Teacher Evaluation & Development Pilot Program

PUBLIC SCHOOLSPUBLIC SCHOOLS

West HartfordPublic Schools

EvaluationDevelopmentPilot Program

Teacher&

West Hartford, Connecticut

MissionTo inspire and prepare all students to realize their potential and enhance our global community

50 South Main Street, West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 561-6600 Website: http://www.whps.org

May 1, 2013

Dear West Hartford Educators,

At the national and state levels, the mandates and accountability measures continue to accelerate. In our district we have been immersed in the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The purpose of my memo is to describe the changes that brought us to this point, acknowledge your work and put it into the context of this document. I expect by the time we fully implement the Standards and this document there will be clear evidence of your standards-based teaching in your goal setting and student learning outcomes.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was first authorized in 1965 for the purpose of “strengthening educational opportunities in those schools where there are concentrations of children coming from low-income families.” In 2001, ESEA was reauthorized under the banner of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB substantially altered the original ESEA with a focus on yearly testing of students, identifying schools in need of improvement, and ensuring that every classroom has a highly qualified educator. States were given the opportunity to apply for waivers from the requirements of NCLB.

In May of 2012, Connecticut was successful in gaining a waiver based upon the following:

• Adoption of the Common Core State Standards• New accountability system• System for teacher and administrator evaluation based on multiple indicators, including student

performance

Our district, school and department development plans clearly articulate a coherent systemic approach to continuous improvement based on our mission framework and goals. We have intentionally moved forward with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) over a two-year period beginning in 2011 with professional learning to understand the new standards and support curriculum development. Along the journey we continue to collaborate to improve and refine our practice relative to the increased rigor of the standards. Our plan is to complete the implementation in 2013-14, knowing that the new assessments [under development by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)] of the CCSS will occur in the 2014-15 school year.

To that end, we have participated in the SBAC scientific trials that provided us with a very tangible picture of how SBAC has interpreted the expectations of student learning under the CCSS. Our takeaways from this experience inform a roadmap for professional development, infrastructure, curriculum, and policy review and revision. In addition, teachers and administrators have reviewed and provided feedback to SBAC on the new assessments.

The SBAC assessment tasks provide us with exemplars for how summative tasks could appear as well as their intended level of rigor (depth of knowledge). As these lessons learned take form in the shape of new curricular units of study, it is clear that we need continued professional development on technology integration and the pedagogical shifts necessary to achieve the level of student independence and perseverance required under the CCSS.

Our primary efforts moving forward are to keep the implementation of the CCSS at the forefront and align our systems to ensure that all of our work remains connected to avoid the traps of competing priorities. Therefore, I am recommending to the State Department of Education that we implement our new Teacher Effectiveness and Performance Evaluation over a two-year period. We will implement the teacher performance and practice and parent feedback in the 2013-14 school year. In the 2014-15 school year we will add the student learning measures and student feedback to complete the requirements of the new plan. This will allow us to continue our implementation of CCSS and preparation for the new assessments, without overwhelming you with a completely new evaluation plan that also requires time and professional development to ensure effective and meaningful implementation.

Thank you to the Teacher Evaluation and Performance Committee and the Steering Committee for the countless hours spent in crafting and vetting this document. Their dedication to improving teaching and learning is evident in their willingness to be meaningfully engaged in this work. I believe those closest to the work should shape the work. A special thank you to this committed group for giving all teachers the opportunity to do just that with the Instructional Framework.

In conclusion, you make me proud everyday as I revel in the small and large accomplishments of our children. I have the privilege of witnessing the wonder of our 4 year olds as they observe the transformation of a bulb they planted in the fall blossom into a flower in the spring and the beaming faces of our high school seniors as they march across the stage after successfully completing the high school requirements fully prepared for college and careers. Thank you for your willingness to consistently get better at the art and craft of teaching to ensure better futures for all the children of West Hartford.

Sincerely, Karen L. List, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools

Board of Education

Bruce Putterman, Chairperson Elin Katz, Vice Chairperson

Naogan Ma Jay Sarzen

Terry Schmitt Mark Overmyer-Velazquez

Mark Zydanowicz

Administration

Dr. Karen L. List, Superintendent Mr. Tom Moore, Assistant Superintendent for Administration

Dr. Nancy M. DePalma, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Mr. Rick Ledwith, Executive Director of Human Resources

3

Teacher Evaluation and Performance Evaluation Committee Name Position Location

1. Amarucci, Carolyn Grade 2 Whiting Lane 2. Ashworth, Kim Special Education – Grade 5 Duffy 3. Bassett, Rick Grade 5 Norfeldt 4. Barrieau, David Grade 4 Morley 5. Benner, Cathie Kindergarten (PT) Duffy 6. Blanchard, Carrie Special Education Whiting Lane 7. Bombara, Chris Grade 8 Science Sedgwick Middle 8. Burke, Sarah Spanish/Team Leader Sedgwick Middle 9. Campbell, Gayle Grade 3 (Interim) Duffy 10. Cavanaugh, Noreen Kindergarten Duffy 11. Cherny, Dahlia Grade 4 Bugbee 12. Craig, Rosemary School Psychologist Sedgwick Middle 13. DePalma, Nancy* – Admin. Assistant Superintendent/Curr.Inst.&Assessment Town Hall 14. Dippolino, Dave* Mathematics Conard 15. Edwards, Mary Science Conard High 16. Faulkner, Sarah Science Sedgwick Middle 17. Garand, Lisa* Special Education Duffy 18. Gengel, Linda Reading Sedgwick Middle 19. Grado, Carrie Social Studies Hall High 20. Graveline, Michelle – Admin Department Supervisor – Mathematics Conard/Sedgwick 21. Greenwell, Kimberly Grade 5 Whiting Lane 22. Gritter, Katie School Psychologist Conard/Webster Hill 23. Hart‐Kindelberger, Kim Adjusted Curriculum Hall High 24. Henneberry, Sue Mathematics/Team Leader Sedgwick Middle 25. Horan, Lisa Kindergarten Aiken 26. Horn, Therese Grade 2 Webster Hill 27. Hunt, Jennifer QuEST Braeburn 28. Kellogg‐Shove, Stacy School Psychologist Charter Oak 29. LaCroix, Monica School Psychologist Early Learning Center 30. Landroche, Chuck Assistant Director/Human Resources Town Hall 31. Ledwith, Rick Executive Director/Human Resources Town Hall 32. Legenza, Dawn Special Education/Team Leader Sedgwick Middle 33. Levanti, Sheila Grade 4 Duffy 34. McDermott, Monica Speech and Language Norfeldt 35. McGrath, Glenn* – Admin. Director of Pupil Services District‐wide 36. Morrow, Andrew – Admin.* Principal Bristow Middle 37. Mulready, Lindsey Kindergarten Aiken 38. Nascimento, Liz Special Education Bugbee 39. Nevins, Elyse Mathematics Conard High 40. Nicklas, Michelle* Spanish/English‐Language Arts Hall High 41. Norland, Benjamin Science Hall High 42. O’Neill, Kerri‐Lynn Grade 1 Wolcott 43. Paleologopoulous, Tom – Admin. Department Supervisor – English Conard/Sedgwick 44. Parenti, Margo Kindergarten Wolcott 45. Pelliccioni, Marcelo* French Bristow 46. Perriello, Christina Grade 3 Charter Oak 47. Ravasz, Caroline Grade 3 Charter Oak 48. Rich, Montserrat World Language Charter Oak 49. Roberts, Leslie Grade 1 Norfeldt 50. Roberts‐Walstrom, Lyndsey Grade 3 Whiting Lane 51. Roy, Lynette Reading Specialist Duffy 52. Salvatore, Maryann Mathematics Hall High 53. Schleer, Lisa Special Education Aiken 54. Sheridan, Mary Early Intervention Norfeldt 55. Shiraiwa, Sharon Grade 1 Smith 56. Simpson, Natalie* – Admin. Principal Braeburn 57. Singh, Jas Science Sedgwick Middle 58. Smith, Linda Grade 1 Whiting Lane 59. Sturm, Daniela Grade 3 Aiken 60. Sundt, Allayne Mathematics Conard High 61. Tate, Carmen School Psychologist Aiken 62. Theroux, Ashley English Conard High 63. Veras, Kate Grade 1 Duffy 64. Volovsek, Michaela World Language Hall High 65. Wolters, Colleen Early Intervention Braeburn 66. Zaffina, Sabrina Kindergarten Braeburn

*Steering Committee

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. Introduction 6 Vision and Purpose of Teacher Evaluation Process 6 Goals of the Teacher Evaluation Process 6 Belief Statements 7 Connecting Teacher Evaluation to the West Hartford Mission Framework 7 Connecting Teacher Evaluation to the Model of Continuous Improvement 9 II. Overview and Categories of Teacher Evaluation Process 12 WHPS Instructional Framework Summary 12 Timelines for Rolling Out the New Process 15 Teacher Evaluation Training and Orientation 15 Categories of WHPS Teacher Evaluation Process 16 Category 1- Teacher Performance and Practice (40%) 16 Category 2- Parent Feedback (10%) 23 Category 3- Student Learning Measures (45%) 24 Category 4- Student Feedback (5%) 33 Aggregate and Summative Score 34 III. Professional Outcomes 38 West Hartford Public Schools Non-Tenure Review Process 38 Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development 38 Career Development and Professional Growth 43 IV. Teacher Assistance Process 44 V. Dispute Resolution Procedure 46 Appendix A – CSDE Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation 47 B - CCT Alignment 97 C - WHPS Instructional Framework 101 D - Proposed Timeline & Orientation Topics 128 E - Forms 134 F - Appeal Worksheet I, II, III 159 G - Sample Survey Materials and Questions 163

5

Form Name Page

Form A Self-Reflection Form 135 Form B Pre-Observation Form 137 Form C Observation Form 138 Form D Post-Observation Form 140 Form E Professional Learning Objectives 142 Form F Student Learning Objectives – Standardized

and Non-Standardized Assessment 143

Form G Mid-Year Conference and End Of Year Conference Form

157

Figures, Tables and Forms Table/Figure Name Page

Figure A Mission Framework 8 Figure B Model of Continuous Improvement 10 Table 1 Instructional Framework Summary 12 Figure C Categories of Performance Evaluation 14 Figure D SDE/PEAC Overall Ratings 15 Figure E Teacher Performance and Practice 16 Figure F Evaluation Process 17 Table 2 Non-Tenured Teachers Performance and 18

Practice Review and Goal Setting Table 3 Tenured Teachers Performance and 20

Practice Review and Goal Setting Table 4 Teacher Performance and Practice Scoring 22 Figure G Parent Feedback 23 Figure H Student Learning Measures 24 Figure I Timeline for SLO’s 30 Figure J Process for SLO Selection 31 Figure K Student Feedback 33 Table 5 Summative Rating Matrix 37

The following forms are used to support the implementation of the West Hartford Public Schools teacher evaluation model.

6

I. Introduction

Vision and Purpose of Teacher Evaluation

The West Hartford Public School System is committed to a teacher evaluation model that is designed to improve student learning and staff effectiveness through the ongoing development of West Hartford’s professional staff. The teacher evaluation plan is comprehensive in its design, addressing both the state mandates as well as providing differentiated experiences based on the full range of professional performance needs.

To ensure that all students have competent, high quality teachers, we must provide an evaluation and support structure that builds human capacities and challenges all educators to aspire to and reach excellence.

The Goals of the Teacher Evaluation Process

To achieve this vision of teacher evaluation, the goals of this plan are to design an evaluation system that will:

● Apply our district model of continuous improvement to the teacher developmentand evaluation process

● Improve instruction and professional practice individually and collectively● Advance student achievement for all students● Lead directly to teacher continuous growth and development● Differentiate experiences for teachers across a continuum of professional

performance needs● Promote collaboration to improve learning for all● Provide meaningful and connected professional learning experiences that impact

practice● Empower both principals and teachers with specific, objective information

regarding their performance● Ensure that evaluations are fair, reliable, valid, holistic, and an accurate

representation of teacher’s practice

In the design of the teacher evaluation plan, the following principles were used to guide this effort.

● student learning is directly affected by teacher knowledge and skill;● teacher knowledge and skill is affected positively by the integration of teacher

evaluation, professional development, and collaboration;● teachers, like students, must be committed to continuous improvement;● an effective evaluation plan requires a clear definition of teaching and learning

along a continuum of development and a reliable system to assess it; and● the gaps between expectations for student performance and actual student

performance should guide and shape the content of professional developmentand the expectations for improved performance.

7

Beliefs and Core Values

The beliefs and core values that support this evaluation system are grounded in the core values identified in our mission framework:

Our Core Values: ● Set high standards● Provide a safe environment● Promote collaboration● Embrace diversity● Encourage intellectual risk taking● Integrate technology effectively● Demand integrity● Support partnerships between home and school● Foster personal wellness● Inspire creativity and innovation● Make all decisions in the best interest of students

We believe that the success of the West Hartford Public Schools depends upon the commitment of students, families and staff to develop all students to their greatest potential. In parallel fashion, we also depend upon the commitment of the administration and staff to support the development of each teacher to his/her greatest potential. These core values fully apply to teacher development and to the teacher evaluation process.

Connecting Teacher Evaluation to the West Hartford Mission Framework

The mission of the school system: “To inspire and prepare all students to realize their potential and enhance our global community” drives the work of our classrooms. The mission framework (see Figure A) has at its center the goal of helping all students to realize their potential. To accomplish this requires 1) High expectations for all learners, 2) Rigorous and relevant curriculum, and 3) Dynamic teaching. Dynamic teaching isdefined in the mission framework as, “student centered, skillful, data-driven, engaging, reflective, collaborative, and personalized.”

Figure A

These expectations are further defined in the West Hartford Instructional Framework, which captures dynamic teaching across a continuum of performance, a rubric that defines teaching across a range of performance levels. Dynamic teaching together with rigorous and relevant curriculum and high expectations for all learners represents the interaction among teacher, content, and standards.

