Professional Development Activities Needs … List of Figures Figure 1. Percentages of Teachers...

December 2015

Publication Number 15.14

Professional Development

Activities Needs Assessment 2015–2016

i

PICTURE PLACEHOLDER

Executive Summary

This report summarizes the 2014–2015 Austin Independent School District (AISD)

teacher appraisal results and highlights the areas of need for additional professional

development activities in 2015–2016. Appraisal data from both the Texas Professional

Development Appraisal System (PDAS) and AISD’s teacher appraisal system Profes-

sional Pathways for Teachers (PPfT) were included. Areas of need were conceptualized

as the appraisal areas with room for teachers to grow, defined by the percentage of

teachers earning less than the highest possible score on an appraisal strand.

The three PDAS domains with the greatest need for additional professional develop-

ment activities indicated by the percentages of teachers earning less than the highest

possible domain score were:

1) Domain II: Learner-centered instruction (88% below maximum domain score)

2) Domain VIII: Improvement of all students' academic performance (80% below

maximum domain score)

3) Domain I: Active, successful student participation in the learning process (79%

below maximum domain score)

The three PPfT instructional practice strands with the greatest need for additional

professional development activities indicated by the percentages of teachers earning

less than the highest possible strand score were:

1) Differentiation (89% below maximum strand score)

2) Problem solving and critical thinking (87% below maximum strand score)

3) Assessment and feedback (84% below maximum strand score)

The three PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strands with the greatest need

for additional professional development activities indicated by the percentages of

teachers earning less than the highest possible strand score were:

1) Professional development activities and reflection (68% below maximum strand

score)

2) Lesson planning and data use (67% below maximum strand score)

3) Compliance (63% below maximum strand score)

Appraisal results were also explored for each level, years of teaching experience, and

teaching assignment. Subgroups were either in complete alignment with the top three

areas of need for all teachers or were in alignment with two out of three top areas of

need for all teachers.

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... i

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Teacher Appraisal in AISD .......................................................................................................................... 1

Teacher Appraisal Results ........................................................................................................................ 1

Teacher Appraisal Results Disaggregated by School Level .......................................................................... 4

Teacher Appraisal Results Disaggregated by Experience ............................................................................ 6

Teacher Appraisal Results Disaggregated by Teaching Assignment ........................................................... 7

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 11

Appendix A. Overview of Areas of Need ................................................................................................. 13

Appendix B. PDAS Domains ................................................................................................................... 14

Appendix C. PPfT Strands ....................................................................................................................... 18

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Percentages of Teachers Rated Below the Maximum on PDAS Domains .............................................. 2

Figure 2. Percentages of Teachers Rated Below the Maximum on PPfT Instructional Practices Strands ................. 3

Figure 3. Percentages of Teachers Rated Below the Maximum on PPfT Professional Growth and

Responsibilities Strands .......................................................................................................................................... 4

List of Tables

Table 1. Domains II (learner-centered instruction) and VIII (improvement of all students’ academic

performance) were in the top three ranked domains of need for all three school levels .......................................... 5

Table 2. Differentiation and problem solving and critical thinking were in the top three ranked areas

of need in all three school levels ............................................................................................................................. 5

Table 3. Professional development activities and reflection and lesson planning and data use were in the top

three ranked areas of need in all three school levels ............................................................................................... 6

Table 4. Domains II (learner-centered instruction) and I (active, successful student participation in the

learning process) were in the top three ranked domains of need in all four experience bands ................................ 6

Table 5. The top three ranked PPfT instructional practice strands of need were the same regardless

of teaching experience ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Table 6. Among the top three ranked PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strands of

need for all teachers, compliance was the only strand not in the top three areas of need for all

years of teaching experience ................................................................................................................................... 7

Table 7. Domains II (learner-centered instruction) and I (active, successful student participation in

the learning process) were in the top three ranked PDAS domains of need for both core and non-core areas ........ 8

Table 8. Domains II (learner-centered instruction) and I (active, successful student participation

in the learning process) were in the top three ranked PDAS domains of need for both ESL/BE and

non-ESL/BE teaching assignments .......................................................................................................................... 8

Table 9. The top three ranked PPfT instructional practice strands of need were the same for core

and non-core areas .................................................................................................................................................. 9

Table 10. The three top three ranked PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strands of

need were the same for core and non-core areas ..................................................................................................... 9

Table 11. The three top three ranked PPfT instructional practices strands of need were the same

for non-ESL/BE and ESL/BE teaching assignments ............................................................................................... 10

Table 12. Professional development activities and reflection and lesson planning and data use were the

top two ranked PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strands of need for non-ESL/BE

and ESL/BE teaching assignments ......................................................................................................................... 10

Table A.1. Areas of Need, by School Level, Years of Teaching Experience, and Teaching Assignments ................ 13

Table B.1. Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PDAS Domains,

iv

Disaggregated by School Level .............................................................................................................................. 14


Disaggregated by Years of Teaching Experience ................................................................................................... 14


Disaggregated by Teaching Assignment ................................................................................................................ 15


Disaggregated by Core Teaching Areas ................................................................................................................. 17


Disaggregated by ESL/BE Assignment ................................................................................................................... 17

Table C.1. Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PPfT Strands,

Disaggregated by School Level .............................................................................................................................. 18


Disaggregated by Years of Teaching Experience ................................................................................................... 18


Disaggregated by Teaching Assignment ................................................................................................................ 19


Disaggregated by Core Teaching Areas ................................................................................................................. 21


Disaggregated by ESL/BE Assignment ................................................................................................................... 21

1

Introduction

This report summarizes the 2014–2015 Austin Independent School District (AISD)

teacher appraisal results, and highlights the areas of need for additional professional

development activities in 2015–2016.

Teacher Appraisal in AISD

In 2014–2015 teachers in AISD were appraised using one of two systems: the Texas

Professional Development Appraisal System (PDAS)1 or AISD’s teacher appraisal

system Professional Pathways for Teachers (PPfT).2 Although pilot versions of the

district’s own appraisal system have been in place for a few years, the 2014–2015

school year was the first year for PPfT in AISD. During the first year, PPfT was rolled

out in 20 campuses. PPfT will be expanded to 35 campuses in 2015–2016 and then

district-wide in 2016–2017.

Areas of need were conceptu-

alized as the appraisal strands

with room for teachers to

grow, where room-to-grow

was defined as any appraisal

strand score less than the

maximum possible. Thus, the

measure used to determine

areas of need was the percentage of teachers earning less than the highest possible

score on an appraisal strand. Appraisal strands (called domains under PDAS) for all

teachers were examined for the highest percentages of teachers earning less than the

maximum strand scores; percentages were further disaggregated by school level, years

of teaching experience, and teaching assignment area. Within each teacher appraisal

system, strands were rank ordered from area of highest to lowest need (i.e., greatest

percentage of teachers earning less than the maximum strand score to lowest, respec-

tively). The top three ranked appraisal strands were highlighted.

