4: [I, D, A, E]

STANDARD 3: [I , D, A, E]

STANDARD 2: [I , D, A, E]PROFESSIONAL

JUDGMENT

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

STANDARD 1: [I, D, A, E]

DOMAIN RATINGS

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

REQUIRED• Professional Growth Plans

and Self-Reflection• Site-Visit• Val-Ed 360°/Working

ConditionsOPTIONAL

• Other: District-Determined – Must be identified in the CEP

*RATING OVERALL STUDENT GROWTH

The overall Student Growth Rating will be determined by the results of a combination of professional judgment and the district-developed instrument. The instrument is designed to aid the evaluator in applying professional judgment to multiple evidences of student growth over time. Student growth ratings must include data from both the local and state contributions.

The state and local growth goals will be used to determine the overall Student Growth Rating Three years of student growth data (when available) will be averaged to determine overall

Student Growth Rating when and if available Student Growth Ratings will be recorded in CIITS

The process used to rate student growth includes both state and local contributions. The overall student growth rating will be determined by combining all ratings as described below:

LOW = 1EXPECTED = 2HIGH = 3

The sum of all ratings available will then be divided by the total number of ratings received. The average of all SGG ratings (state and local over potentially three years) will result in an overall student growth rating as follows:

LOW = 1.0 – 1.49EXPECTED = 1.5 – 2.49HIGH = 2.5 – 3.0

39 | P a g e

PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND

DISTRICT-DETERMINED

RUBRICS

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE TO INFORM STUDENT GROWTH

STUDENT GROWTH [H, E, L]

STUDENT GROWTH RATING

STUDENT GROWTH

STATE ASSIST/NGL Goal

LOCAL• Based on school need

Determining Overall Performance Category

A principal’s Overall Performance Category is determined by the evaluator based on the principal’s ratings on each standard, as well as student growth. Evaluators will use the following decision rules for determining the Overall Performance Category:

Exemplary“Shall” have a minimum of a

directed growth plan

“Shall” have a minimum

of a self-directed

growth plan“Shall” have a minimum of a self-directed growth plan

Accomplished

“Shall” have a minimum

of a self-directed

growth plan

Developing“Shall” have a minimum of a

directed growth plan

“Shall” have a minimum of a self-directed growth plan

Ineffective

“Shall” have a minimum of a Corrective Action Plan

(Evaluator Directed)

40 | P a g e

LowGrowth

Expected Growth

HighGrowth

Blue = Exemplary; Green = Accomplished; Yellow = Developing; Red = Ineffective

Principal PGES Cycle

Two Year Cycle of the PPGES

41 | P a g e

Review Accountability and ASSIST Goal Results & Set

SGG/PGP/Working Conditions 2-year Goal

Administer Summative Val-Ed

First Year

End-of-Year Review with Superintendent

Site-Visit by Superintendent

Mid-Year Review with Superintendent

Site-Visit by Superintendent

Administer Formative Val-Ed

Administer TELL Kentucky

Review Accountability and ASSIST Goal Results & Set

SGG/PGP & Update Working Conditions 2-year Goal

Second year

End-of-Year Review with Superintendent

Site-Visit by SuperintendentSite-Visit by Superintendent

Appeals Process (See Appendix D)

In accordance with Board policy 03.18, any certified employee who believes that he or she was not fairly evaluated on the summative evaluation may appeal to the district evaluation appeals panel within five (5) working days of the receipt of the summative evaluation.

Appeal may be made regarding the substance or procedures used in the evaluation process. Ratings based on professional judgments may not be appealed.

See Appendix D: Board Policy 03.18, Board Procedure 03.18AP.11, and Evaluation Appeal Form 03.18AP.21

“Other” Professional Growth and Effectiveness (OPGES)

All certified personnel not evaluated under the TPGES or PPGES systems (above) will be evaluated under the pre-existing Trimble County Certified Personnel Evaluation Plan (see Appendix C).

This includes all library/media specialists, guidance counselors, preschool teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech/language pathologists, instructional coaches, technology resource teachers, district level administrators, etc.

A select group of individuals representing most of the categories listed above will participate in a pilot of the OPGES in 2014-15. Subsequently, this plan will be amended to include the OPGES.

42 | P a g e