Our mission framework reflects this theory in action. The West Hartford Instructional Framework focuses on five domains of teaching that represent the intersection of teacher actions, rigorous content expectations, and meaningful learning tasks and experiences for students that continue to challenge them to meet 21st century expectations. The teacher development process, therefore, becomes one of supporting teacher skill, knowledge, understanding and practice. It depends upon a model of continuous improvement, of teacher collaboration, and ultimately teacher growth.

9

Connecting Teacher Evaluation to the District Model of Continuous Improvement

The District Model of Continuous Improvement represents the district’s “Theory of Action”, that is a concrete representation of our district vision and strategy for improvement. This strategic planning process for continuous improvement, used at each level of the organization, creates interdependence between and among district, school, and classroom improvement plans, priorities, and efforts. The model requires a collective effort, centered on aligned expectations, and creates focused energy for improvement and change. At the district-level, the strategic approach to district and school improvement, in its recursive nature, must be driven by data—multiple forms of performance measures and indicators that inform the cycle of improvement. The analysis of data must occur at every level of the organization. Collectively we own the data, the results, and the efforts and initiatives to support those results. This model is then replicated at the school level where teams of teachers examine student learning data to shape their instruction and use their results to refine and revise instruction. Moreover, this Model of Continuous Improvement is grounded in the notion that “leadership” must be distributed, that is, all members of the school community should have an opportunity to contribute to the actions and decisions that most directly affect their work. In other words, the knowledge base of the entire professional staff is valued as a critical variable for improvement.

Therefore, for the teacher evaluation process, the district Theory of Action or Model of Continuous Improvement, is the process by which we design and carry out teacher development, teacher support, and teacher evaluation. Designed to support continuous and ongoing teacher growth and development that is driven by data collection, analysis, teaching, collaboration, and reflection, this process is also aligned with the Board of Education goals, the district mission, and core values. It reflects the processes that our educators use every day in their work with students and families. The work of improvement is an ongoing and continuous process over the life of a teacher’s career. The Model of Continuous Improvement highlights the role of professional learning as central and collaboration and teacher collaborative inquiry teams as the means to teacher continuous growth and ultimately student growth and development.

10

Figure B

At each stage of the process of continuous improvement, continuous learning is central. At the individual level of professional growth objectives, to the team level of working on various practices together, to the departmental level and school level, professional learning is a central tenet of continuous improvement. Research and best practice continues to inform the practice of teaching and learning. Curriculum and Staff Improvement (CSI) provide the opportunities for staff to examine data; examine, design, or revise curriculum; design and modify instructional practices; examine results; and learn about increasingly more effective teaching strategies and approaches. Moreover, the collective knowledge and skills of staff are a key source of helping to provide new learning as staff continues to develop their own skills and knowledge base.

Team work or collaborative work is central to this model. “Collaborative Inquiry Teams” or “Professional Learning Communities” form the foundation of our continuous improvement efforts. These teams begin with student learning data as the source for informing their work together. Their primary purpose is to use student learning information to design, redesign, and modify instructional practices together. The team examines individual student work generated from common formative assessments as

11

well as district and state assessments as the starting point. The meetings are intended to be collaborative, structured, and scheduled to help focus on improving our effectiveness in teaching and learning. Their “job” is to adhere to a continuous improvement cycle, examine patterns and trends, and establish specific timelines, roles, and responsibilities to facilitate analysis that results in action; that is, changing teaching to meet identified student learning needs with greater success. Each school has been working on determining the structures to facilitate these collaborative planning groups. Natural structures for meeting as a team include grade level or course level teams. This dedicated professional development time is vital for fostering teachers and principal growth. The goal is to make these collegial conversations about teaching and learning part of how we regularly “do business.” It becomes a place where we share our practice, refine our practice, and learn from one another.

The West Hartford Teacher Effectiveness and Performance Evaluation plan is grounded in the work of continuous improvement. The processes and structures described herein rely upon both collaborative and individual work of teacher development and improvement.

12

II. Overview and Categories of Teacher Evaluation Process

WHPS Instructional Framework The West Hartford Instructional Framework defines a common understanding of effective instructional practices across five focus areas: Professional Responsibilities, Classroom Environment, Assessment, Planning and Preparation, and Instruction. Within each focus area are specific indicators that break down expected practices across four levels of performance and practice –Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4. The framework is central to the evaluation process and acts to clarify towards mutual understanding, the practices we know are essential for improving student learning. On the following pages are the domains and indicators within the Framework. The full document can be found in Appendix C. TABLE 1

West Hartford Instructional Framework Summary Summary of Focus Areas and Indicators

Focus Area Indicators

Classroom Environment

A. Teacher creates an environment that is safe and conducive to learning. B. Teacher models and promotes an atmosphere of respect and responsibility for self, others and property. C. Teacher maximizes the amount of time spent on learning by effectively managing procedures and routines. D. Teacher promotes student engagement by providing opportunities to participate and interact productively.

Planning and Preparation

A. Teacher designs instruction based on existing district curriculum guides. B. Teacher designs lessons that meet the needs of all learners by planning differentiated learning tasks. C. Teacher plans meaningful and ongoing assessments that demonstrate student mastery. D. Teacher plans lessons with multiple opportunities for student engagement using multimodal methodology and communication. E. Teacher plans lessons with relevant context (e. g., thematic units, real-world connections, cross- curricular, global or current events).

13

Focus Area Indicators

Instructional Practice

A. Teacher communicates clear and rigorous expectations for learning. B. Teacher uses a variety of evidence-based strategies to enable students to apply and construct new learning. C. Teacher uses differentiated instruction and supplemental interventions to support the diverse needs of students. D. Teacher monitors student learning and adjusts instructional strategies and pacing, as needed, in response to student performance and engagement. E. Teacher incorporates available technological and digital resources to promote learning. F. Teacher provides feedback to students during instruction to improve performance. G. Teacher promotes engagement through shared responsibility for the learning process.

Assessment A. Teacher uses a comprehensive variety of summative and formative assessments that directly align with the learning objectives and inform ongoing instruction. B. Teacher uses a variety of alternative formative and summative assessments to differentiate for the diverse ways that students learn, grow and demonstrate their learning. C. Teacher uses rubrics and/or assessment tools for student reflection to help improve performance and take responsibility for their learning. D. Teacher collaborates with colleagues to review and interpret assessment data to monitor and adjust instruction. E. Teacher provides timely and descriptive feedback to students and families to help students improve their learning.

Professional Responsibilities

A. Teacher conducts self as a professional in accordance with CT Code of Responsibility for Educators, and advocates for all students. B. Teacher collaborates with colleagues in a professional community. C. Teacher engages in professional growth/development and reflection to enhance teaching and student learning. D. Teacher communicates with families to promote positive home- school relationships. E. Teacher exhibits knowledge of and respect for cultural, social, and economic diversity.

The framework is the core document within the evaluation system and is used to help provide the context upon which a teacher’s performance can be directly measured. The indicators of teaching practice outlined through the rubric have

14

been developed by West Hartford teachers and represents the values and beliefs about teaching and learning of the educational community. Figure C

Evaluation of teacher performance and practice will be measured through evidence collected relative to the performances identified in the rubric and teacher growth across performance levels will be supported and ultimately expected in each given school year. Parent feedback will also be collected and, in combination with teacher practice and performance ratings, will constitute 50% of a teacher’s overall performance rating. This 50% is a teacher’s “Practice Rating”.

Measurement of the outcomes for students is defined as an “Outcome Rating” and will be measured based on results associated with student learning measures on a potential combination of state and local assessments and student feedback. These two categories of performance evaluation will constitute the remaining 50% of a teachers overall rating (see Figure D). Processes and information relative to measurement of performance in these four main categories of performance evaluation have been outlined in the sections that follow.

15

Figure D SDE/PEAC Overall Ratings

Timelines for Rolling Out the New Process

The process will begin in the 2013-2014 school year. A district-wide communication plan has been developed to support the final phase of roll out of the plan. Throughout the development phase of the plan in 2012 - 2013, teachers throughout the district have taken part in communication and feedback about the WHPS Instructional Framework and the on-going development of our evaluation plan. The TRAC Steering Committee will review the plan during its first year of implementation and decisions will be made about any potential areas for improvement.

Teacher Evaluation Training and Orientation

Early in each school year, all teachers must participate in a general orientation on West Hartford Public Schools’ Teacher Effectiveness and Performance Evaluation Plan. This orientation serves to outline the evaluation process, identify the individuals involved, establish timeframes, clarify expectations, answer questions, and identify resources available to teachers and administrators in meeting their responsibilities throughout the evaluation process. The overall goal of this training and orientation is that both teachers and administrators understand the scope and purpose of West Hartford Public Schools’ Teacher Effectiveness and Performance Evaluation Plan. A sample outline of the topics and process for Orientation can be found in Appendix D.

Teachers will be oriented to the process of teacher evaluation in West Hartford each year annually by September 15th in either a building based CSI or staff meeting.

Prior to the start of school, all administrators will receive professional development on administrator professional growth and evaluation process. We have established a system for calibration with regards to teacher observation. We have partnered with ReVision to accomplish this process. A supplemental has been provided showing the core training and on-going training that will be completed by all administrators to ensure a comprehensive understanding of leadership applications related to teacher evaluations. Coaching support will be provided for an administrator who does not meet standards.

16

Categories of WHPS Teacher Evaluation Plan For the purpose of the following section, the word “teacher” will constitute all certified staff as defined in Glossary.

Category 1 - Teacher Performance and Practice (40%)

Forty percent (40%) of a teacher’s evaluation shall be based on observation and evidence collection related to teacher practice and performance as articulated in the WHPS Instructional Framework. Figure E

Conclusions about teacher performance by an evaluator in this category will be made based on various data collection approaches in multiple settings. Furthermore, the evidence collection approaches are differentiated based on a teacher's years of experience and by levels of previous performance.

Our process requires that all teachers self-assess against the WHPS Instructional Framework set and demonstrate growth relative to at least two (2) but no more than four (4) mutually agreed to professional learning objectives in conjunction with student learning goals (see Category 3 Student Learning) and collect and reflect with their evaluator on documentation and artifacts relative to effective practices. Observation by designated administrators is also part of process. General guidelines for all teachers are outlined in Figure F on the following page.

17

Figure F Evaluation Process

18

The specific observation protocols employed by administrators vary depending on each teacher’s tenure status and levels of performance. The processes associated with observation of classroom practice has been designed with varied approaches for our non-tenured and tenured teachers as well as for high performing and low performing teachers. These processes are outlined in the text, tables and timelines that follow.

Table 2 Non-Tenured Teachers Review and Objective Setting

Observation and support of non-tenured teachers will include multiple observations of classroom practice including both written and oral feedback to support ongoing professional growth. The table below defines the various steps to be taken by non-tenured teachers and their assigned evaluator during a typical school year.

Action Person Documents Timeline

Self-Assessment based on IF Teacher Teacher Self-Assessment Form A – p. 131 PGO – includes reflection on previous years document – Form E – p. 138

By Sept 15

Two Informal Observations- (Minimum 10 min) Review of Feedback by Teacher Written Feedback by Evaluator in 2 days Verbal Feedback

Evaluator/ Teacher

Informal Observation Form C – p. 11 By Oct 15

Collaborative Objective Setting Meeting – Form E – p. 138

Evaluator/ Teacher

Teacher Self-Assessment Form A –p. 131

Feedback Observations

Teacher Objective Setting - Form F – p. 139-42

Professional Learning Objectives – Form E – p. 138

By Oct 30

Three Formal Observations of Non- Tenured Teachers Pre-Conference for at least 1 (form B p. 133)

Evaluator/ Teacher

Pre-Conf Form B – p 133 Classroom Observation Form C – p. 135-136 Post-Conf Form D – p. 136

By Feb 28

19

2 - additional Pre-Conference as necessary (1 Announced/1 Unannounced) Observation- (45 min or Single Period) Post Conference within 3 work days

Minimum of Two Additional Informal Observations- (Minimum 10 min) Review of Feedback by Teacher Written Feedback by Evaluator in 2 work days Verbal Feedback

Evaluator/ Teacher

Informal Observation Form C By May 15

Mid-Year Conference Evaluator/ Teacher

Mid-Year Conference Form G –p. 152 - 153 By Jan 30

End-of-Year Conference Evaluator/ Teacher

End-of-Year Conference Form G – p. 152 -153

Teacher Evidence-based Portfolio

By June 1

Preparation and Submission of Summative Evaluation

Evaluator By June 15

20

Table 3 Tenured Teachers Performance and Practice Review and Goal Setting

Observation and support of tenured teachers will include multiple observations of classroom practice including both written and oral feedback to support ongoing professional growth. The table below defines the various steps to be taken by tenured teachers and their assigned evaluator during a typical school year.

Action Person Documents Timeline

Self-Assessment based on IF Teacher Teacher Self-Assessment Form A – p. 131 PGO – includes reflection on previous years document – Form E – p. 138

By Sept 15

Collaborative Objective Setting Meeting Evaluator/ Teacher

Teacher Self-Assessment Form A –p. 131

Teacher Objective Setting Form F – p. 139-42

Professional Learning Objectives Form E – p. 138

By Oct 30

(Score: 1-2) 3 Formal Observations of Low- Performing Tenured Teachers (Pre-Post and 45 min) (3-Announced) Written Feedback

Evaluator/ Teacher


By Jan 30

(Score: 3-4) 1 Formal Observation of High- Performing Tenured Teachers (Pre-Post and 45 min) (Announced) Written Feedback

Evaluator/ Teacher


By Jan 30

Minimum 5 Unannounced Informal Observations of Low-Performing

Evaluator/ Teacher

Informal Observation Form By May 1

21

Teachers - (Minimum 10 min) Review of Feedback by Teacher Written Feedback by Evaluator in 2 work days

Minimum 4 Unannounced Informal Observations of High-Performing Teachers- (Minimum 10 min) Review of Feedback by Teacher Written Feedback by Evaluator in 2 work days NOTE: Can include different settings and different elements*

Evaluator/ Teacher

Informal Observation Form C By May 1

Peer Observations (Optional)

Teachers Peer-Observation Forms Collaborative Review Sheets

By May 1

Mid-Year Conference Evaluator/ Teacher

Mid-Year Conference Form - G – p. 152 - 153

Evidence of Student Achievement

By Feb 28

End-of-Year Conference Evaluator/ Teacher

End-of-Year Conference Form – G - p. 152 - 153

Teacher Evidence-based Portfolio Evidence of Student Achievement

By June 1

Preparation and Submission of Summative Evaluation

Evaluator By June 15

* PLC mtgs. Collaborative inquiry teams, Planning and Placement Team (PPT) meetings, Student Success Team (SST)mtgs., parent conference, facilitation/presentation of a CSI, parent orientation presentation, coaching or mentoring other teachers, review of lesson plans or other teaching artifacts

22

Evaluators will use the WHPS Instructional Framework to focus evidence collection based on the timeline provided. While individual observations will not be weighted independently, evidence should be collected and feedback should generate discussion relative to the performance levels being observed. At the end of the year, evaluators will complete a collective review of all evidence collected to determine an overall rating of teacher performance and practice across all domains of the WHPS Instructional Framework. These ratings will be applied to a summative score that will be determined based on the weighting described in Table 4.