Teacher Appraisal Results

Teacher appraisal results are presented for the eight domains of PDAS, the seven

strands of the instructional practice component of PPfT, and the four strands of the

professional growth and responsibilities component of PPfT. PDAS appraisal data were

examined for 4,221 teachers. PPfT appraisal data were examined for 1,030 teachers.

Overall, greater percentages of teachers received less than the maximum scores on the

PDAS domains and the PPfT instructional practices strands than received less than the

maximum scores on the PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strands. Appen-

dix A provides an overview of areas of need for each level, years of experience, and

teaching assignment. Tables showing sample sizes and the percentages of teachers

scoring below the highest possible score on the appraisal systems are shown in the

appendices for each level, years of experience, and teaching assignment for both PDAS

(Appendix B) and PPfT (Appendix C).

Areas of need were conceptualized as the

appraisal areas with room for teachers to

grow, defined by the percentage of

teachers earning less than the highest

possible score on an appraisal strand.

PICTURE PLACEHOLDER

1 See the AISD Professional Development website for more details http://www.austinisd.org/pd/pdas-evaluation 2 See the AISD PPfT website for more details http://www.austinisd.org/ppft/new-teacher

2

The three PDAS domains with the greatest need for additional professional development

activities indicated by the percentages of teachers earning less than the highest possible

domain score were (Figure 1):

1) Domain II: Learner-centered instruction (88% below maximum domain score)

2) Domain VIII: Improvement of all students' academic performance (80% below

maximum domain score)

3) Domain I: Active, successful student participation in the learning process (79%

below maximum domain score)

Domain II included five dimensions: (a) appropriate goals and objectives; (b) inclusion

of basic knowledge and skills, as well as central themes and concepts, both within the

discipline and with other disciplines; (c) alignment with learning objectives and activ-

ities, student needs, and work and life applications, both within the discipline and

with other disciplines; (d) promoting application of learning through critical thinking

and problem solving; and (e) use of appropriate motivational and instructional strate-

gies that successfully and actively engage students in the learning process.

Domain VIII included five dimensions: (a) diagnosis of student needs and provision of

performance feedback related to all appropriate Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills

(TEKS) and Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test (TAKS) objectives, (b)

alignment of planning and delivery of instruction to all appropriate TEKS/TAKS objec-

tives, (c) collaboration with other faculty and administration to improve TAKS-related

performance of all students on the campus, (d) identification of students who are at

risk and development of appropriate strategies to assist these students, and (e) moni-

toring the attendance of all students and designing interventions to promote regular

attendance.

Domain I included two dimensions: (a) determining if the quantity and quality of ac-

tive student participation in the learning process is evident and (b) challenging stu-

dents through instruction and making connections to work and life applications.

Domain VII: Compliance with policies, operating procedures and require-

ments

Domain II: Learner-centered instruction

Domain VI: Professional development activities

Domain VIII: Improvement of all students' academic performance*

Domain I: Active, successful student participation in the learning process

Domain IV: Management of student discipline, instructional strategies,

time/materials

Domain III: Evaluation and feedback on student progress

Domain V: Professional communication

Figure 1 Percentages of Teachers Rated Below the Maximum on PDAS Domains

Source. AISD PDAS and PPfT teacher appraisal records * Because new teachers did not receive a campus rating in their first year, points earned for campus ratings were excluded from computa-tion of Domain VIII points so that 1st year teachers were evaluated against the same total points as were experienced teachers.

3

The three PPfT instructional practice strands with the greatest need for additional pro-

fessional development activities indicated by the percentages of teachers earning less

than the highest possible strand score were (Figure 2):

1) Differentiation (89% below maximum strand score)

2) Problem solving and critical thinking (87% below maximum strand score)

3) Assessment and feedback (84% below maximum strand score)

Differentiation included three indicators: (a) lesson access, (b) additional support, and

(c) multiple methods of engagement.

Problem solving and critical thinking included three indicators: (a) challenging stu-

dents, (b) thinking critically about the content, and (c) high-level questioning.

Assessment and feedback included five indicators: (a) checking for understanding, (b)

diagnosing misunderstandings, (c) responding to questions, (d) self-assessment, and

(e) feedback.

The three PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strands showing the greatest

need for additional professional development activities indicated by the percentages of

teachers earning less than the highest possible strand score were (Figure 3):

1) Professional development activities and reflection (68% below maximum strand

score)

2) Lesson planning and data use (67% below maximum strand score)

3) Compliance (63% below maximum strand score)

Professional development activities and reflection included six indicators: (a) profes-

sional development opportunities, (b) knowledge of current research based practices,

(c) setting professional goals to enhance strengths and weaknesses, (d) promoting ac-

tivities related to professional reflection, (e) use of professional learning to have an

impact on student achievement, and (f) content knowledge.

Lesson planning and data use included nine indicators: (a) uses a variety of assessment

types to determine students’ strengths and weaknesses; (b) prepares lesson plans when

Differentiation

Classroom climate

Problem solving and critical thinking

Assessment and feedback

Classroom expectations

Student engagement

Routines and procedures

Figure 2 Percentages of Teachers Rated Below the Maximum on PPfT Instructional Practices Strands

Source. AISD PDAS and PPfT teacher appraisal records

4

absent; (c) plans are well-organized and provide time for students to master objectives

and standards; (d) sequences lessons to ensure students’ mastery of standards and ob-

jectives/Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals; (e) selects, creates, or adapts ma-

terials and resources to enrich learning; (f) tracks students’ progress toward meeting

objectives; (g) regularly reflects on effectiveness of lessons and uses insights to improve

practice and students’ learning; (h) analyzes student data to adjust lesson plans and ob-

jectives; and (i) routinely uses assessments to measure students’ mastery of standards

and objectives, and provides multiple ways students can demonstrate mastery.

Compliance included three indicators: (a) ability to follow district and school policies,

(b) ability to comply with state federal laws, and (c) ability to grade and post scores in a

timely manner.

Teacher Appraisal Results Disaggregated by School Level

The areas of need for additional professional development activities for all teachers in

AISD were examined for differences between school levels (i.e., elementary, middle, and

high school). For both PDAS and PPfT, the two areas of greatest need for all teachers

were also top ranked priority areas for all school levels (i.e., in the top three ranked need

areas for each level). Table 1 shows the top three ranked PDAS domains of need for each

level. Table 2 shows the top three PPfT instructional practice strands of need for each

level, and Table 3 shows the top three PPfT professional growth and responsibilities

strands of need for each level.


