PUSD Teacher EvaluationSY 14/15

Governing Board Presentation

May 13, 2014

Dr. Heather Cruz, Deputy Superintendent

Presentation Overview

Legislative History The Peoria Unified Journey New Required Legislation Process Recommended Changes Next Steps

Arizona Revised Statutes§ 15-203(A)(38)

The State Board of Education shall…”on or before December 15, 2011 adopt and maintain a model framework for a teacher and principal evaluation instrument that includes quantitative data on student academic progress that accounts for between thirty-three percent and fifty percent of the evaluation outcomes and best practices for professional development and evaluator training. School districts and charter schools shall use an instrument that meets the data requirements established by the State Board of Education to annually evaluate individual teachers and principals beginning in school year 2012 – 2013.”

HB 2823

Effective June, 2012 Allowed governing boards to delay the

implementation of the Teacher and Principal Evaluation data component until SY13-14

Peoria Unified implemented the data component in 12/13

ADE Adopted Model Framework

ADE Adopted Model Framework for Educator Effectiveness April, 2011

Classroom observation tool must be: Rubric-based Tied to Arizona Teaching Standards

33% to 50% of the evaluation must be based on student achievement data

PUSD began to make the shift in evaluation practices in SY 11/12

ADE Adopted Model Framework Changes for 14/15

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver

Districts and charters shall ensure that the total measure of Academic Progress (classroom-level and/or school-level) includes a calculation of the amount of Academic Growth students experience between two or more points in time. The Academic Growth calculation shall comprise at least 20% of the total evaluation outcome.

Continuous Improvement of Process Reconvened Governing Board appointed

Certified Teacher Evaluation Committee (CTEC) to look at current evaluation tool and system

Administration is bringing back CTEC’s recommended changes to the tool and process to the Governing Board for approval this evening

Recommended changes Change current goal structure to Student Learning

Objectives to align with requirements of ESEA Waiver

CTEC Committee

Anne Babina James Hawk Melissa O'Dell Christina Vargas

Kim Baerwald Tricia Heivilin Thomas PrattAshley

Vasconcellos

Barbara Barcus Kate Hoffner Megan Reese Laura Vesely

Robert Benson Mark Hudson Katie RichardTahlya

Visintainer

Sharon Betts Dawn Kennedy Ann Sandoval John Wallander

Ali Bridgewater Karen KlappMichael

Schoonover Adam West

Renee CrawfordBrenda

Lopresto Mary Schuett Marla Woolsey

Heather Cruz Carleen McAfee Vance Setka Betty Young

Wendy Davy Mark Moffatt Frank Sharbono  

Frymet Hare Monique Molina Melinda Soland  Shauna Hatfield Joanne Morales Joyce Staehle  

Overview of the Peoria Model-13/14

Professional Practices – Implemented 11/12 Self-Evaluation Goals – Student Achievement, Instructional, &

Exit Outcomes Reflection Rubric Components

Aligned to Arizona Teaching Standards Professional Expectations

Student Achievement Data – Implemented 12/13

Definitions

Group A Teacher A Peoria Unified teacher who has two or

more valid and reliable individual data pieces.

Group B Teacher A Peoria Unified teacher who does not have

two or more valid and reliable individual data pieces.

Changes for 14/15

Goals - Moving to Student Learning Objectives A specific learning goal with specific

measures of student learning used to track progress toward that goal

Research supports this direction Can be found on beginning p. 10 of the

PUSD Teacher Evaluation for 14/15

Benefits of SLO’s

Empowers teachers to set goals based on their current students and setting

Equalizes the percentage of data for Group A & Group B teachers

All data for SLO’s comes from current school year

Perceived to be a more fair way to align teacher data to evaluation

Satisfies the ESEA Waiver

SLO Committee

Sub-committee of CTEC

Anne Babina Marla Hobbs

Anne Babina Marla HobbsRobert Benson Dawn KennedyRenee

Crawford Ashley VasconcellosShauna Hatfield John WallanderPatricia Heivilin

Data Model Guiding Principles Collaborative thinking Guiding principles

Equity Comprehensive Manageable Choice – Menu Driven Balance Transparency Spirit of the Law

Alignment ACT and Freshman College

Success PUSD Data Model

and AZ Learns

Peoria Data Model for 13/14

Standing Data Committee Recommendation

Group A

Group B

Instructional Practices

Classroom-level Data

School-level Data

Peoria Data Model for 14/15

47%

13%

7%

20%

13%

Percentage for Each Part of the PUSD Teacher Evaluation System

Applies to both Group A and B Teachers

Domains

Professional Expectations

Self Assessment On Going Re-flection

Student Learning Objectives

Schoolwide and or Classroom Data

18

Comparison of Group A and B

20% - SLO 13% - Achievement Data

3 Individual Choices AIM is mandatory

2School-wide Choices A survey choice is mandatory

67% Professional Practices Domains, Self-Assessment,

Professional Expectations

20% - SLO 13% - Achievement Data

5 School-wide Choices AIMS is mandatory A survey is mandatory Individual data points are

mandatory, if available 67% Professional

Practices Domains, Self-Assessment,

Professional Expectations

Group A - 20/13/67 Group B - 20/13/67

Inadequacy of Classroom Performance

Not recommending any changes Currently is any one Unsatisfactory

rating in any one component in Domains 1- 4

If a teacher scores in the ineffective performance classification on their evaluation, they will be deemed inadequate This will require a Preliminary Notice of

Inadequacy of Classroom Performance

Performance Pay

Currently there is no pay tied to the evaluation performance classification for 13/14

HB 2823 requires 33% of Fund 12 from the Classroom Site Fund (301) to be tied to student progress for the evaluation beginning in 14/15 SLO’s would satisfy this requirement

301 Plan for 14/15

Update 301 plan to align with HB 2823 SLO’s will meet the requirement for this

By law, we will need to survey the teachers and receive at least 70% agreement with the plan in order to move forward

After teacher approval, the plan will be brought to the board for approval

Plan to do this in August, 2014

22

Questions