Table 4 Teacher Performance and Practice Scoring

Focus Area Score Weighting Points (score x Weight)

Professional Responsibilities

15

Classroom Environment 25 Assessment 20 Planning and Preparation 10 Instructional Practice 30 Total Score

The total score on performance and practice as defined above is part of the teacher’s Practice Rating. The total score from this section is added to the overall summative scoring as outlined in the Aggregate and Summative Scoring section beginning on page 34 of this document.

The timelines referred to in the plan are to be used as a guide in the evaluation process throughout the year for each individual teacher. As there are often scheduling difficulties or absences there may be cases where deadlines are reasonably extended.

23

Category 2 - Parent Feedback (10%)

Parent feedback will be collected and will constitute 10% of a teacher’s evaluation. Figure G

West Hartford will use whole school parent survey data to support goal setting during the beginning of the year and connections will be made between both Student Learning Objectives (SLO’s) and Professional Learning Objectives (PLO’s - formerly Professional Growth Option - PGO). Previous year’s data will be used to support this process during year one and each year, new data will be collected and analyzed to support the establishment of school-wide goals and individual teacher targets to support improved practice on behalf of stakeholders. Appendix G provides sample questions that have been reviewed by the WHPS TRAC Steering Committee.

Parent feedback will be aggregated and reviewed during the End of Year meetings wherein evaluators and teachers will determine the degree to which the teacher has met school or individual targets set at the beginning of the year. Focus on the indicators outlined in the WHPS Instructional Framework will be taken into consideration to assist in the final rating of a teacher’s performance in this category and the following scale will be used in alignment with that continuum:

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Did Not Meet Goal Partially Met Goal Met Goal Exceeded Goal

24

Category 3 - Student Learning Measures (45%)

Figure H

Overview of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)

Forty-five percent of a teacher’s evaluation is based on student learning measures that will be measured by establishing Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) that are derived from District and Building level goals. Twenty-two and one half (22.5) percent will be determined by student growth based on state test performance where the teacher has responsibility for those students. The other 22.5% will be based on an SLO derived from benchmark assessments and/or other district determined or teacher developed performance assessments or student work aligned to District/building rubrics (22.5%). Where state testing does not apply, the teacher will create an SLO based upon other standardized data/benchmark assessments/performance assessments. For each SLO, a teacher will provide Indicators of Academic Growth and Development (IAGD) to help determine student success in achieving the SLO typically representing at least one year’s growth and/or mastery of grade-level content standards (See Appendix E, Form F).

Benchmark assessments/performance assessments that can be used in the development of SLO’s are provided through the district’s Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Department. As teachers and evaluators consider the development of SLO’s they should carefully consider the types of assessments they use to strive

Teacher Performance and Practice

40%

Parent Feedback 10%

Student Learning

Measures 45%

Student Feedback 5%

Outcomes Rating 50%

Outcomes Rating Student Learning Measures

45%

25

towards greater student achievement. The following section outlines West Hartford Public School’s core definitions for assessment and assessment design that should be carefully considered when writing SLO’s.

Assessment

Assessment is an integral component of teaching and learning. It provides decision makers, including teachers, parents/guardians, students, administrators, and the general public with the information they need to monitor and advance student, teacher, school, and district progress. A key guiding principle related to assessment is that the results of all assessments will be reviewed to better meet the needs of students in attaining their learning goals. Assessments can take on various forms and the following general categorical definitions are offered to establish the general purpose of each assessment type.

Formative Assessment: assessment used to evaluate students’ knowledge and understanding of particular content; the results are used by the teacher to adjust and plan instruction to improve achievement in that particular area

• Can be anything that informs instruction – can be daily, ongoing, informal,observation based, embedded within learning activities of a lesson (i.e., havestudents represent large whole numbers in three different ways), etc.

• Provides diagnostic information• Occurs prior to or while instruction is taking place• Is typically informal taking a small amount of time• Leads to instructional decisions that inform instruction and assist in planning for

intervention/enrichment• Is typically not used for grading purposes• Used to identify student strengths and weaknesses• Is an integral part of the teaching-learning process• Student feedback is provided very quickly – on the spot or within a 1 day

turnaround

Interim Assessment: assessment designed to measure progress during the course of instruction with results used to tailor instruction to meet all students’ needs and to identify students in need of additional support or extensions to learning

• More formal than formative assessments• Can be used as an early warning of performance on later high stakes tests• Can cover some or all of the school year curriculum• Can be analyzed and used to identify programmatic questions• Provides a “benchmark” for assessing learning

26

• Is sometimes used for grading purposes• Should be administered often enough to provide timely feedback on student

learning but spaced widely enough so there is time to alter instruction andproduce measurable progress before the next assessment

• Can be analyzed to provide some diagnostic information• Generally occurs after 4 – 9 weeks of instruction

Summative Assessment: assessment used to document student achievement at the end of a unit or course, or to evaluate the end product of a learning activity or unit of study

• Occurs after the material has been taught• Can include graded tests and quizzes, final exams, unit tests, graded

performances, state assessments, district year end assessments• May be used for grading purposes• Can be used to provide some diagnostic information

Selecting methods of assessment There is a wealth of assessment methods used to assess student achievement, but what factors should guide teacher selection of assessment methods? The primary goal is to choose a method that most effectively assesses the objectives of the unit of study. In addition, choice of assessment methods should be aligned with the overall aims of the program, and may include the development of disciplinary skills (such as critical evaluation or problem solving) and support the development of other competencies (such as particular communication or team skills.)

Hence, when choosing assessment items, it is useful to consider both the immediate task of assessing student learning in a particular unit of study, and the broader aims of the program and the qualities of the student. Ideally this is something done with colleagues so there is a planned assessment strategy across a program.

When considering assessment methods, it is particularly useful to think first about what qualities or abilities you are seeking to engender in the learners. Nightingale et al (1996) provide eight broad categories of learning outcomes that are listed below. Within each outcome category some methods are suggested.

1. Thinking critically and making judgments(Developing arguments, reflecting, evaluating, assessing, judging)

Essay Report Journal Letter of Advice to.... (about policy, public health matters .....)

27

Present a case for an interest group Prepare a committee briefing paper for a specific meeting Book review (or article) for a particular journal Write a newspaper article for a foreign newspaper Comment on an article's theoretical perspective

2. Solving problems and developing plans(Identifying problems, posing problems, defining problems, analyzing data, reviewing, designing experiments, planning, applying information)

Problem scenario Group Work Work-based problem Prepare a committee of inquiry report Draft a research bid to a realistic brief Analyze a case Conference paper (or notes for a conference paper plus annotated bibliography)

3. Performing procedures and demonstrating techniques(Computation, taking readings, using equipment, following laboratory procedures, following protocols, carrying out instructions)

Demonstration Role Play Make a video (write script and produce/make a video) Produce a poster Lab report Prepare an illustrated manual on using the equipment, for a particular audience Observation of real or simulated professional practice

4. Managing and developing oneself(Working co-operatively, working independently, learning independently, being self- directed, managing time, managing tasks, organizing)

Journal Portfolio Learning Contract Group work

5. Accessing and managing information(Researching, investigating, interpreting, organizing information, reviewing and paraphrasing information, collecting data, searching and managing information sources, observing and interpreting)

28

Annotated bibliography Project Dissertation Applied task Applied problem

6. Demonstrating knowledge and understanding(Recalling, describing, reporting, recounting, recognizing, identifying, relating & interrelating)

Written examination Oral examination Essay Report Comment on the accuracy of a set of records Devise an encyclopedia entry Produce an A - Z of ... Write an answer to a client's question Short answer questions: True/False/ Multiple Choice Questions (paper-based or

computer-aided-assessment)

7. Designing, creating, performing(Imagining, visualizing, designing, producing, creating, innovating, performing)

Portfolio Performance Presentation Hypothetical Projects

8. Communicating(One and two-way communication; communication within a group, verbal, written and non-verbal communication; arguing, describing, advocating, interviewing, negotiating, presenting; using specific written forms)

Written presentation (essay, report, reflective paper etc.) Oral presentation Group work Discussion/debate/role play Participate in a 'Court of Inquiry' Presentation to camera Observation of real or simulated professional practice

29

Variety in assessment It is interesting to note that the eight learning outcomes listed above would be broadly expected of any graduating learner from a higher education program. Yet, when choosing assessment items, we tend to stay with the known or the 'tried and true methods', because they seem to have the ring of academic respectability, or possibly because it was the way we were assessed ourselves.

When choosing methods it is important to offer variety to learners in the way they demonstrate their learning, and to help them to develop a well-rounded set of abilities by the time they graduate.

30

Timeline/Process for Developing SLO’s

Teachers will begin the school year with an analysis of their students’ performance relative to the core content and essential learning of their course/classroom/teaching assignment. Teachers will use performance data to establish their learning objectives and outline, with their assigned evaluator, the methods to routinely monitor the progress of their students towards these learning goals. This progress will be reviewed during a Mid-Year Meeting with a evaluator to recognize progress or seek additional support and re-direction if necessary. Determination of attainment of targets will be reviewed during the End-of Year meeting if data is available. In all cases in which data is not available in time for an end of year meeting, evaluators and teachers will discuss any additional data that may have been collected.

Figure I Timeline for SLO’s

31

Figure J helps to define how Student Learning Objectives are determined for each teacher. Teachers and assigned evaluators should utilize the flow chart to provide guidance to the creation of student learning measures.

Figure J Process for SLO Selection

A form is provided in the appendix to support on-going analysis of standardized assessments that will be used to measure teacher effectiveness in conjunction with student learning. Due to the fact that not all teachers have standardized assessments available, nor would it be effective practice to solely look at standardized measures for all

Set one (1) Student Learning Objectives – Standardized and set one (1) Student Learning Objective – Non-Standardized

Set one (1) Student Learning Objectives – Standardized and set one (1) Student Learning Objective – Non-Standardized

Set two (2) Student Learning Objective – Non-Standardized

Will your students take the CMT or CAPT?

Will your students take another standardized assessment from the

approved WHPS Assessment List?

NO

YES

YES

NO

32

students, teachers are encouraged to set student learning objectives based on performance assessments designed individually or in grade level and/or departments that include non- standardized measures of student performance.

SLO Scoring: Scoring for SLO’s: Each SLO will receive 2 scores

• 1 Score for Whole Student Performance• 1 Score for Subgroup Performance

Whole Group Performance Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Less than 60% of students met the SLO-IAGD.

At least 60% of students met the SLO-IAGD.



Sub Group Performance: Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Less than 40% of students in targeted subgroups met the SLO-IAGD.

At least 40% of students in targeted subgroups met the SLO-IAGD.



The two scores for SLO 1 are averaged together The two scores for SLO 2 are averaged together

Whole Group Performance

Subgroup Performance

Average

SLO 1 3 2 2.5 SLO 2 3 1 2

Requirements to be included in the student data set:

Students need to have been continuously enrolled in the teacher’s class for at least 7 months.

33

Category 4 - Student Feedback (5%)

Five percent (5%) of a teacher’s evaluation shall be based on student feedback that will be collected utilizing district-generated surveys. The district will use various delivery models to ensure higher rates of return, fairness and reliability relative to student surveys.

Figure K

West Hartford will use whole school student survey data to support goal setting during the beginning of the year and connections will be made between both Student Learning Objectives (SLO’s) and Professional Learning Objectives (PLO’s - formerly Professional Growth Option - PGO).

Each year new data will be collected and analyzed to support the establishment of school-wide and individual teacher goals to promote improved practice. During year one, WHPS will use existing school survey data as the foundation for school and teacher objective setting relative to student feedback.

Different surveys for elementary students and a secondary survey for grades 6- 12 have been reviewed. Appendix G provides sample questions that have been reviewed by the WHPS TRAC Steering Committee.

Student feedback will be aggregated and reviewed during the End of Year meetings wherein evaluator and teachers will determine the degree to which the teacher has met school or individual targets set at the beginning of the year. Focus on the indicators outlined in the


40%

Parent Feedback 10%

Student Learning Measures

45%

Student Feedback

5%

Outcomes Rating 50%

Outcomes Rating Student Feedback

5%

34

WHPS Instructional Framework will be taken into consideration to assist in the final rating of a teacher’s performance. The following scale will be used in alignment with that continuum:

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Did Not Meet Goal Partially Met Goal Met Goal Exceeded Goal

Survey Design and Administration Support is provided to teachers in the administration of student surveys to ensure that students feel comfortable providing feedback without fear of retribution. Surveys are confidential and survey responses will not be tied to students’ names. Instructions are provided with each survey (see sample provided in Appendix G) to ensure that each survey is administered to students in such a way as to yield the best possible feedback for growth in teacher practice.