Relational communication

Professional development activities and reflection

Lesson planning and data use

Compliance

Collaboration and contributions

Figure 3 Percentages of Teachers Rated Below the Maximum on PPfT Professional Growth and Responsibilities Strands

5

PPfT strand All

teachers

Level

ES MS HS

Instructional practices

Differentiation 1 2 2 1

Problem solving and critical thinking 2 1 1 3

Assessment and feedback 3 3 2


Student engagement 3


Classroom climate

Table 2 Differentiation and problem solving and critical thinking were in the top three ranked areas of need in all three school levels. Assessment and feedback was in the top three ranked strands of need in two out of three school levels (i.e., ES and HS); student engagement ranked third for MS while assessment and feedback ranked fourth.

Source. AISD PDAS and PPfT teacher appraisal records Note. ES is elementary school. MS is middle school. HS is high school.

PDAS domain All

teachers

Level

ES MS HS

Domain II: Learner-centered instruction 1 1 1 1

Domain VIII: Improvement of all students' academic performance* 2 3 2 2

Domain I: Active, successful student participation in the learning process 3 2 3

Domain IV: Management of student discipline, instructional strategies, time/materials


Domain V: Professional communication 3


Domain VII: Compliance with policies, operating procedures and requirements

Table 1 Domains II (learner-centered instruction) and VIII (improvement of all students’ academic performance) were in the top three ranked domains of need for all three school levels. Domain I (active, successful student participation in the learning process) was in the top three ranked domains of need in two out of three school levels (i.e., ES and MS); domain V (professional communication) ranked third for HS while domain I ranked fifth.

Source. AISD PDAS and PPfT teacher appraisal records Note. ES is elementary school. MS is middle school. HS is high school. * Because new teachers did not receive a campus rating in their first year, points earned for campus rating were excluded from computation of do-main VIII points so that 1st year teachers were evaluated against the same total points as were experienced teachers.

6

Teacher Appraisal Results Disaggregated by Experience

Appraisal data were grouped into four bands of teaching experience: first year teachers,

teachers with two to five years of experience, teachers with six to ten years of experi-

ence, and teachers with eleven or more years of experience. For both PDAS and PPfT, at

least two out of three areas of greatest need for all AISD teachers were also top ranked

priority areas across all categories of teaching experience. Table 4 shows the top three

ranked PDAS domains of need for each band of teaching experience. Tables 5 and 6

show the top three ranked PPfT instructional practice strands and professional growth

and responsibilities strands of need for each band of teaching experience.

PPfT strand All

teachers

Level

ES MS HS

Professional growth and responsibilities

Professional development activities and reflection 1 1 1 3

Lesson planning and data use 2 2 2 2

Compliance 3 3 1

Collaboration and contributions 3


Table 3 Professional development activities and reflection and lesson planning and data use were in the top three ranked areas of need in all three school levels. Compliance was in the top three ranked strands of need in two out of three school levels (i.e., MS and HS); collabo-ration and contributions ranked third for ES while compliance ranked fourth.


PDAS domain All

teachers

Years of teaching experience

1st year

2-5 years

6-10 years

11+ years

Domain II: Learner-centered instruction 1 1 1 1 1

Domain VIII: Improvement of all students' academic performance* 2 2 2

Domain I: Active, successful student participation in the learning process 3 2 2 2 3

Domain IV: Management of student discipline, instructional strategies, time/materials 3

Domain III: Evaluation and feedback on student progress 3




Table 4 Domains II (learner-centered instruction) and I (active, successful student participation in the learning process) were in the top three ranked domains of need in all four experience bands. Domain VIII (improvement of all students’ academic performance) was in the top three ranked domains of need in two out of four experience bands (i.e., 6 or more years of teaching experience); domain III (evaluation and feedback on student progress) ranked third for 1st year teachers and domain IV (management of student discipline, instructional strategies, time/materials) ranked third for teachers with 2 to 5 years of experience (domain VIII ranked fourth for teachers with 5 or less years of experience).

Source. AISD PDAS and PPfT teacher appraisal records * Because new teachers did not receive a campus rating in their first year, points earned for campus rating were excluded from computation of domain VIII points so that 1st year teachers were evaluated against the same total points as were experienced teachers.

7

Teacher Appraisal Results Disaggregated by Teaching Assignment

Teacher appraisal data were also examined by two teaching assignment groups: core

versus non-core and ESL/BE versus non-ESL/BE. Regardless of teaching assignment,

domains II (learner-centered instruction) and I (active, successful student participation

in the learning process) were in the top three ranked areas of need. Table 7 shows the

top three ranked PDAS domains of need by core area assignment and Table 8 shows the

top three ranked PDAS domains of need by English as a Second Language (ESL) and

bilingual education (BE) assignment.

PPfT strand All

teachers


1st year

2-5 years

6-10 years

11+ years


Differentiation 1 1 1 1 2

Problem solving and critical thinking 2 3 2 2 1

Assessment and feedback 3 2 3 3 3


Student engagement


Classroom climate

Table 5 The top three ranked PPfT instructional practice strands of need were the same regardless of teaching ex-perience.


PPfT strand All

teachers


1st year

2-5 years

6-10 years

11+ years


Professional development activities and reflection 1 2 1 2 1

Lesson planning and data use 2 1 3 1 2

Compliance 3 2 3 3

Collaboration and contributions 3


Table 6 Among the top three ranked PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strands of need for all teachers, compliance was the only strand not in the top three areas of need for all years of teaching experience. Collaboration and contributions ranked third for 1st year teachers while compliance ranked fourth.


8

PDAS domain All teachers Core areas Non-core

areas

Domain II: Learner-centered instruction 1 1 1

Domain VIII: Improvement of all students' academic performance* 2 2

Domain I: Active, successful student participation in the learning process 3 2 3

Domain IV: Management of student discipline, instructional strategies, time/materials 3





Table 7 Domains II (learner-centered instruction) and I (active, successful student participation in the learning process) were in the top three ranked PDAS domains of need for both core and non-core areas. Domain IV (management of student discipline, instructional strategies, time/materials) ranked third in core areas while domain VIII (improvement of all students' academic performance) ranked fourth.

Source. AISD PDAS and PPfT teacher appraisal records Note. Core assignments include elementary, general education, math, English language arts, science, and social studies. * Because new teachers did not receive a campus rating in their first year, points earned for campus rating were excluded from computation of domain VIII points so that 1st year teachers were evaluated against the same total points as were experienced teachers.