Aggregate and Summative Score

As described in Section II, a teacher’s summative rating will include a combination of the performance ratings associated with the four categories of the evaluation model. Evidence relative to a teacher’s performance and practice will be combined with scores related to a teacher’s efforts associated with parent feedback goals to determine an overall Practice Rating. Performance relative to student learning measures will be combined with student scores related to a teacher’s efforts associated with student feedback goals to determine an overall Outcomes Rating. These two overall ratings will be combined to result in each teacher’s Summative Rating. (See Figure C – Categories of Performance Evaluation on page 12)

Determining Summative Rating

Step 1: Calculate Teacher Performance and Practice Rating/Parent Feedback Scores

Step 2: Determine Final Performance Level for Performance and Practice and Parent Feedback

Step 3: Calculate Student Learning Measures and Student Feedback Scores

Step 4: Determine final Student Learning Measures and Student Feedback

Step 5: Use final Practice and Outcomes Scores to determine overall Performance designation

35

Step 1: Calculate Teacher Performance and Practice Rating/Parent Feedback Scores

Calculate a teacher’s performance and practice (40%) with particular focus on the Classroom Environment, Assessment, and Instructional Practice Focus Areas of the WHPS Instructional Framework. Calculate a teacher’s performance relative to Parent Feedback (10%) for the school.

Teacher Performance and Practice/Parent Feedback

Category Component Score (score 1-4)

Weight Points (score x Weight)


Observation and Review of Practice by Evaluator

40

Parent Feedback School-wide parent survey data review

10

Total Practice Score

Step 2: Determine Final Performance Level Rating for Performance and Practice and Parent Feedback

Rating Table

Indicator Points Performance Level Rating

163-200 Exemplary

125-162 Effective

88-124 Developing

50-87 Below Standard

Final Performance Level Rating for Practice Rating

Step 3: Calculate Student Learning Measures and Student Feedback Scores

Calculate a teacher’s performance relative to targets outlined in Student Learning Objectives (45%) at the beginning of the year and based on student performance data. Calculate a teacher’s performance relative to Student Feedback (5%) for the school.

36

Student Learning/Student Feedback

Category Component Score (score 1-4)

Weight Points (score x Weight)

Student Learning Measures

Student Development and Growth based on SLO’s

45

Student Feedback

Student Feedback on Teacher Practice

5

Total Outcomes Score

Step 4: Determine final Student Learning Measures and Student Feedback

Rating Table

Indicator Points Performance Level Rating

163-200 Exemplary

125-162 Effective

88-124 Developing

50-87 Below Standard

Final Performance Level Rating for Outcomes Rating

37

Step 5: Use final Practice and Outcomes Scores to determine overall Performance designation Using the Summative Rating Matrix, determine the final performance rating for teachers based on their combined scores. To use the table, identify the teachers rating for each category and follow the respective column and row to the center of the table. The point of intersection indicates the summative rating.

Table 5 Summative Scoring Matrix

Summative Performance Rating

Outcome Rating

Practice Rating

Exemplary Proficient Developing Below Standard

Exemplary Exemplary Exemplary Effective Gather Further Information

Effective Exemplary Effective Effective Gather Further Information

Developing Effective Developing Developing Below Standard

Below Standard

Gather Further Information

Below Standard

Below Standard

Below Standard

38

III. Professional Outcomes

West Hartford Public Schools Non-Tenure Review Process

Recruitment and retention of high quality teachers is a priority. We strive to develop our beginning teachers by providing substantial ongoing professional development support. This includes, and is not limited to the following: teacher induction and orientation workshops at the district and building levels prior to the start of the school year, trained mentors, study groups and courses during our early release Wednesday Curriculum and Staff Improvement (CSI) series, and by keeping mentors and administrators updated with training. A District Facilitator oversees the Teacher Educator and Mentoring (TEAM) program in support of new teachers. Equally important is ensuring that evaluators and supervisors have on-going training to provide optimal support to teachers.

The district non-tenure review process is another vehicle to ensure teacher quality and support. During late January through early March a team that includes the Executive Director of Human Resources and the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent for Administration and/or Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment visits each of our sixteen schools to discuss every non-tenure teacher. During these reviews the principal is present, as is the primary evaluator (if different from the principal). The teacher’s record is reviewed including observations completed to date, objective setting forms and completed evaluations (if teacher has been with us more than 1 year). The evaluator presents a summary of the teacher’s strengths and areas for improvement. The central office team asks relevant questions related to the teacher’s instructional practice, levels of content area expertise, ability to analyze data and student work, use of feedback, relationship building, communication and collaboration ability, professionalism and personal assessment aligned with the Connecticut Common Core of Teaching. A dialogue occurs to determine if additional resources/strategies are necessary to support the teacher’s development. Every year there are a small number of teachers who do not demonstrate the potential for excellence in our school district, even with the resources and guidance provided. These difficult conversations result in making certain that we grant tenure only to those teachers who are clearly accomplished or master teachers.

The Non-Tenure Review process is an accountability practice. When evaluators are required to engage in a dialogue regarding a teacher’s performance over time with their superiors better decisions regarding teacher tenure are made. Principals and evaluators appreciate the opportunity to discuss strategies for improvement.

Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development

Evaluation of the professional skills of the staff is key to helping teachers maximize their performance in the classroom. Hence, the professional development is closely tied to teacher evaluation. The two go hand in hand to set a structure within which teachers examine their

39

classroom performance and ability to meet the diverse and changing needs of their students. After identifying areas for growth, teachers actively participate in a wide range of professional development activities designed to improve classroom performance.

The district Theory of Action or Model of Continuous Improvement, is the process by which we design and carry out teacher development, teacher support, and teacher evaluation. Designed to support continuous and ongoing teacher growth and development that is driven by data collection, analysis, teaching, collaboration, and reflection, this process is also aligned with the Board of Education goals, the district mission, and core values. It reflects the processes that our educators use every day in their work with students and families. The work of improvement is an ongoing and continuous process over the life of a teacher’s career. The Model of Continuous Improvement highlights the role of professional learning as central and collaboration and teacher collaborative teams as the means to teacher continuous growth and ultimately student growth and development.

The West Hartford Public School system's Professional Development Plan is based on the belief that all children can and should learn. The key to each child's success is the quality of the instruction at the classroom level. Therefore, the primary purpose of the professional development plan is to enhance the professional skills of the staff so they may more effectively meet the educational needs of all students.

Objectives for Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development

I. To insure the learning and academic achievement for all students.

II. To establish a procedure by which long-range goals of the school system can betranslated into performance objectives for individual teachers.

III. To facilitate communication and cooperation among teachers, administrators, and othermembers of the profession.

IV. To contribute to good morale by demonstrating just and equitable personnel practices.

V. To provide a continuous record of the teacher's performance.

VI. To provide feedback which motivates personal and professional growth.

VII. To provide focus for continuing education and professional development.

VIII. To offer assistance to the teacher for the improvement of the educational program.

IX. To elicit suggestions from the teacher for the improvement of the educational program.

40

Professional Development – Curriculum and Staff Improvement (CSI)

In West Hartford, professional learning is elevated to a level that not only provides current information, but also ensures that the learning teachers engage in will impact student achievement in their classrooms. Our efforts are sustained throughout the year in a detailed and carefully planned CSI Calendar. This blueprint carves out time for all educators in West Hartford to engage in professional learning at the classroom, school, department, and district levels. Time is allocated for district, building, and department initiatives, along with curriculum review and renewal. Two Townwide CSI Series, consisting of three Wednesday afternoons in the winter and three in the spring, allow for district-wide collaboration. Teachers work with supervisors to plan programs of professional learning that are aligned with the goals of the district, school, and departments. Through collaborative inquiry, learning becomes a part of the work of teaching.

Our CSI program, because it is sustained throughout the year, allows us to address and implement initiatives over the course of time rather than in a brief experience. Professional learning becomes a process, rather than an event. Teachers are able to collaborate, learn, put learning into practice, and meet weekly to reflect and review on the effectiveness of efforts. Teachers are accountable for their learning in this on-going sustained system. New initiatives are implemented more effectively and efficiently, as time is built in to address issues as they arise in the course of implementation.

Curriculum Development and Review/Renewal Plan

Curriculum development and renewal in the West Hartford Public Schools is a dynamic and continuous process in which the school system plans, carries out and evaluates educational programs in a systematic and data driven way. This process helps ensure that the curricula expectations for the school system and its schools are rigorous, relevant and public. In addition, it guarantees that our curriculum is aligned with state and national standards. Preparing and inspiring students to realize their potential and to prepare them to be ready to enhance our global community is the primary focus of the work.

West Hartford has had a long history of curriculum review and renewal. The five year review process is grounded in research and best practices that focus on the “Five Characteristics of an Effective Curriculum.”1 They are:

1. A meaningful curriculum – curriculum focuses on fundamental knowledge and skillsnecessary to succeed in a changing society and world. It may derive its goals fromessential concepts of the disciplines, such as the Bill of Rights, algebraic equations ortimeless issues in great literature, or from basic concepts for democratic living, or frombasic skills and processes (or from all three).

1Glatthorn, Allan A., Carr, Judy F., Harris, Douglas, E. (2001). Curriculum Handbook. (pp.6-8), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development.

41

2. A coherent curriculum –systematically develops sophistication in knowledge,understanding, and the ability to perform2

3. In an articulated curriculum – learning at different grade levels is appropriatelysequenced and related.

4. An aligned curriculum – curriculum connects the written curriculum, what is taught andlearned in classrooms, and assessment practices.

5. A curriculum that promotes high standards for all students – includes publicknowledge of learning goals and sharing criteria and models of success.

The five-year review process required a cycle of review that included a year of evaluation or preparation for review, the year of the review itself, followed by three years of implementation. While a five-year cycle is practicable, it is not adequate in its responsiveness to the continuously changing global community or expectations. In addition, the five-year process alone is not sufficient in its response to the immediate needs of students and teachers alike as they implement the curriculum. Since the curriculum should be based on the mission, goals and needs of the school district, state and national standards, which are linked to state assessments as well as the aspirations of the community, it is imperative that the review process align itself with the district expectations for continuous improvement. Therefore, the five-year process is supplemented with annual vertical analysis and program review.

The Curriculum Professional Development Council (CPDC)

It is imperative to examine curriculum and its implementation across a range of teacher and administrator experience levels. The Curriculum Professional Development Council (CPDC) is an organizational structure that provides for the coordination between content areas and grade levels and, additionally, ensures the involvement of those affected by the curriculum. The CPDC provides district-wide coordination of curriculum and implementation. The Council includes rotating membership of school administrators, central office staff, PreK-12 faculty, department supervisors, and curriculum specialists. The Council works with the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment to ensure that there are opportunities for integration of curriculum across subject areas, and that the district has a long range and systemic plan for curriculum renewal. In addition, the Council advises the professional development needs of the faculty based on curricular and instructional priorities. In its cross-disciplinary nature, the CPDC provides vital information to guide the development of the District Development and 1Performance Plan for Continuous Improvement.

2 Erickson, H. Lynn. (2002). Concepts-Based Curriculum and Instruction: Teaching Beyond the Facts, Thousand Oaks, CA: Cowrin Press

42

The responsibilities of the CPDC are to: • Provide feedback to directors, principals, department supervisors, and curriculum

specialists for curriculum areas under review. • Provide information for recommendations when necessary to the assistant

superintendent for curriculum, instruction, and assessment.• Assist in the effort to improve effective communication across the schools related to

curriculum and professional development.• Formulate recommendations regarding the curriculum and staff improvement (CSI)

calendar.• Monitor the suitability and applications of the West Hartford Professional Development

Plan and State of Connecticut Department of Education Guidelines.

Membership guidelines for the CPDC include the following: • Every school must be represented• Elementary and secondary school principals• Elementary and secondary school teachers (all inclusive, i.e. ESOL, LMS, P.E., Arts,

etc.)• Special education teachers and school counselors.• Department supervisors and curriculum specialists 3-4 of each• Teacher of the Year (annual appointment)• Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment, Directors of

Elementary and Secondary Education permanent members

Responsibilities of members: • Report to faculty• Participate in curriculum review planning sessions• Attend 3 full-day meetings/year• Set priorities for professional development for the district• Develop CSI calendar• Research and discuss best practices, curriculum and assessment.

To ensure an aligned and coherent curriculum, examining the pathways that students experience both within and across the grades, is paramount. Curriculum Vertical Teams are Pk-12 teams designed to accomplish town-wide curriculum coordination and articulation. The vertical team in each discipline also serves to ensure that changes and modifications are made in a timely way and in response to immediate or external changes.

In order to continue to evaluate our effective implementation of content, skills, and understandings across all disciplines, the curriculum vertical teams and various departments annually evaluate the progress of curriculum implementation. This is an ongoing process in which the curriculum is continuously assessed and examined to determine what needs improvement, alignment, or balancing.

43

Career Development and Professional Growth

The Leadership Academy

The Leadership Academy affords qualified educators within West Hartford Public Schools the opportunity to learn advanced leadership skills and dispositions that have been proven to enhance student achievement. Successful candidates demonstrate leadership potential, express the desire to lead, and possess the ability to establish collaborative relationships.

Over the course of two years, Academy members collaboratively create Questions for Study based upon the Connecticut Leadership Standards. Seminars are driven by a process of collaborative inquiry in which participants explore these questions and apply their learning to their current positions and Independent Leadership Projects.

Participants design, implement, and assess an Independent Leadership Project related to student learning. By sharing their findings, individual educators enhance the entire cohort’s understanding of the topic studied. Ideally, this collaboration will also lead to improved educational outcomes for students throughout the entire district.

Administrators from the district serve as mentors by providing cohort participants with ongoing guidance and support. This collegial exchange is the cornerstone of the Leadership Academy, in that it utilizes the expertise of our current administrative team to help develop leadership density within West Hartford Public Schools.

Teachers As Leaders

In addition to participation in the Leadership Academy, qualified educators can pursue alternative advanced career opportunities. These include the positions of Curriculum Specialist at the elementary level, Team Leader at the middle school level, and Teacher Education and Mentoring Program (TEAM) mentor at all PreK-12 grade levels. West Hartford teachers are encouraged to be leaders. Those who demonstrate potential for leadership may facilitate collaborative inquiry teams, plan and implement a CSI course or session, lead a book study team or research project. Teacher leaders are urged to serve as district level representatives on councils and committees addressing improvement efforts.

44

IV. Teacher Assistance Process

West Hartford Public Schools’ Teacher Effectiveness and Performance Evaluation Plan defines teacher effectiveness utilizing annual summative ratings. A tenured teacher shall generally be deemed ineffective if said teacher receives at least two sequential developing ratings (a rating of 2) or one below standard rating (a rating of 1) at any time.

When a non-tenured teacher is determined to be ineffective, said teacher may be placed in the teacher assistance plan, or said teacher’s employment may be terminated through nonrenewal or termination. When a tenured teacher is determined to be ineffective, said teacher shall be placed in the teacher assistance plan. Teacher Assistance is a program designed to provide an evaluatee with the help necessary to meet the requirements of his or her position. Both the evaluatee and the evaluator will be able to propose professionally certified district personnel who will provide assistance and support in the teacher assistance process.

After consultation with the evaluatee, the designated evaluator will provide, in writing, to the evaluatee the following information:

• A statement of the objective(s) to be accomplished with the expected level ofperformance. The objectives(s) should be aligned with the West HartfordInstructional Framework;

• A statement defining the amount and kind of assistance and the frequency ofobservations and conferences, which will generally be no fewer than one perschool week;

• A statement identifying resources, support and other strategies to be provided;

• A timeline not to exceed 45 school days. Days of absence for either evaluator orevaluatee shall be added to extend the timeline.

When the timeline has expired, the designated evaluator will complete the Teacher Assistance Evaluation Report, which includes the job status decision. The job status decision shall be made on the basis of teacher observation and practice as defined in the Connecticut Framework for Teacher Evaluation and Support. If the designated evaluator determines that said teacher is effective at the end of 45 days, the teacher will move out of the teacher assistance plan and back to his/her normal evaluation cycle. If the designated evaluator determines that said teacher is not effective at the end of 45 days, the decision may result in a return to teacher assistance-NOT to exceed another forty-five days, or a recommendation to the Superintendent that contract termination proceedings be initiated in accordance with Section 10-151, Connecticut Education laws. (Copies available in school offices and the Human Resources Office.) When the additional timeline, if any, has expired, the designated evaluator will complete the Teacher Assistance Evaluation Report, which includes the job status decision. If the designated evaluator determines that said teacher is effective at the end of the extended period (not to exceed 45 days), the teacher will move out of the teacher assistance plan and back to his/her normal evaluation cycle. If the designated evaluator determines that said teacher is not effective at the end of such period, the evaluator shall make a recommendation to the Superintendent that contract termination proceedings be initiated in accordance with Section 10-151, Connecticut Education laws.

45

Teachers assigned to Teacher Assistance are fully protected by the right of appeal as set forth in the evaluation program, and, for a claim that there was a violation of the procedures of the evaluation program, by the grievance process.

46

V. Dispute Resolution Procedure

The right of appeal is a required element in the evaluation process and is available to every participant. The appeal procedure is designed to facilitate the resolution of disputes when an evaluator and teacher cannot agree on (1) objectives/goals, (2) the evaluation period, (3) feedback on performance and practice, or (4) the final summative rating.

To initiate an appeal, either party must submit Appeal Worksheet I to T.R.A.C. at the Education Center. Within three (3) school days of receipt of the appeal, T.R.A.C. will send copies of the appeal to the other party. Using Appeal Worksheet II, T.R.A.C. will schedule a joint meeting of the parties involved promptly, generally within seven (7) school days of the original receipt of the appeal. When an appeal is brought to T.R.A.C., the following will occur:

1. An Appeal Committee, consisting of three (3) T.R.A.C. members (one of which will bethe Superintendent or his/her designee) with one appointed as chairperson, will meetwith both parties simultaneously.

2. The parties will present their concerns, talking with each other only through thecommittee chair.

3. When the committee is satisfied that they have sufficient information, they will recess toformulate a recommendation.

4. When the Appeal Committee has reached consensus, the chairperson will prepare thewritten recommendation on Appeal Worksheet III which will be delivered to both partiesby the committee chair within three (3) school days.

5. If the Appeal Committee cannot reach consensus within the time limits set forth above,the decision on the appeal shall be made by the Superintendent.

The decision of the Appeals Committee (or the Superintendent) shall be final, except when the dispute involves an allegation that there has been a violation of the procedures of the evaluation program and the recommendation of the Appeal Committee (or the Superintendent) is not acceptable to the teacher. In such case, the teacher may initiate a Type B Grievance, utilizing either Alternative I or Alternative II. (Consult the current Agreement between the West Hartford Board of Education and the West Hartford Education Association/West Hartford Administrators’ Association for details). Given the need for prompt resolution of disputes and completion of the evaluation process, however, the decision of the Appeals Committee (or the Superintendent) shall be implemented, and the teacher’s evaluation shall be subject to review upon completion of the grievance procedure.

Appendix

Appendix A - CSDE Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation 47 B - CCT Alignment 97 C - WHPS Instructional Framework 101 D - Sample Orientation Topics and Materials 128 E - Forms 130 F - Appeal Worksheets I, II, III 155 G - Sample Survey Questions and Materials 159

Approved, as amended, on June 27, 2012 47

Appendix A CSDE Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation


IV. A.

CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Hartford

TO BE PROPOSED: June 27, 2012

RESOLVED, That the State Board of Education, pursuant to sections 51through 56 of P.A. 12-116, amended by sections 23 and 24 of P.A. 12-2 of the June 12 Special Session, and in consultation with thePerformanceEvaluationAdvisory Council(PEAC),adoptsguidelinesforamodelteacherand administrator evaluation and support program.

Approved, as amended, by a vote of 10:0,this twenty-seventh day of June, Two Thousand Twelve.

Signed:


CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Hartford

TO: State Board of Education

FROM: Stefan Pryor, Commissioner of Education

DATE: June 27, 2012

SUBJECT: Recommendation for the Adoption of the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report presents the evaluation core requirements, formally entitled “Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation, June 2012,” which the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) has developed and advanced by consensus.

HISTORICALCONTEXT/BACKGROUNDINFORMATION

Subsection (a) of Section 10-151b of the 2012 Supplemental to the Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.), as amended by Sec. 51 of P.A. 12-116, requires, in part, that the “superintendent of each local or regional board of education shall continuously evaluate or cause to be evaluated each teacher, in accordance with guidelines established by the State Board of Education, pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” Subsection (c) of Section 10- 151b, as amended by Sec. 51 of P.A. 12-116 (C.G.S.), requires that “on or before July 1, 2012, the State Board of Education shall adopt, in consultation with the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council established pursuant to section 10-151d, guidelines for a model teacher evaluation program. Such guidelines shall provide guidance on the use of multiple indicators of student academic growth in teacher evaluations. Such guidelines shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Methods for assessing student academic growth; (2) a consideration of control factors tracked by the state-wide public school system, pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10- 10a, that may influence teacher performance ratings, including, but not limited to, student characteristics, student attendance and student mobility; and (3) minimum requirements for teacher evaluation instruments and procedures.” For this section, the term “teacher” shall include each certified professional employee below the rank of superintendent employed by a board of education for at least ninety days in a position requiring a certificate issued by the State Board of Education.


Beginning in November 2010, PEAC (formally named in July 2011 when Section 10-151d (C.G.S) was revised) began meeting to discuss the evaluation of teachers and administrators. This group met regularly to develop eleven foundational principles upon which an effective teacher and administrator evaluation process should be based. Additionally, this group identified multiple indicators of student learning. On January 25, 2012, PEAC reached unanimous agreement on the required evaluation framework for teacher evaluation and on February 6, 2012, PEAC reached unanimous agreement on the required evaluation framework for administratorevaluation.

Over the past several months, PEAC has built upon these frameworks in order to develop and advance these guidelines by consensus.

RECOMMENDATIONS/JUSTIFICATIONS

Therefore, the State Department of Education, in collaboration with PEAC, recommends the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation, dated June 2012, be approved by the State Board of Education and serve as the guidelines for a model teacher and administrator evaluation and support program.


CONNECTICUT GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATOR

EVALUATION

Connecticut State Department of Education

June 2012


Preface Connecticut’s educators are committed to ensuring that students develop the skills and acquire the knowledge they will require to lead meaningful and productive lives as citizens in an interconnected world. This responsibility is shared among students, teachers, administrators, parents, the community, local boards of education, the state board of education, and local and state governments. The following educator evaluation guidelines will help ensure that Connecticut’s schools develop the talented workforce that it requires to inspire our students to higher levels of performance.

Excellent schools begin with great school leaders and teachers. The importance of highly-skilled educators is beyond dispute, as a strong body of evidence now confirms what parents, students, teachers, and administrators have long known: effective teachers are among the most important school- level factors in student learning and effective leadership is an essential component of any successful school.

The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) is committed to raising the overall quality of our schools’ workforce. To meet this goal, the state, in partnership with local and regional school districts, aims to create a comprehensive approach to developing Connecticut’s educators so that Connecticut prepares, recruits, hires, supports, develops, and retains the best educators to lead our classrooms and schools.

Educator evaluation is the cornerstone of this holistic approach and contributes to the improvement of individual and collective practice, and the growth and development of teachers and leaders. High- quality evaluations are necessary to inform the individualized professional development and support that an educator may require. Such evaluations also identify professional strengths which should form the basis of new professional opportunities. High- quality evaluations are also necessary to make fair employment decisions based on teacher and leader effectiveness. Used in this way, high-quality evaluations will bring greater accountability and transparency to schools and instill greater confidence to employment decisions across the state.

Educator evaluation also serves to articulate our priorities. The evaluation and support framework adopted by the Connecticut State Board of Education, in consultation with the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council, gives student learning the priority that it deserves. The components of this framework, requiring multiple indicators of student academic growth and development and multiple observations of teacher and leader practice from a variety of perspectives, also aim to ensure that formative and summative ratings are a fair, valid, reliable, useful, and accurate reflection of an educator’s work.

The following educator evaluator guidelines provide direction to school districts as they develop and adopt new systems of educator evaluation and support. These guidelines aim to ensure that districts have common and high expectations that educators are evaluated in a fair and consistent manner, and that employment decisions are based on fair, valid, reliable and useful indicators of an educator’s work.


Educators in Connecticut are committed to ensuring that all students achieve and develop the skills that will enable them to become lifelong learners and productive citizens in a global world. This shared responsibility must be reached collaboratively in order to help students attain excellence.

Connecticut’s Core Requirements for Educator Evaluation will assist districts in accomplishing this goal.


Section 1: Introduction 1.1Context

Sections 51 through 56 of P.A. 12-116, signed into law by Governor Dannel P. Malloy on May 15, 2012, and amended by sections 23 and 24 of P.A. 12-2 of the June 12 Special Session, requires the State Board of Education to adopt, on or before July 1, 2012 and in consultation with the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC), guidelines for a model teacher evaluation and support program. The PEAC have renamed these guidelines to “Core Requirements.” The following Core Requirements were developed pursuant to this statutory requirement and replace the Connecticut Core Requirements for Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development adopted by the State Board of Education in May of 1999. See appendix for statue language referenced.

Connecticut State Department of Education and national publications form the foundation of the new requirements:

(1) Connecticut's Common Core Standards, which clearly establishes high expectations for learning for all of Connecticut's children.

(2) Connecticut's Common Core of Teaching (CCT), adopted February 2010 (replacing the Common Core of Teaching adopted in 1999), which defines effective teaching practice throughout the career continuum of educators from pre‐service to induction to experienced teaching status in six domains:

1. Content and Essential Skills;2. Classroom Environment, Student Engagement and Commitment to Learning;3. Planning for Active Learning;4. Instruction for Active Learning;

5. Assessment for Learning; and6. Professional Responsibilities and Educator Leadership.

(3) Common Core of Leading: Connecticut Leadership Standards, adopted in June of 2012, which use the national Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards as their foundation and define effective administrative practice through six performance expectations:

1. Vision, Mission and Goals2. Teaching and Learning3. Organizational Systems and Safety4. Families and Stakeholders5. Ethics and Integrity6. The Education System.

(4) National Pupil Personnel Standards documents. Using these documents as the foundation for educator evaluation establishes critical links among effective teaching, professional learning and increased student achievement. It should be noted that the term “teacher” refers to all individuals in positions requiring certification, including, but not limited to classroom teachers. “Leaders” refer to those individuals in positions requiring an administrative certification, including, but not limited to principals.


Pursuant to subsection (c) of 10-151b of the 2012 Supplement to the Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.), as amended by Sec. 51 of P.A. 12-116 and Sec. 23 of P.A. 12-2 the June 12 Special Session, on or before July 1, 2013, the State Board of Education shall adopt, in consultation with the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council, guidelines for a model teacher evaluation program. Such guidelines shall provide guidance on the use of multiple indicators of student academic growth in teacher evaluations. Such guidelines shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Methods for assessing student academic growth; (2) a consideration of control factors tracked by the state-wide public school information system, pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10-10a of the 2012 Supplement (C.G.S.), that may influence teacher performance ratings, including, but not limited to, student characteristics, student attendance and student mobility; and (3) minimum requirements for teacher evaluation instruments and procedures. Consideration of such control factors and minimum requirements shall be undertaken and accomplished through the joint deliberations and determinations of the goal-setting conference process.

1.2 Introduction and Guiding Principles (1) The primary goal of the educator evaluation and support system is to strengthen individual

and collective practices so as to increase student learning and development. Connecticut’s Core Requirements for Educator Evaluation are based on Connecticut’s Common Core of Teaching and the Common Core of Leading: Connecticut School Leadership Standards, which guide the observation of professional practice. The Core Requirements also include multiple indicators of student academic growth and development, stakeholder feedback and the context in which an educator works. Evaluation processes are designed to promote collaboration and shared ownership for professional growth, renewal, and employment decisions.

The Connecticut Core Requirements for Educator Evaluation are based on the following guiding principles:

(a) The primary purpose of educator evaluation is to strengthen individual and collective practices in order to improve student growth;

(b) Educator evaluation is standards-based, using the Connecticut Common Core of Teaching for teacher evaluation, Common Core of Leading: Connecticut Leadership Standards for administrator evaluation, and National Pupil Personnel Services standards documents for evaluation of educators in pupil services;

(c) Connecticut’s Common Core Standards, The Connecticut Framework: K-12 Curricular Goals and Standards, the CMT/CAPT Assessments (Smarter Balanced Assessments), as well as locally-developed curriculum standards are the basis for establishing outcomes at the district and school levels;

(d) The Core Requirements foster continuing collaborative dialogue around


teaching and learning in order to increase student academic growth and development;

(e) The Core Requirements clearly connect professional learning to the

outcomes of the evaluation process.