PDAS domain All teach-

ers

All Non-ESL/BIL teachers

All ESL/BE teachers

Core areas Non-core areas Non-ESL/

BE ESL/BE

Non-ESL/BE

ESL/BE

Domain II: Learner-centered instruction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


2 2 2 3


3 3 2 3 2 3 2

Domain IV: Management of student discipline, instruc-tional strategies, time/materials

2

Domain III: Evaluation and feedback on student pro-gress

3 3



Domain VII: Compliance with policies, operating proce-dures and requirements

Table 8 Domains II (learner-centered instruction) and I (active, successful student participation in the learning process) were in the top three ranked PDAS domains of need for both ESL/BE and non-ESL/BE teaching assignments. Domain III (evaluation and feedback on student progress) ranked third among all ESL/BE teachers, while domain VIII (improvement of all students' academic performance) ranked fourth.


9

The cross section of core versus non-core and ESL/BE versus non-ESL/BE teaching

assignments (Table 8) shows that for non-core areas, both non-ESL/BE and ESL/BE

teaching assignments had the same top three ranked PDAS domains of need as for all

teachers. For core area non-ESL/BE assignments, domain IV (management of student

discipline, instructional strategies, time/materials) ranked second, for core area ESL/BE

assignments, domain III (evaluation and feedback on student progress) ranked third,

and domain VIII (improvement of all students' academic performance) ranked fourth for

both subgroups of core area teaching assignments.

Table 9 shows the top three ranked PPfT instructional practices strands of need for each

core area assignment, and Table 10 shows the top three ranked PPfT professional

growth and responsibilities strands of need for each core area assignment. The three top

three ranked strands of need for both components of PPfT and in both core and non-

core areas were the same top ranked strands of need as for all teachers.

PPfT strand All teachers Core Non-core

Professional growth and responsibilities Professional development activities and reflection 1 1 1 Lesson planning and data use 2 2 2 Compliance 3 3 3 Collaboration and contributions Relational communication

Table 10 The three top three ranked PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strands of need were the same for core and non-core areas.

Table 9 The top three ranked PPfT instructional practice strands of need were the same for core and non-core areas.

Source. AISD PDAS and PPfT teacher appraisal records Note. Core assignments include elementary, general education, math, English language arts, science, and social studies.

PPfT strand All teachers Core Non-core

Instructional practices Differentiation 1 1 3 Problem solving and critical thinking 2 2 1 Assessment and feedback 3 3 2 Classroom expectations Student engagement Routines and procedures Classroom climate


10

Table 11 shows the top three ranked PPfT instructional practices strands of need for

each ESL/BE teaching assignment. Regardless of teaching assignment (i.e., ESL/BE

versus non-ESL/BE or core versus non-core), differentiation and assessment and feed-

back were in the top three ranked instructional practices areas of need.

Table 12 shows the top three ranked PPfT professional growth and responsibilities

strands of need for each ESL/BE teaching assignment. Regardless of teaching assign-

ment (i.e., ESL/BE versus non-ESL/BE or core versus non-core), professional develop-

ment and reflection and lesson planning and data use were the top two ranked profes-

sional growth and responsibilities areas of need.

Table 11 The three top three ranked PPfT instructional practices strands of need were the same for non-ESL/BE and ESL/BE teaching assignments. Classroom expectations was tied for second with the assessment and feedback strand for the non-ESL/BIL subgroup of the core area teaching assignment; problem solving and critical thinking ranked fourth.


PPfT strand All teach-

ers

All Non-ESL/BE

teachers

All ESL/BE teachers

Core Non-core

Non-ESL/BE

ESL/BE Non-ESL/

BE ESL/BE


Differentiation 1 1 1 1 1 3 2

Problem solving and critical thinking 2 2 2 2 1 1

Assessment and feedback 3 3 3 2 3 2 2

Classroom expectations 2

Student engagement

Routines and procedures Classroom climate

Table 12 Professional development activities and reflection and lesson planning and data use were the top two ranked PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strands of need for non-ESL/BE and ESL/BE teaching assignments. Collaboration and contributions was in the top three ranked strands of need for ESL/BIL teaching assignments (regardless of combination with core or non-core), and in these cases, compliance ranked fourth.



ers

All Non-ESL/BIL teachers

All ESL/BIL teachers

Core Non-core

Non-ESL/BE

ESL/BE Non-ESL/

BE ESL/BE


Professional development activities and reflection 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Lesson planning and data use 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

Compliance 3 3 3 3

Collaboration and contributions 3 3 1 Relational communication

11

Conclusion

This report summarized the 2014–2015 AISD PDAS and PPfT appraisal results. Areas of

need were conceptualized as the appraisal areas with room for teachers to grow, based

on the percentage of teachers scoring below the highest possible score on an appraisal

strand. The percentages of teachers scoring below the highest possible score were rank

ordered, and the top three were highlighted as areas of need for additional professional

development activities.

The top three PDAS domains with the greatest need for additional professional devel-

opment activities were: (a) domain II: learner-centered instruction, (b) domain VIII:

improvement of all students’ academic performance, and (c) domain I: active, success-

ful student participation in the learning process.

The top three PPfT instruc-

tional practice strands with

the greatest need for addition-

al professional development

activities were: (a) differentia-

tion, (b) problem solving and

critical thinking, and (c)

assessment and feedback.

The top three PPfT profession-

al growth and responsibilities

strands with the greatest need

for additional professional

development activities were: (a) professional development activities and reflection, (b)

lesson planning and data use, and (c) compliance.

Analyses across school levels, years of teaching experience, and teaching assignments

were important for understanding where the need for targeted professional develop-

ment activities differed based on teacher characteristics. However, the disaggregated

analyses also demonstrated where areas of need for additional professional develop-

ment activities were the same regardless of teacher characteristics. For example,

Appendix A shows certain areas of need regardless of school level, years of teaching

experience, or teaching assignment: PDAS domain II (learner-centered instruction),

PPfT instructional practices strands differentiation and problem solving and critical

thinking, and PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strands professional

development and reflection and lesson planning and data use were all need areas.

Further examination of disaggregated groups also reveals unique needs for specific

teacher groups (Appendix A). Analysis by school level shows unique need for high

school teachers in PDAS domain V (professional communication), for middle school

teachers in the PPfT instructional practices strand of student engagement, and for

elementary school teachers in the PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strand

of collaboration and contributions.