1.3 Evaluation Approval Process (1) Educator evaluation and support systems plans or revisions to such plans must be approved annually

by the State Department of Education prior to district implementation. Such process will be an iterative one—between the State Department of Education and district superintendent or in the instance of a consortium of districts, superintendents—until the State Department of Education approves the teacher and administrator evaluation and support systems plan. The State Department of Education will inform districts of the approval process timeline.

(2) The State Department of Education will provide models for teacher and administrator evaluation and support systems. These models serve as options for districts that choose to implement pre-approved evaluation systems. Districts may choose to propose variations upon the teacher and administrator model so long as the model is consistent with the Connecticut Core Requirements for Educator Evaluation.

(3) In accordance with the requirement in the 1999 Connecticut Guidelines for Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development, in establishing or amending the local teacher evaluation plan, the local or regional board of education shall include a process for resolving disputes in cases where the evaluator and teacher cannot agree on objectives, the evaluation period, feedback or the professional development plan. Regarding the aforementioned subjects, this provision is to be utilized in accordance with the specified processes and parameters regarding objectives, evaluation period, feedback, and professional development contained in the document entitled “Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation,” dated June 2012. Should the process established as required by the document entitled “Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation,” dated June 2012 not result in resolution of a given issue, the determination regarding that issue may be made by the superintendent. An example will be provided within the State model.

1.4 Effect of the Neag Study on the Core Requirements Upon completion of the study, but not later than January 1, 2014, the Neag School of Education at The University of Connecticut shall submit to the State Board of Education such study and any recommendation concerning validation of the teacher evaluation and support program core requirements adopted by the State Board of Education. The results of the study will help determine any changes needed to the core requirements.

Should pilot districts identify promising practices within the Core Requirements, to implement during the pilot that vary from the established guidelines, those practices must


be approved by the State Department of Education in consultation with PEAC and be incorporated into the scope of the Neag study.

Section 2: Core Requirements for the Evaluation of Teachers As provided in subsection (a) of Sec. 10-151b (C.G.S.), as amended by Sec. 51 of P.A. 12-116, the superintendent of each local or regional board of education shall annually evaluate or cause to be evaluated each teacher, in accordance with the requirements of this section. Local or regional boards of education shall develop and implement teacher evaluation programs consistent with these requirements. For the purposes of these Core Requirements, the term “teacher” refers to any teacher serving in a position requiring teacher certification within a district, but not requiring 092 certification. What follows are the Core Requirements of the Educator Evaluation System for teachers.

2.1 : 4‐Level Matrix Rating System (1) Annual summative evaluations provide each teacher with a summative rating aligned to one of four performance evaluation designators: Exemplary, Proficient, Developing and Below Standard.

(a) The performance levels shall be defined as follows: • Exemplary – Substantially exceeding indicators of performance• Proficient – Meeting indicators of performance• Developing – Meeting some indicators of performance but not others

• Below standard – Not meeting indicators of performance

(b) In order to determine summative rating designations for each teacher, districts shall: 1. Rate teacher performance in each of four categories – indicators of student

academic growth and development; observations of teacher performance and practice; parent or peer feedback, which may include surveys; and whole-school student learning indicators or student feedback, which may include surveys.

2. Combine the indicators of student growth and development rating andwhole-school student learning indicators or student feedback rating into asingle rating, taking into account their relative weights; this will representan overall “outcomes rating” of Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, orBelow Standard.

3. Combine the observations of teacher performance and practice rating andthe peer or parent feedback rating into a single rating, taking into accounttheir relative weights; this will represent an overall “practice rating” ofExemplary, Proficient, Developing, or Below Standard.

4. Combine the outcomes rating and practice rating into a final rating. In


undertaking this step, the district must assign a summative rating category of Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, or Below Standard. See appendix for example.

2.2 : Teacher Evaluation Process The annual evaluation process for a teacher shall at least include, but not be limited to, the following steps, in order: (1) Goal‐setting conference:

(a) Orientation on process – To begin the process, the principal or designee provides the teacher with materials outlining the evaluation process and other information as appropriate and meets and reviews these materials. The orientation shall not occur later than November 15 of a given school year.

(b) Goal-setting conference – At the start of the school year, the principal or designee and teacher meet to discuss information relevant to the evaluation process and set goals for the year.

(c) Evidence collection and review – The teacher collects evidence about his/her practice and the principal or designee collects evidence about teacher practice to support the review.

See 2.3 for details on the Teacher Evaluation Process. (2) Mid‐year check‐ins:

(a) The principal or designee and teacher hold at least one mid- year check-in. See 2.3 for details on the Teacher Evaluation Process.

(3) End‐of‐year summative review: (a) Teacher self-assessment - The teacher reviews all information and data collected

during the year and completes a self-assessment for review by the principal or designee. This self- assessment may focus specifically on the areas for development established in the Goal- setting conference.

(b) End-of-year conference - The principal or designee and the teacher meet to discuss all evidence collected to date. Following the conference, the principal assigns a summative rating and generates a summary report of the evaluation before the end of the school year.

See 2.3 for details on the Teacher Evaluation Process.

(4) Local reporting – The district superintendent shall report the status of teacher evaluations to the local or regional board of education on or before June first of each year.

(5) State reporting – Not later than June thirtieth of each year, each superintendent shall report to the Commissioner of Education the status of the implementation of teacher evaluations, including the frequency of evaluations, aggregate evaluation ratings, the number of administrators and teachers who have not been evaluated and other requirements as determined by the Department of Education.


(6) Summative rating revisions – After all data, including state test data, are available, the principal or designee may adjust the summative rating if the state test data may have a significant impact on a final rating. A final rating may be revised when state test data are available, before September 15 of a school year.

2.3 : Teacher Evaluation Components (1) Forty‐five percent (45%) of a teacher’s evaluation shall be based on attainment of goals and/or objectives for student growth, using multiple indicators of academic growth and development to measure those goals/objectives.

(a) The process for assessing student growth using multiple indicators of academic growth and development for teacher evaluation will be developed through mutual agreement by each teacher and their evaluator at the beginning of the year. (b) The process for assessing student growth will have three phases:

1. Goal-setting conference:a. Each teacher, through mutual agreement with his/her evaluator,will select at least 1 but no more than 4 goals/objectives for student growth, the exact number based on a consideration of a reasonable number of goals/objectives taking into account teaching responsibilities and teacher experience. For each objective/goal, each teacher, through mutual agreement with his/her evaluator, will select Indicators of Academic Growth and Development (IAGD) and evidence of the IAGD based on the range of criteria used by the district.

b. Each goal/objective will:i. take into account the academic track record and overallneeds and strengths of the students the teacher is teaching that year/semester; ii. Address the most important purposes of a teacher’sassignment through self-reflection; iii. aligned with school, district and state student achievementobjectives; iv. ake into account their students’ starting learning needs visa vis relevant baseline data when available. v. Pursuant to section 10-151b (C.G.S.), as amended by subsection(c ) of Sec. 51 of P.A. 12-116, such guidelines shall include consideration of control factors tracked by the state-wide public school information system that may influence teacher performance ratings, including, but not limited to, student characteristics, student attendance and student mobility and minimum requirements for teacher evaluation instruments and procedures. Consideration of such control factors and minimum requirements shall be undertaken and accomplished through the joint deliberations and determinations of the Goal Setting process. (Also see 1.1.)


2. Mid-year check-ins: a. Evaluators and teachers will review progress toward the goals/objectives at least once during the school year, which is to be considered the midpoint of the school year, using available information, including agreed upon indicators. This review may result in revisions to the strategies or approach being used and/or teachers and evaluators may mutually agree on mid-year adjustment of student learning goals to accommodate changes (e.g., student populations, assignment).

3. End-of-year summative review:

a. Teacher Self-Assessment – The teacher reviews all information and data collected during the year and completes a self-assessment for review by the principal or designee. This self-assessment may focus specifically on the areas for development established in the Goal-setting conference.

b. End of Year Conference – The teacher shall collect evidence of student progress toward meeting the student learning goals/objectives. This evidence will be produced by using the multiple indicators selected to align with each student learning goal/objective. The evidence will be submitted to the evaluator, and the teacher and evaluator will discuss the extent to which the students met the learning goals/objectives. Following the conference, the evaluator will rate the extent of student progress toward meeting the student learning goals/objectives, based on criteria for 4 levels of performance. If state test data may have a significant impact on a final rating, a final rating may be revised before September 15 when state test data are available.

(c) One half (or 22.5%) of the indicators of academic growth and development used as evidence of whether goals/objectives are met shall be based on the state test for those teaching tested grades and subjects or another standardized indicator for other grades and subjects where available. For the other half (22.5%) of the indicators of academic growth and development, there may be:

a. A maximum of one additional standardized indicator, if there is mutual agreement, subject to the local dispute resolution procedure as described in 1.3. b. A minimum of one non-standardized indicator.

(d) Examples of indicators that may be used to produce evidence of academic growth and development include but are not limited to:

1. Standardized indicators; a. Standardized assessments are characterized by the following attributes:

i. Administered and scored in a consistent – or “standard” – manner;


ii. Aligned to a set of academic or performance“standards;”

iii. oadly administered (e.g. nation- or statewide);iv. ommercially produced;v. often administered only once a year.

b. Standardized assessments include, but are not limited to:i. AP exams;ii. SAT-9;iii. DRA (administered more than once a year);iv. DIBELS (administered more than once a year);v. NWEA (administered more than once a year);vi. rade certification exams;vii. Standardized vocational ED exams;viii. urriculum based assessments taken from banks of state-wide orassessment consortium assessment item banks.

2. Non-standardized Indicatorsa. Non-standardized indicators include, but are not limited to:

i. Performances rated against a rubric (such as: musicperformance, dance performance); ii. Performance assessments or tasks rated against a rubric (suchas: constructed projects, student oral work, and other written work); iii. Portfolios of student work rated against a rubric;iv. urriculum-based assessments, including those constructed by ateacher or team of teachers; v. Periodic assessments that document student growth over time(such as: formative assessments, diagnostic assessments, district benchmark assessments); vi. ther indicators (such as: teacher developed tests, student writtenwork, constructed project).

(e) When selecting indicators used to gauge attainment of goals/objectives, teachers and their evaluators shall agree on a balance in the weighting of standardized and non- standardized indicators as described in 2.3.d.

(f) Within the process, the following are descriptions of selecting indicators of academic growth and development: In the context of the evaluation of a teacher’s performance, 2.3.f.1 is an opportunity to evaluate the degree to which the teacher provides students fair opportunity and 2.3.f.2 is an opportunity to evaluate the context in which the teacher is working to show that the teacher is given fair opportunity. Indicators of academic growth and development should be fair, reliable, valid and useful to the greatest extent possible. These terms are defined as follows:

1. Fair to students - The indicator of academic growth and development is used in


such a way as to provide students an opportunity to show that they have met or are making progress in meeting the learning objective. The use of the indicator of academic growth and development is as free as possible from bias and stereotype.

2. Fair to teachers - The use of an indicator of academic growth and development is fair when a teacher has the professional resources and opportunity to show that his/her students have made growth and when the indicator is appropriate to the teacher’s content, assignment and class composition.

3. Reliable - Use of the indicator is consistent among those using the indicators and over time.

4. Valid - The indicator measures what it is intended to measure.

5. Useful - The indicator may be used to provide the teacher with meaningful feedback about student knowledge, skills, perspective and classroom experience that may be used to enhance student learning and provide opportunities for teacher professional growth and development.

(2) Forty percent (40%) of a teacher’s evaluation shall be based on observation of teacher practice and performance.

(a) Teacher evaluation programs developed and implemented by local or regional boards of education shall ensure that processes related to observation of teacher practice and performance:

1. Facilitate and encourage effective means for multiple in-class visits necessary for gathering evidence of the quality of teacher practice;

2. Provide constructive oral and written feedback of observations in a timely and useful manner;

3. Provide on-going calibration of evaluators in the district;

4. Use a combination of formal, informal, announced, and unannounced

observation;

5. Consider differentiating the number of observations related to experience, prior ratings, needs and goals.


6. Include pre- and post-conferences that include deep professionalconversations that allow evaluators and teachers to set goals, allow administrators to gain insight into the teacher’s progress in addressing issues and working toward their goals, and share evidence each has gathered during the year.

(b) Observations of teacher practice and performance shall meet the following minimum criteria:

1. Observation models must be standards-based. Examples of acceptablestandards based frameworks include, but are not limited to the Danielson, Marzano and Marshall frameworks, or locally developed frameworks based on best practice.

2. Observation models must be aligned to the Connecticut Common Core ofTeaching. Districts that do not adopt the state model must specify how district-selected or developed models demonstrate this alignment.

3. Observations must be rated using rubrics that have four performance levels.

(c) First and second year teachers shall receive at least three in-class formal observations. Two of the three observations must include a pre-conference, and all of the observations must include a post-conference with timely written and verbal feedback.

(d) Teachers who receive a performance evaluation designation of below standard or developing shall receive a number of observations appropriate to their individual development plan, but no fewer than three in-class formal observations. Two of the three observations must include a pre-conference, and all of the observations must include a post-conference with timely written and verbal feedback.

(e) Teachers who receive a performance evaluation designation of proficient or exemplary shall receive a combination of at least three formal observations/reviews of practice, one of which must be a formal in-class observation. The exact combination shall be mutually agreed upon by the teacher and evaluator at the beginning of the evaluation process. Examples of non- classroom observations or reviews of practice include but are not limited to: observations of data team meetings, observations of coaching/mentoring other teachers, review of lesson plans or other teaching artifacts.

(f) Districts shall provide all evaluators with training in observation and evaluation, and how to provide high-quality feedback. Districts shall describe how evaluators must demonstrate proficiency on an ongoing basis in conducting teacher evaluations.


(3) Five percent (5%) of a teacher’s evaluation shall be based on whole‐school student learning indicators or student feedback.

(a) For districts that include whole-school student learning indicators in teacher evaluations, a teacher’s indicator ratings shall be represented by the aggregate rating for multiple student learning indicators established for the administrator’s evaluation rating.

(b) For districts that include student surveys: 1. Student responses must be anonymous.


2. Surveys must demonstrate properties of fairness, reliability, validity andusefulness.

3. School governance councils shall assist in the development of whole-schoolsurveys, if applicable, in order to encourage alignment with school improvement goals.

4. An age-appropriate student survey must be administered to each student.Both the language used in the survey and the administration protocol (e.g., paper or on-line; read by student or read by an adult) shall be appropriate for the grade level.

5. Results from surveys addressed by teachers should align with student learninggoals.

6. For whole-school student surveys, ratings may be based on one of two options:a. Evidence from teacher developed student level indicators ofimprovement in areas of need as identified by the school level survey results; or b. Evidence of teacher’s implementation of strategies to address areasof need as identified by the survey results.

7. Teacher ratings in this area may be based on a teacher’s improvement inperformance goals based on student feedback or on the criteria found in Domain 6 (Professional Practice) of the Common Core of Teaching. See appendix for details.

(c) Approaches such as focus groups, interviews, or teachers’ own surveys may be used to collect information from students.

(d) The whole-school student learning indicators rating or student feedback rating shall be among four performance levels.

(4) Ten percent (10%) of a teacher’s evaluation shall be based on parent or peer feedback, including surveys.

(a) For districts that include parent surveys: 1. Parent responses must be anonymous.

2. Surveys must demonstrate properties of fairness, reliability, validity andusefulness.

3. School governance councils shall assist in the development of whole-schoolsurveys, if applicable, in order to encourage alignment with school improvement goals.


4. Survey is administered to each parent either on-line or paper version.

5. Results from surveys addressed by teachers should align with student improvement goals.

6. For whole-school parent surveys, ratings may be based on one of two options:

a. Evidence from teacher developed student level indicators of improvement in areas of need as identified by the school level survey results; or b. Evidence of teacher’s implementation of strategies to address areas of

need as identified by the survey results.


7. Teacher ratings in this area may be based on a teacher’simprovement in performance goals based on parent feedback or on the criteria found in Domain 6 (Professional Practice) of the Common Core of Teaching. See appendix for details.

(b) Approaches such as focus groups, interviews, or teachers’ own surveys may be used to collect information from parents.

(c) Peer observation or peer focus groups may be developed.

(d) The parent or peer feedback rating shall be among four performance levels.

2.4 Evaluation‐based Professional Learning Districts and schools shall provide professional learning opportunities for teachers, pursuant to subsection (b) of Sec. 10-220a of the 2012 Supplement (C.G.S.), based on the individual or group of individuals’ needs that are identified through the evaluation process. These learning opportunities shall be clearly linked to the specific outcomes of the evaluation process as it relates to student learning results, observation of professional practice or the results of stakeholder feedback. See appendix for statutory language referenced.

2.5 Individual Teacher Improvement and Remediation Plans Districts shall create plans of individual teacher improvement and remediation for teachers whose performance is developing or below standard, collaboratively developed with such teacher and his or her exclusive bargaining representative for certified teachers chosen pursuant to section 10- 153b of the 2012 Supplement (C.G.S.), and that (A) identify resources, support and other strategies to be provided by the local or regional board of education to address documented deficiencies, (B) indicate a timeline for implementing such resources, support, and other strategies, in the course of the same school year as the plan is issued, and (C) include indicators of success including a summative rating of proficient or better at the conclusion of the improvement and remediation plan.

2.6 Career Development and Growth Districts must provide opportunities for career development and professional growth based on performance identified through the evaluation process. Examples of opportunities include, but are not limited to: observation of peers; mentoring/coaching early-career teachers; participating in development of teacher improvement and remediation plans for peers whose performance is developing or below standard; leading Professional Learning Communities for their peers; differentiated career pathways; and targeted professional development based on areas of need.


2.7 Orientation Programs The local or regional board of education or regional educational service center for the school district shall offer annual orientation programs regarding the teacher evaluation and support system to teachers who are employed by such local or regional board of education and whose performance is being evaluated.

2.8 Defining Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness; Evaluation Audit and Validation (1) Each district shall define effectiveness and ineffectiveness utilizing a pattern of summative ratings

derived from the new evaluation system.

(2) At the request of a district or employee, the State Department of Education or a third- party entity approved by the SDE will audit the evaluation components that are combined to determine an individual's summative rating in the event that such components are significantly dissimilar (i.e. include both exemplary and below standard ratings) to determine a final summative rating.

(3) The State Department of Education or a third-party designated by the SDE will audit evaluations ratings of exemplary and below standard to validate such exemplary or below standard ratings by selecting ten districts at random annually and reviewing evaluation evidence files for a minimum of two educators rated exemplary and two educators rated below standard in those districts selected at random, including at least one classroom teacher rated exemplary and at least one teacher rated below standard per district selected.

Section 3: Core Requirements for the Evaluation of Administrators who Serve in Roles Requiring a 092 Certification As provided in subsection (a) of 10-151b (C.G.S.) as amended by Sec. 51 of P.A. 12-116, the superintendent of each local or regional board of education shall annually evaluate or cause to be evaluated each administrator who serves in a role requiring a 092 certification, in accordance with the requirements of this section. Local or regional boards of education shall develop and implement administrator evaluation programs consistent with these requirements. Except where noted below as applying to particular job roles, the requirements apply to all roles requiring a 092 certification. 092 certificate holders whose primary job duties include teaching students shall be evaluated using the requirements in Section 2.

3.1 : 4‐Level Matrix Rating System


(1) Annual summative evaluations provide each administrator with a summative rating aligned to one of four performance evaluation designators: Exemplary, proficient, developing and below standard.

(a) The performance levels shall be defined as follows: • Exemplary – Substantially exceeding indicators of performance • Proficient – Meeting indicators of performance • Developing – Meeting some indicators of performance but not others • Below standard – Not meeting indicators of performance

(b) In order to determine summative rating designations for each administrator,

districts shall: 1. Rate administrator performance in each of four categories – multiple student learning indicators, teacher effectiveness outcomes, observations of administrator performance and practice, and stakeholder feedback.

2. Combine the multiple-student learning indicator rating and the teacher effectiveness outcomes rating into a single rating, taking into account their relative weights; this will represent an overall “outcomes rating” of Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, or Below Standard. 3. Combine the observations of administrator performance and practice rating and stakeholder feedback rating into a single rating, taking into account their relative weights; this will represent an overall “practice rating” of Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, or Below Standard.

4. Combine the outcomes rating and practice rating into a final rating that equally weights the outcomes and practice ratings. In undertaking this step, the district must assign a summative rating performance level (i.e., Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, and Below Standard). The district must provide at the start of each school year how the “practice rating” and “outcomes rating” will be combined into one summative rating. See appendix for example.

3.2 Administrator Evaluation Process (1) The annual evaluation process for an administrator shall at least include, but not be limited to, the following steps, in order:

(a) Orientation on process – To begin the process, the superintendent or designee provides the administrator with materials outlining the evaluation process and other information as appropriate. Process information provided in orientation must include the rubric used for assessing administrator practice, the instruments to be used to gather feedback from staff, families, and/or students and their alignment to the rubric, the process and calculation by which all evaluation elements will be integrated into an overall rating.

(b) Goal-setting conference – At the start of the school year, the superintendent or

designee and administrator meet to discuss information relevant to the


evaluation process, and agree on the specific measures and performance targets for the student learning indicators, teacher effectiveness outcomes, and stakeholder feedback. In the absence of agreement, the superintendent or designee makes the final determination about the performance targets. The evaluator and administrator also identify focus areas for development of administrator practice aligned to the Connecticut School Leadership Standards. The evaluator and administrator also discuss the appropriate resources and professional development needs to support the administrator in meeting the performance targets.

(c) Evidence collection – The administrator collects evidence about his/her practice and the superintendent or designee collects evidence about administrator practice to support the review.

1. The superintendent or designee must conduct at least two school siteobservations for any administrator and should conduct at least four school site observations for administrators who are new to their district, school, the profession, or who have received ratings of developing or below standard.

2. The evaluator of an assistant principal shall conduct at least fourobservations of the practice of said assistant principal.

(2) Examples of school site observations could include observing the administrator leading professional development or facilitating teacher teams, observing the administrator working with parents and community members, observing classrooms and instructional quality, or assessing elements of the school culture.

(3) Mid‐year formative review – The superintendent or designee and administrator hold a mid‐ year formative conference, with explicit discussion of progress toward student learning targets, as well as any areas of performance related to standards of performance and practice

(4) End‐of‐year summative review: (a) Administrator self-assessment - The administrator reviews all information and

data collected during the year and completes a self-assessment for review by the superintendent or designee. This self-assessment may focus specifically on the areas for development established in the Goal-setting conference.

(b) End-of-year conference -The superintendent or designee and the administrator meet to discuss all evidence collected to date. Following the conference, the superintendent or designee assigns a summative rating and generates a summary report of the evaluation before the end of the school year.

(5) Local reporting – The district superintendent shall report the status of administrator evaluations


to the local or regional board of education on or before June first of each year.

(6) State reporting – Not later than June thirtieth of each year, each superintendent shall report to the Commissioner of Education the status of the implementation of administrator evaluations, including the frequency of evaluations, aggregate evaluation ratings, the number of administrators who have not been evaluated and other requirements as determined by the Department of Education.

(7) Summative rating revisions – After all data, including state test data, are available, the superintendent or designee may adjust the summative rating if the state test data may have a significant impact on a final rating. A final rating may be revised when state test data are available, before September 15 of a school year.

3.3 Administrator Evaluation Components (1) Forty five percent (45%) of an administrator’s summative rating shall be based on multiple student learning indicators.

(a) Twenty-two point five percent (22.5%) of an administrator’s evaluation shall be based only on student performance and/or growth on the state-administered assessments in core content areas that are part of the state’s approved school accountability system. This portion must include:

1. School Performance Index (SPI) progress from year to year; 2. SPI progress for student subgroups.

This portion may include: 1. SPI rating 2. SPI rating for student subgroups

Districts may determine locally the relative weight on each of components 1-4

within 3.3.a. For 092 holders serving in central office administrative roles, districts

shall rate performance based on results in the group of schools, group of students, or subject area most relevant to the administrator’s job responsibilities, or on district-wide student learning results.

All protections related to the assignment of school accountability ratings (e.g., the minimum number of days a student must be enrolled in order for that student’s scores to be included in an accountability measure) shall apply to the use of state test data for administrator evaluation. If the state adds a student growth indicator tied to content-area assessments to the state accountability system for schools, then that indicator shall become a required element of this portion of the administrator evaluation system.


For any school that does not have tested grades (such as a K-2 school), the entire 45% of an administrator’s rating on student learning indictors shall be based on the locally-determined indicators described below in subsection (b).

(b) Twenty-two point five percent (22.5%) of an administrator’s evaluation shall be based on at least two locally-determined indicators of student learning, at least one of which must include student outcomes from subjects and/or grades not assessed on state-administered assessments. Locally determined indicators must align to Connecticut learning standards. In instances where there are no such standards that apply to a subject/grade level, districts must provide evidence of alignment to research-based learning standards. For administrators in high schools, selected indicators must include:

1. The cohort graduation rate and the extended graduation rate, as defined inthe State’s approved application for flexibility under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. All protections related to the assignment of school accountability ratings for cohort graduation rate and extended graduation rate shall apply to the use of graduation data for principal evaluation.

(c) For all school-based administrators, selected indicators must be relevant to the student population (e.g., grade levels) served by the administrator’s school, and may include:

1. Student performance or growth on state-administered assessments and/ordistrict- adopted assessments not included in the state accountability measures (e.g., commercial content area assessments, Advanced Placement examinations, International Baccalaureate examinations).

2. Students’ progress toward graduation in the school using strong predictiveindicators, including but not limited to 9th and/or 10th grade credit accumulation and/or the percentage of students that pass 9th and/or 10th grade subjects most commonly associated with graduation.

3. Students' performance or growth on school- or classroom-developedassessments in subjects and grade levels for which there are not available state assessments.

4. Other indicators proposed by the district.

(d) For assistant principals, indicators may focus on student results from a subset of teachers, grade levels, or subjects, consistent with the job responsibilities of the assistant principal being evaluated.

(e) For central office administrators, indicators may be based on results in the group of schools, group of students, or subject area most relevant to the administrator’s job responsibilities, or on district-wide student learning results.


In selecting indicators, districts may establish district-wide indicators or may allow administrators and their evaluators to craft mutually agreed-upon student learning objectives specific to that administrator. The school or district must be able to collect adequate information on any chosen indicator to make a fair judgment about whether the administrator met the established goal. When setting targets or objectives, the superintendent or designee must include a review of relevant student characteristics (e.g., mobility, attendance, demographic and learning characteristics). The evaluator and administrator must also discuss the professional resources appropriate to supporting the administrator in meeting the performance targets.

For any administrator assigned to a school in “review” or “turnaround” status in the state’s accountability system, the indicators used for administrator evaluation must align with the performance targets set out in the school’s mandated Improvement Plan. Districts are encouraged to have such alignment for all administrators.

(2) Five percent (5%) of an administrator’s summative rating shall be based on teacher effectiveness outcomes.

Acceptable measures include: (a) Improving the percentage (or meeting a target of a high percentage) of teachers

who meet the student learning objectives outlined in their performance evaluations (If this measure is used, districts should have a process for ensuring that the process for setting student learning objectives is rigorous).

(b) Other locally-determined measures of teacher effectiveness.

For assistant principals, measures of teacher effectiveness shall focus only on those teachers the assistant principal is responsible for evaluating. If the assistant principal’s job duties do not include teacher evaluation, then the teacher effectiveness rating for the principal of the school shall apply to the assistant principal.

(3) Forty percent (40%) of an administrator’s evaluation shall be based on ratings of administrator performance and practice by the district superintendent or her/his designee(s).

Ratings must be based on evidence collected about leadership practice as described in the Common Core of Leading: Connecticut School Leadership Standards using a rubric aligned to those standards.