PICTURE PLACEHOLDER

PDAS areas of greatest need: Domains II, VIII, and I

PPfT areas of greatest need: Differentiation, problem solving and critical

thinking, and assessment and feedback

Professional development activities and re-

flection, lesson planning and data use, and

compliance

12

Analysis by years of teaching experience shows unique need for 1st year teachers in

PDAS domain III (evaluation and feedback on student progress) and the PPfT profes-

sional growth and responsibilities strand of collaboration and contributions. Unique

need for teachers with 2 to 5 years of experience is shown in PDAS domain IV

(management of student discipline, instructional strategies, time/materials).

Analysis by teaching assignment shows unique need for core area teachers in PDAS

domain IV (management of student discipline, instructional strategies, time/materials),

and for ESL/BE teachers in PDAS domain III (evaluation and feedback on student pro-

gress) and the PPfT professional growth and responsibilities strand of collaboration and

contributions.

Because PDAS and PPfT are not completely aligned in their evaluative components,

comparisons between the appraisal systems are difficult and should be interpreted with

caution. However, looking within the high-ranking areas of need, some common dimen-

sions of PDAS and indicators of PPfT align between the two appraisal systems. For

example, the criteria that students are being challenged, engaged, and taught to think

critically may be lifted up as common evaluative criteria within the high-ranking need

areas. Likewise, that teachers set learning activities and goals in alignment with stand-

ards and adjust instruction based on ongoing assessment of student need may also be

lifted up as aligned evaluative criteria within the high-ranking need areas. Further

review of the dimensions and indicators against which the high-need domains and

strands are evaluated should guide decisions about the content to target for addition

professional development activities.

13

Dom

ain

or

Stra

nd

Eval

uat

ed

All

Leve

l Ye

ars

of t

each

ing

expe

rien

ce

Core

are

a ES

L/B

IL

assi

gnm

ent

teac

her

s ES

M

S H

S O

ther

1st

yea

r 2-

5 ye

ars

6-10

ye

ars

11+

year

s Co

re

Non

-Co

re

All

Non

-ES

L/B

IL

Teac

her

s

All

ESL/

BIL

Tea

ch-

ers

PDA

S do

mai

n

Dom

ain

II:

Lea

rner

-cen

tere

d in

stru

ctio

n

* *

* *

*

* *

* *

* *

* D

omai

n V

III:

Im

prov

emen

t of

all

stu

den

ts' a

cade

mic

pe

rfor

man

ce*

* *

* *

*

*

*

* *

Dom

ain

I:

Act

ive,

su

cces

sfu

l stu

den

t pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in t

he

lear

nin

g pr

oces

s *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

Dom

ain

IV

: M

anag

emen

t of

stu

den

t di

scip

line,

inst

ruc-

tion

al s

trat

egie

s, t

ime/

mat

eria

ls

*

*

*

Dom

ain

III

: Ev

alu

atio

n a

nd

feed

back

on

stu

den

t pr

o-gr

ess

*

*

Dom

ain

V:

Prof

essi

onal

com

mu

nic

atio

n

*

Dom

ain

VI:

Pro

fess

ion

al d

evel

opm

ent

acti

viti

es

*

Dom

ain

VII

: Co

mpl

ian

ce w

ith

pol

icie

s, o

pera

tin

g pr

oce-

dure

s an

d re

quir

emen

ts

*

PPfT

inst

ruct

ion

al p

ract

ices

str

and

D

iffer

enti

atio

n *

* *

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

Prob

lem

sol

vin

g an

d cr

itic

al t

hin

kin

g *

* *

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

Ass

essm

ent

and

feed

back

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

Clas

sroo

m e

xpec

tati

ons

Stu

den

t en

gage

men

t

*

Rou

tin

es a

nd

proc

edu

res

Clas

sroo

m c

limat

e

PPfT

pro

fess

ion

al g

row

th a

nd

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

stra

nd

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t ac

tivi

ties

an

d re

flec

tion

*

* *

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

Less

on p

lan

nin

g an

d da

ta u

se

* *

* *

*

* *

* *

* *

* Co

mpl

ian

ce

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

Co

llabo

rati

on a

nd

con

trib

uti

ons

*

*

*

Rela

tion

al c

omm

un

icat

ion

Ap

pe

nd

ix A

. O

ve

rv

iew

of

Are

as

of

Ne

ed

Tabl

e A

.1

Are

as o

f N

eed,

by

Sch

ool L

evel

, Ye

ars

of T

each

ing

Expe

rien

ce,

and

Teac

hin

g A

ssig

nm

ents

Sour

ce.

AIS

D P

DA

S an

d PP

fT t

each

er a

ppra

isal

rec

ords

N

ote.

ES

is e

lem

enta

ry s

choo

l. M

S is

mid

dle

sch

ool.

HS

is h

igh

sch

ool.

Cam

puse

s an

d/or

pro

gram

s fa

lling

into

th

e O

ther

gro

up

incl

ude

d A

lter

nat

ive

Lear

nin

g Ce

nte

r, C

lifto

n C

aree

r D

evel

opm

ent

Cen

ter,

Ro

seda

le S

choo

l, T

ravi

s Co

un

ty D

eten

tion

Cen

ter,

Ph

oen

ix H

ouse

, D

isci

plin

ary

Alt

ern

ativ

e Ed

uca

tion

Pro

gram

, H

omeb

oun

d, C

omm

un

ity

Edu

cati

on P

rogr

ams,

Lea

rnin

g Su

ppor

t Ce

nte

rs,

and

Stat

e D

eaf.

*

Bec

ause

new

tea

cher

s di

d n

ot r

ecei

ve a

cam

pus

rati

ng

in t

hei

r fi

rst

year

, po

ints

ear

ned

for

cam

pus

rati

ng

wer

e ex

clud

ed f

rom

com

puta

tion

of

dom

ain

VII

I po

ints

so

that

1st y

ear

teac

her

s w

ere

eval

uat

-ed

aga

inst

th

e sa

me

tota

l poi

nts

as

wer

e ex

peri

ence

d te

ach

ers.

14

Appendix B. PDAS Domains

Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PDAS Domains, Dis-aggregated by School Level, Years of Teaching Experience, and Teaching Assignment

Table B.1 Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PDAS Domains, Disaggregated by School Level

Table B.2 Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PDAS Domains, Disaggregated by Years of Teach-ing Experience

Source. AISD PDAS and PPfT teacher appraisal records Note. ES is elementary school. MS is middle school. HS is high school. Campuses and/or programs falling into the Other group included Alterna-tive Learning Center, Clifton Career Development Center, Rosedale School, Travis County Detention Center, Phoenix House, Disciplinary Alterna-tive Education Program, Homebound, Community Education Programs, Learning Support Centers, and State Deaf. * Because new teachers did not receive a campus rating in their first year, points earned for campus rating were excluded from computation of domain VIII points so that 1st year teachers were evaluated against the same total points as were experienced teachers.

Source. AISD PDAS and PPfT teacher appraisal records * Because new teachers did not receive a campus rating in their first year, points earned for campus rating were excluded from computation of domain VIII points so that 1st year teachers were evaluated against the same total points as were experienced teachers.

PDAS domain All teachers

n = 4,221

Level

ES n = 2,378

MS n = 920

HS n = 818

Other n = 105

Domain II: Learner-centered instruction 88% 87% 92% 90% 94%

Domain VIII: Improvement of all students' academic per-formance*

80% 74% 88% 84% 99%


79% 76% 84% 82% 90%

Domain IV: Management of student discipline, instruction-al strategies, time/materials

78% 73% 83% 82% 96%

Domain III: Evaluation and feedback on student progress 75% 72% 79% 80% 85%

Domain V: Professional communication 71% 63% 80% 82% 91%

Domain VI: Professional development activities 71% 65% 78% 78% 98%


64% 57% 70% 74% 96%

PDAS domain All teachers

n = 4,221


1st year n = 639

2-5 years n = 888

6-10 years n = 1,011

11+ years n = 1,683

Domain II: Learner-centered instruction 88% 97% 90% 88% 85%

Domain VIII: Improvement of all students' academic per-formance*

80% 90% 82% 78% 76%


79% 93% 83% 78% 73%

Domain IV: Management of student discipline, instruction-al strategies, time/materials

78% 88% 83% 76% 72%

Domain III: Evaluation and feedback on student progress 75% 91% 77% 74% 69%

Domain V: Professional communication 71% 82% 76% 68% 67%

Domain VI: Professional development activities 71% 85% 74% 71% 64%


64% 75% 67% 62% 60%

15

Ta

ble

B.3

Pe

rcen

tage

s of

Tea

cher

s Ea

rnin

g Le

ss T

han

th

e H

igh

est

Poss

ible

Sco

re o

n P

DA

S D

omai

ns,

Dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y Te

ach

ing

Ass

ign

men

t

Sour

ce.

AIS

D P

DA

S an

d PP

fT t

each

er a

ppra

isal

rec

ords

*

Oth

er c

ombi

nes

tea

chin

g as

sign

men

ts w

ith

sam

ples

less

th

an 1

0. T

he

assi

gnm

ents

com

bin

ed w

ere

hea

lth

an

d ps

ych

olog

y.

** B

ecau

se n

ew t

each

ers

did

not

rec

eive

a c

ampu

s ra

tin

g in

th

eir

firs

t ye

ar,

poin

ts e

arn

ed f

or c

ampu

s ra

tin

g w

ere

excl

uded

fro

m c

ompu

tati

on

of d

omai

n V

II p

oin

ts s

o th

at 1

st y

ear

teac

her

s w

ere

eval

uat

ed a

gain

st t

he

sam

e to

tal p

oin

ts a

s w

ere

expe

rien

ced

teac

her

s.

PDA

S do

mai

n

All

teac

her

s n

= 4,

221

Teac

hin

g as

sign

men

t

AV

ID/

DEL

TA/

ROTC

/PA

L/

LEA

D

n =

34

CATE

/ B

usi

nes

s/

Voc

atio

nal

n

= 13

6

Elem

enta

ry

n =

1,79

8 Fi

ne

arts

n

= 36

4

Fore

ign

lan

-gu

age

n =

101

Gen

eral

ed-

uca

tion

n

= 65

Inst

ruct

ion

-al

/ Li

tera

cy

coac

h

n =

45

Mat

h

n =

247

Dom

ain

II:

Lea

rner

-cen

tere

d in

stru

ctio

n

88%

91

%

89%

87

%

88%

91

%

88%

71

%

89%

Dom

ain

VII

I: I

mpr

ovem

ent

of a

ll st

ude

nts

' aca

-de

mic

per

form

ance

**

80%

82

%

98%

73

%

92%

94

%

88%

64

%

76%

Dom

ain

I:

Act

ive,

su

cces

sfu

l stu

den

t pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in

th

e le

arn

ing

proc

ess

79%

88

%

77%

75

%

81%

76

%

86%

64

%

85%

Dom

ain

IV

: M

anag

emen

t of

stu

den

t di

scip

line,

in

stru

ctio

nal

str

ateg

ies,

tim

e/m

ater

ials

78

%

85%

80

%

73%

80

%

76%

94

%

51%

84

%

Dom

ain

III

: Ev

alu

atio

n a

nd

feed

back

on

stu

den

t pr

ogre

ss

75%

82

%

85%

73

%

75%

75

%

83%

49

%

79%

Dom

ain

V:

Prof

essi

onal

com

mu

nic

atio

n

71%

82

%

84%

63

%

79%

71

%

82%

44

%

79%

Dom

ain

VI:

Pro

fess

ion

al d

evel

opm

ent

acti

viti

es

71%

74

%

91%

65

%

77%

74

%

88%

47

%

74%

Dom

ain

VII

: Co

mpl

ian

ce w

ith

pol

icie

s, o

pera

tin

g pr

oced

ure

s an

d re

quir

emen

ts

64%

74

%

86%

58

%

68%

66

%

82%

47

%

70%

16

Tabl

e B

.3 c

onti

nu

ed

Perc

enta

ges

of T

each

ers

Earn

ing

Less

Th

an t

he

Hig

hes

t Po

ssib

le S

core

on

PD

AS

Dom

ain

s, D

isag

greg

ated

by

Teac

hin

g A

ssig

nm

ent

PDA

S do

mai

n

All

teac

her

s n

= 4,

221

Teac

hin

g as

sign

men

t

Phys

ical

edu

-ca

tion

/ A

thle

tics

n

= 16

7

Read

ing/

En

glis

h la

n-

guag

e ar

ts

n =

287

Scie

nce

n

= 22

1 So

cial

stu

die

s n

= 21

1

Spec

ial e

du-

cati

on

n =

528

Spee

ach

/ Jo

urn

alis

m

n =

12

Oth

er*

n =

5

Dom

ain

II:

Lea

rner

-cen

tere

d in

stru

ctio

n

88%

87

%

90%

92

%

92%

92

%

75%

10

0%

Dom

ain

VII

I: I

mpr

ovem

ent

of a

ll st

ude

nts

' aca

dem

ic

perf

orm

ance

**

80%

89

%

86%

78

%

86%

81

%

100%

60

%

Dom

ain

I:

Act

ive,

su

cces

sfu

l stu

den

t pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in

the

lear

nin

g p

roce

ss

79%

83

%

76%

85

%

82%

88

%

75%

80

%

Dom

ain

IV

: M

anag

emen

t of

stu

den

t di

scip

line,

inst

ruc-

tion

al s

trat

egie

s, t

ime/

mat

eria

ls

78%

75

%

84%

81

%

81%

82

%

83%

10

0%

Dom

ain

III

: Ev

alu

atio

n a

nd

feed

back

on

stu

den

t pr

o-gr

ess

75%

74

%

78%

80

%

85%

73

%

75%

10

0%

Dom

ain

V:

Prof

essi

onal

com

mu

nic

atio

n

71%

74

%

84%

76

%

85%

72

%

75%

40

%

Dom

ain

VI:

Pro

fess

ion

al d

evel

opm

ent

acti

viti

es

71%

73

%

75%

73

%

80%

75

%

92%

20

%

Dom

ain

VII

: Co

mpl

ian

ce w

ith

pol

icie

s, o

pera

tin

g pr

o-ce

dure

s an

d re

quir

emen

ts

64%

62

%

70%

69

%

67%

69

%

92%

40

%

Sour

ce.

AIS

D P

DA

S an

d PP

fT t

each

er a

ppra

isal

rec

ords

*

Oth

er c

ombi

nes

tea

chin

g as

sign

men

ts w

ith

sam

ples

less

th

an 1

0. T

he

assi

gnm

ents

com

bin

ed w

ere

hea

lth

an

d ps

ych

olog

y.

** B

ecau

se n

ew t

each

ers

did

not

rec

eive

a c

ampu

s ra

tin

g in

th

eir

firs

t ye

ar,

poin

ts e

arn

ed f

or c

ampu

s ra

tin

g w

ere

excl

uded

fro

m c

ompu

tati

on

of d

omai

n V

II p

oin

ts s

o th

at 1

st y

ear

teac

her

s w

ere

eval

uat

ed a

gain

st t

he

sam

e to

tal p

oin

ts a

s w

ere

expe

rien

ced

teac

her

s.

17

Table B.4 Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PDAS Domains, Disaggregated by Core Teaching Areas

PDAS domain All teachers n = 4,221

Core n = 2,829

Non-core n = 1,392

Domain II: Learner-centered instruction 88% 88% 89%

Domain VIII: Improvement of all students' academic performance* 80% 76% 87%

Domain I: Active, successful student participation in the learning process 79% 77% 83% Domain IV: Management of student discipline, instructional strategies, time/materials

78% 77% 79%

Domain III: Evaluation and feedback on student progress 75% 76% 74%

Domain V: Professional communication 71% 70% 75%

Domain VI: Professional development activities 71% 69% 76% Domain VII: Compliance with policies, operating procedures and require-ments

64% 62% 69%


Table B.5 Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PDAS Domains, Disaggregated by ESL/BE As-signment

PDAS domain All teach-

ers n = 4,221

All Non-ESL/BE

teachers n = 2,503

All ESL/BE teachers n = 1,718

Core Non-core

Non-ESL/BE n = 1,197

ESL/BE n = 1,632

Non-ESL/BE n = 1,306

ESL/BE n = 86

Domain II: Learner-centered instruction 88% 89% 88% 88% 88% 89% 87%


80% 83% 75% 78% 75% 88% 73%


79% 81% 77% 79% 76% 83% 83%

Domain IV: Management of student discipline, in-structional strategies, time/materials

78% 80% 74% 80% 75% 80% 70%


75% 76% 75% 77% 75% 75% 67%

Domain V: Professional communication 71% 76% 65% 76% 65% 76% 62%

Domain VI: Professional development activities 71% 74% 67% 71% 67% 77% 64%


64% 68% 59% 66% 59% 70% 58%


18

Appendix C. PPfT Strands

Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PPfT Strands Disaggre-gated by School Level, Years of Teaching Experience, and Teaching Assignment

Table C.1 Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PPfT Strands, Disaggregated by School Level


PPfT strand All teachers

n = 1030

Level ES

n = 511 MS

n = 97 HS

n = 422


Differentiation 89% 87% 82% 91% Problem solving and critical thinking 87% 88% 87% 85% Assessment and feedback 84% 83% 70% 88% Classroom expectations 79% 77% 62% 85% Student engagement 76% 75% 71% 78% Routines and procedures 66% 65% 56% 69% Classroom climate 64% 63% 52% 68%


Professional development activities and reflection 68% 67% 76% 67% Lesson planning and data use 67% 65% 59% 71% Compliance 63% 54% 58% 76% Collaboration and contributions 58% 59% 56% 58% Relational communication 53% 46% 45% 64%

Table C.2 Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PPfT Strands, Disaggregated by Years of Teach-ing Experience



n = 1030

Years of teaching experience 1st year n = 193

2-5 years n = 267

6-10 years n = 243

11+ years n = 327


Differentiation 89% 94% 90% 86% 86% Problem solving and critical thinking 87% 92% 85% 84% 86% Assessment and feedback 84% 93% 82% 81% 82% Classroom expectations 79% 87% 79% 75% 77% Student engagement 76% 90% 74% 70% 74% Routines and procedures 66% 77% 66% 61% 63% Classroom climate 64% 78% 65% 59% 59%


Professional development activities and reflection 68% 79% 62% 65% 68% Lesson planning and data use 67% 80% 59% 68% 64% Compliance 63% 70% 60% 64% 60% Collaboration and contributions 58% 75% 56% 51% 56% Relational communication 53% 64% 48% 56% 50%

19

Ta

ble

C.3

Perc

enta

ges

of T

each

ers

Earn

ing

Less

Th

an t

he

Hig

hes

t Po

ssib

le S

core

on

PPf

T St

ran

ds,

Dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y Te

ach

ing

Ass

ign

men

t

Sour

ce.

AIS

D P

DA

S an

d PP

fT t

each

er a

ppra

isal

rec

ords

*

Oth

er c

ombi

nes

tea

chin

g as

sign

men

ts w

ith

sam

ples

less

th

an 1

0. T

he

assi

gnm

ents

com

bin

ed w

ere

gen

eral

edu

cati

on,

hea

lth

, in

stru

ctio

nal

/lit

erac

y co

ach

, an

d sp

eech

/jou

rnal

ism

.

PPfT

str

and

A

ll te

ach

ers

n =

1030

Teac

hin

g as

sign

men

t

AV

ID/D

ELTA

/RO

TC/P

AL/

LE

AD

n

= 18

CATE

/ B

usi

nes

s/

Voc

atio

nal

n

= 59

Elem

enta

ry

n =

402

Fin

e ar

ts

n =

74

Fore

ign

lan

-gu

age

n =

23

Mat

h

n =

70

Inst

ruct

ion

al p

ract

ices

Diff

eren

tiat

ion

89

%

100%

93

%

90%

80

%

91%

96

%

Prob

lem

sol

vin

g an

d cr

itic

al t

hin

kin

g 87

%

94%

83

%

86%

89

%

91%

76

%

Ass

essm

ent

and

feed

back

84

%

89%

90

%

83%

73

%

96%

74

%

Clas

sroo

m e

xpec

tati

ons

79%

61

%

88%

78

%

66%

61

%

83%

Stu

den

t en

gage

men

t 76

%

89%

81

%

76%

65

%

65%

73

%

Rou

tin

es a

nd

proc

edu

res

66%

50

%

71%

65

%

57%

48

%

66%

Clas

sroo

m c

limat

e 64

%

61%

69

%

63%

55

%

35%

60

%

Prof

essi

onal

gro

wth

an

d re

spon

sibi

litie

s

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t ac

tivi

ties

an

d re

flec

tion

68

%

78%

83

%

68%

59

%

70%

67

%

Less

on p

lan

nin

g an

d da

ta u

se

67%

83

%

88%

65

%

64%

74

%

60%

Com

plia

nce

63

%

72%

92

%

55%

62

%

70%

63

%

Colla

bora

tion

an

d co

ntr

ibu

tion

s 58

%

83%

75

%

61%

45

%

48%

54

%

Rela

tion

al c

omm

un

icat

ion

53

%

61%

76

%

49%

47

%

52%

61

%

20

Tabl

e C.

3 co

nti

nu

ed

Perc

enta

ges

of T

each

ers

Earn

ing

Less

Th

an t

he

Hig

hes

t Po

ssib

le S

core

on

PPf

T St

ran

ds,

Dis

aggr

egat

ed b

y Te

ach

ing

Ass

ign

men

t

PPfT

str

and

A

ll te

ach

ers

n =

1030

Teac

hin

g as

sign

men

t

Phys

ical

edu

ca-

tion

/ A

thle

tics

n

= 31

Read

ing/

En

glis

h la

n-

guag

e ar

ts

n =

90

Scie

nce

n

= 60

So

cial

stu

die

s n

= 51

Spec

ial e

duca

-ti

on

n =

133

Oth

er*

n =

19

Inst

ruct

ion

al p

ract

ices

Diff

eren

tiat

ion

89

%

81%

93

%

92%

92

%

79%

84

%

Prob

lem

sol

vin

g an

d cr

itic

al t

hin

kin

g 87

%

90%

89

%

78%

88

%

92%

89

%

Ass

essm

ent

and

feed

back

84

%

77%

93

%

80%

90

%

87%

84

%

Clas

sroo

m e

xpec

tati

ons

79%

61

%

89%

87

%

80%

82

%

84%

Stu

den

t en

gage

men

t 76

%

55%

86

%

73%

80

%

81%

68

%

Rou

tin

es a

nd

proc

edu

res

66%

65

%

80%

67

%

61%

69

%

63%

Clas

sroo

m c

limat

e 64

%

61%

71

%

67%

73

%

69%

58

%

Prof

essi

onal

gro

wth

an

d re

spon

sibi

litie

s

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t ac

tivi

ties

an

d re

flec

tion

68

%

65%

57

%

62%

73

%

76%

42

%

Less

on p

lan

nin

g an

d da

ta u

se

67%

48

%

60%

67

%

75%

69

%

58%

Com

plia

nce

63

%

48%

63

%

72%

82

%

63%

79

%

Colla

bora

tion

an

d co

ntr

ibu

tion

s 58

%

32%

53

%

52%

59

%

66%

47

%

Rela

tion

al c

omm

un

icat

ion

53

%

32%

54

%

58%

76

%

48%

58

%

Sour

ce.

AIS

D P

DA

S an

d PP

fT t

each

er a

ppra

isal

rec

ords

*

Oth

er c

ombi

nes

tea

chin

g as

sign

men

ts w

ith

sam

ples

less

th

an 1

0. T

he

assi

gnm

ents

com

bin

ed w

ere

gen

eral

edu

cati

on,

hea

lth

, in

stru

ctio

nal

/lit

erac

y co

ach

, an

d sp

eech

/jou

rnal

ism

.

21

Table C.4 Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PPfT Strands, Disaggregated by Core Area


Table C.5 Percentages of Teachers Earning Less Than the Highest Possible Score on PPfT Strands, Disaggregated by ESL/BE Assign-ment


n = 1030 Core

n = 679 Non-core n = 351

Instructional practices Differentiation 89% 91% 83% Problem solving and critical thinking 87% 85% 90% Assessment and feedback 84% 84% 84% Classroom expectations 79% 81% 75% Student engagement 76% 77% 74% Routines and procedures 66% 67% 64% Classroom climate 64% 65% 62%

Professional growth and responsibilities Professional development activities and reflection 68% 66% 71% Lesson planning and data use 67% 65% 70% Compliance 63% 61% 68% Collaboration and contributions 58% 58% 59% Relational communication 53% 54% 53%


ers n = 1030

All Non-ESL/BE

teachers

Core Non-core All ESL/BE teachers n = 396

Non-ESL/BE

ESL/BE n = 378

Non-ESL/BE

ESL/BE n = 18

Instructional practices Differentiation 89% 89% 88% 95% 88% 84% 72% Problem solving and critical thinking 87% 87% 86% 84% 86% 90% 83% Assessment and feedback 84% 86% 81% 87% 81% 85% 72% Classroom expectations 79% 81% 76% 87% 76% 76% 67% Student engagement 76% 77% 75% 79% 76% 74% 67% Routines and procedures 66% 67% 64% 69% 65% 65% 50% Classroom climate 64% 65% 62% 68% 62% 62% 61%

Professional growth and responsibilities Professional development activities and reflec-tion

68% 69% 65% 67% 66% 71% 61%

Lesson planning and data use 67% 69% 63% 66% 63% 71% 61% Compliance 63% 68% 56% 66% 56% 69% 50% Collaboration and contributions 58% 57% 60% 55% 60% 59% 61% Relational communication 53% 57% 47% 61% 48% 54% 33%


AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

Author

Shaun D. Hutchins, Ph.D.

Lisa Schmitt, Ph.D.

April 2010

Publication ##.##

December 2015

Publication Number 15.14

Department of Research and Evaluation

1111 West 6th Street, Suite D-350 | Austin, TX 78703-5338 512.414.1724 | fax: 512.414.1707 www.austinisd.org/dre | Twitter: @AISD_DRE

Professional Development Activities Needs … List of Figures Figure 1. Percentages of Teachers...

Documents

Transcript of Professional Development Activities Needs … List of Figures Figure 1. Percentages of Teachers...