For principals, districts may vary the relative weights of standards, but must weight the Teaching and Learning Standard at least twice as much as any other standard. The other standards of practice must all have a weighting of at least 5% of the overall evaluation. The weighting of standards may be different for each administrator, but the weights must be established by the evaluator as part of the goal setting conference at the start of the school year. An assistant principal’s rating must be based on evidence collected about leadership practice as described in the Common Core of Leading: Connecticut School Leadership Standards. Districts may vary the relative weights of standards, but must include all six standards and weight each of them at least 5% of the overall evaluation of practice. Within the standards, evaluators may limit


the rating to those elements that are relevant to the assistant principal’s job duties. The weighting of standards may be different for each assistant principal, but the weights must be established by the evaluator as part of the goal setting conference at the start of the school year. Districts are encouraged to use the observation of assistant principal practice to highlight an individual’s readiness for the principalship.

Performance ratings that the superintendent or designee make based on direct observations of school- based administrator practice shall be based on a locally-developed or locally-selected rubric that meets the following criteria:

・It is aligned to the Common core of Leading: Connecticut School Leadership Standards. ・It clearly distinguishes among at least four levels of performance. ・It clearly identifies administrator leadership actions related to improving teacher

effectiveness, including conducting teacher evaluations.

For central office administrators, a rubric is not required. Districts may generate ratings from evidence collected directly from the Common Core of Leading: Connecticut School Leadership Standards.

In rating administrators against the rubric, the evaluator must identify a performance rating with written evidence to support the rating for each leadership standard; further, the evaluator must identify the strengths and growth areas of the administrator.

Districts selecting or designing rubrics other than the state-developed rubric shall provide training of evaluators focused on the language of the rubric and its use in practice.

The superintendent or designee shall provide feedback on administrator performance at least, but not limited to, in the mid-year conference and end-of-year conference. It is recommended that such feedback be provided as soon after an observation as is practical.

The district shall provide all evaluators of administrators with training focused on the administrator evaluation system, including at least, but not limited to, training on conducting effective observations and providing high-quality feedback.

The district may conduct the training or have evaluators participate in state-sponsored training.

(4) Ten percent (10%) of an administrator’s summative rating shall be based on feedback from stakeholders on areas of principal and/or school practice described in the Connecticut Leadership Standards.

Districts may select a subset of elements and indicators within the Leadership Standards for purposes of gathering feedback. For school-based administrators, stakeholders solicited for feedback must include teachers and parents, but may include other stakeholders (e.g., other staff, community members, students, etc.). Central office administrators shall be rated based on feedback from the stakeholders whom the administrator directly serves.


The instrument(s) selected for gathering feedback must be valid (that is, it measures what it is intended to measure) and reliable (that is, the use of the instrument is consistent among those using it and is consistent over time). In order to minimize burden on schools and stakeholders, the instruments chosen need not be implemented exclusively for purposes of principal evaluation.

More than half of the rating of a principal on stakeholder feedback must be based on an assessment of improvement over time. Districts may also rate administrators based on status performance and may have less of a focus on improvement over time if status performance surpasses a district-determined threshold of adequate performance. Districts may set common targets of improvement and performance for all administrators or set specific targets for individual administrators.

Focus groups, interviews, teacher-level surveys, or other methods may be used to gather stakeholder feedback as long as these methods meet the above definitions of valid and reliable.

If districts elect to use surveys to gather feedback, they may include the survey response rate as an input to the rating on feedback (as a way to increase the accuracy of survey results).

3.4 Evaluation‐based Professional Learning Districts and schools shall provide professional learning opportunities for administrators, pursuant to subsection (b) of Sec. 10-220a of the 2012 Supplement (C.G.S.), based on the individual or group of individuals’ needs that are identified through the evaluation process. These learning opportunities shall be clearly linked to the specific outcomes of the evaluation process as it relates to student learning results, observation of professional practice or the results of stakeholder feedback include the provision of useful and timely feedback and improvement opportunities. See appendix for statue language referenced.

3.5 Individual Administrator Improvement and Remediation Plans Districts shall create plans of individual principal improvement and remediation for principals whose performance is developing or below standard, collaboratively developed with such teacher and his or her exclusive bargaining representative for certified principals chosen pursuant to section 10-153b of the 2012 Supplement (C.G.S.), and that (A) identify resources, support and other strategies to be provided by the local or regional board of education to address documented deficiencies, (B) indicate a timeline for implementing such resources, support, and other strategies, in the course of the same school year as the plan is issued, and (C) include indicators of success including a summative rating of proficient or better at the conclusion of the improvement and remediation plan.

3.6 Career Development and Growth


Districts must provide opportunities for career development and professional growth based on performance identified through the evaluation process. Examples of opportunities include, but are not limited to: observation of peers; mentoring/coaching early-career administrators; participating in development of administrator improvement and remediation plans for peers whose performance is developing or below standard; leading Professional Learning Communities for their peers; differentiated career pathways; and, targeted professional development based on areas of need.

3.7 Orientation Programs The local or regional board of education or regional educational service center for the school district shall offer annual orientation programs regarding the administrator evaluation and support program to administrators who are employed by such local or regional board of education and whose performance is being evaluated and shall train administrators who are employed by such local or regional board of education and who are conducting performance evaluations.

3.8 Defining Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness; Evaluation Audit and Validation (1) Each district shall define effectiveness and ineffectiveness utilizing a pattern of summative ratings

derived from the new evaluation system.

(2) At the request of a district or employee, the State Department of Education or a third-party entity approved by the SDE will audit the evaluation components that are combined to determine an individual's summative rating in the event that such components are significantly dissimilar (i.e. include both exemplary and below standard ratings) to determine a final summative rating.

(3) The State Department of Education or a third-party designated by the SDE will audit evaluations ratings of exemplary and below standard to validate such exemplary or below standard ratings by selecting ten districts at random annually and reviewing evaluation evidence files for a minimum of two educators rated exemplary and two educators rated below standard in those districts selected at random, including at least one administrator rated exemplary and at least one administrator rated below standard per district selected.

Section 4: Core Requirements for the Evaluation of Student and Educator Support Specialists As provided in Sec. 10-151b of the 2012 Supplement (C.G.S.) as amended by section 51 of P.A. 12- 116, “The superintendent of each local or regional board of education shall annually evaluate or cause to be evaluated each Student and Educator Support Specialist”, in accordance with the


requirements of this section. Local or regional boards of education shall develop and implement Student and Educator Support evaluation programs consistent with these requirements.

4.1 Flexibility from Core Requirements for the Evaluation of Teachers (1) Student and Educator Support Specialists shall have a clear job descriptions and delineation of their role and responsibilities in the school to guide the setting of indicators of academic growth and development, feedback and observation.

(2) Because of the unique nature of the roles fulfilled by Student and Educator Support Specialists, districts shall be granted flexibility in applying the Core Requirements of teacher evaluation in the following ways:

(a) Districts shall be granted flexibility in using Indicators of Academic Growth and Development to measure attainment of goals and/or objectives for student growth. The Goal-setting conference for identifying the IAGD shall include the following steps:

1. The educator and evaluator will agree on the students or caseloads that theeducator is responsible for and his/her role.

2. The educator and evaluator will determine if the indicator will apply to theindividual teacher, a team of teachers, a grade level or the whole school.

3. The educator and evaluator should identify the unique characteristics ofthe population of students which would impact student growth (i.e. high absenteeism, highly mobile population in school). 4. The educator and evaluator will identify the learning standard to measure: theassessment, data or product for measuring growth; the timeline for instruction and measurement; how baseline will be established; how targets will be set so they are realistic yet rigorous; the strategies that will be used; and the professional development the educator needs to improve their learning to support the areas targeted.

(b) Because some Student and Educator Support Specialists do not have a classroom and may not be involved in direct instruction of students, the educator and evaluator shall agree to appropriate venues for observations and an appropriate rubric for rating practice and performance at the beginning of the school year. The observations will be based on standards when available. Examples of appropriate venues include but are not limited to: observing Student and Educator Support Specialist staff working with small groups of children, working with adults, providing professional development, working with families, participation in team meetings or Planning and Placement Team meetings.

(c) When student, parent and/or peer feedback mechanisms are not applicable to Student


and Educator Support Specialists, districts may permit local development of short feedback mechanisms for students, parents, and peers specific to particular roles or projects for which the Student and Educator Support Specialists are responsible.

Appendix

I. An Act Educational Reform: Sections 51 through 56 of P.A. 12‐116, as amended by section 23 and 24 of P.A. 12‐2 of the June 12 Special Session * Sec. 51. Section 10-151b of the 2012 supplement to the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(a) The superintendent of each local or regional board of education hall [continuously] annually evaluate or cause to be evaluated each teacher, in accordance with guidelines established by the State Board of Education, pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, and such other guidelines as may be established by mutual agreement between the local or regional board of education and the teachers' representative chosen pursuant to section 10-153b,andmay conductadditionalformativeevaluationstoward producinganannualsummativeevaluation.An evaluation pursuant to this subsection shall include, but need not be limited to, strengths, areas needing improvement, strategies for improvement and multiple indicators of student academic growth. Claims of failure to follow the established procedures of such evaluation andsupport programs shall be subject to the grievance procedure in collective bargaining agreements negotiated subsequent to July 1, 2004. In the event that a teacher does not receive a summative evaluation during the school year, such teacher shall receive a "not rated" designation for such school year. The superintendent shall report the status of teacher evaluations to the local or regional board of education on or before June first of each year. For purposes of this section, the term "teacher" shall include each professional employee of a board of education, below the rank of superintendent, who holds a certificate or permit issued by the State Board of Education.

(b) [Each] (1) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, each local and regional board of education shall develop and implement teacher evaluation programs consistent with

guidelines [established] adopted by the State Board of Education, pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, and consistent with the plan developed in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of section 10-220a.

(2)NotlaterthanJunethirtiethofeachyear,eachsuperintendentshallreporttothe Commissionerof Educationthestatusoftheimplementationofteacherevaluations,includingthefrequencyof evaluations,aggregateevaluationratings,thenumberofteacherswhohavenot beenevaluatedand otherrequirementsasdeterminedbytheDepartmentofEducation.


(c) On or before July 1, 2012, the State Board of Education shall adopt, in consultation with the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council established pursuant to section 10-151d, guidelines for a model teacher evaluation and support program. Suchguidelinesshall[provideguidance on]include,but notbelimitedto,(1)theuseoffourperformanceevaluationsdesignators:Exemplary, proficient, developingandbelowstandard;(2) the use of multiple indicators of student academic growth and development in teacher evaluations; [. Such guidelines shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Methods] (3) methods for assessing student academic growth anddevelopment; [(2)] (4) a consideration of control factors tracked by the state-wide public school information system, pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10-10a, that may influence teacher performance ratings, including, but not limited to, student characteristics, student attendance and student mobility; [and (3)] (5) minimum requirements for teacher evaluation instruments and procedures, including scoring systems to determine exemplary, proficient, developing and below standard ratings; (6) the development and implementation of periodic training programs regarding the teacher evaluation and support program to be offered by the local or regional board of education or regional educational service center for the school district to teachers who are employed by such local or regional board of education and whose performance is being evaluated and to administrators who are employed by such local or regional board of education and who are conducting performance evaluations; (7) the provision of professional development services based on the individual or group of individuals' needs that are identified through the evaluation process; (8) the creation of individual teacher improvement and remediation plans for teachers whose performance is developing or below standard, designed in consultation with such teacher and his or her exclusive bargaining representative for certified teachers chosen pursuant to section 10-153b, and that (A) identify resources, support and other strategies to be provided by the local or regional board of education to address documented deficiencies, (B) indicate a timeline for implementing such resources, support, and other strategies, in the course of the same school year as the plan is issued, and (C) include indicators of success including a summative rating of proficient or better immediately at the conclusion of the improvement and remediation plan; (9) opportunities for career development and professional growth; and (10) a validation procedure to audit evaluation ratings of exemplary or below standard by the department, or a third-party entity approved by the department, to validate such exemplary or below standard evaluation ratings. The State Board of Education, following the completion of the teacher evaluation and support pilot program, pursuant to section 52 of this act, and the submission of the study of such pilot program, pursuant to section 53 of this act, shall validate the guidelines adopted under this subsection.

(d) TheStateBoardofEducationmaywaivethe provisionsofsubdivision(1)ofsubsection(b)ofthis sectionforany localorregionalboardofeducationthathasdevelopedateacherevaluationprogram priorto thevalidationofthemodelteacherevaluationandsupportprogramguidelinesdescribedin subsection(c)ofthissectionandthattheStateBoardofEducationdeterminesisinsubstantial compliancewithsuchmodelteacherevaluationandsupportprogramguidelines.


Sec. 52. (NEW) (Effective from passage) (a) For the school year commencing July 1, 2012, the Commissioner of Education shall administer a teacher evaluation and support pilot program. Not later than June 1, 2012, the commissioner shall select, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (d) of this section, at least eight school districts or consortia of school districts, but not more than ten school districts or consortia of school districts to participate in a teacher evaluation and support program based on the guidelines adopted pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10-151b of the general statutes, as amended by public act 12‐116 For purposes of this section, the term "teacher" shall include each professional employee of a board of education, below the rank of superintendent, who holds a certificate or permit issued by the State Board of Education.

(b) The teacher evaluation and support pilot program described in subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section shall (1) assess and evaluate the implementation of a teacher evaluation and support program developed by a local or regional board of education pursuant to subsection (b) of section 10- 151b of the general statutes, as amended by public act 12‐116, that is in compliance with the guidelines for a teacher evaluation and support program adopted pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10-151b of the general statutes, as amended by public act 12‐116 (2) identify district needs for technical assistance and support in implementing such teacher evaluation and support program, (3) provide orientation to administrators in how to conduct performance evaluations under the teacher evaluation and support program, (4) provide training to teachers being evaluated under the teacher evaluation and support program, (5) include a validation process for performance evaluations to be conducted by the Department of Education, or the department's designee, and (6) provide funding for the administration of the teacher evaluation and support program developed by the local or regional board of education.

(c) On or before May 25, 2012, a local or regional board of education may apply, on a form provided and in a manner prescribed by the commissioner, to participate in the teacher evaluation and support pilot program.

(d) The commissioner shall select a diverse group of rural, suburban and urban school districts with varying levels of student academic performance to participate in the teacher evaluation and support pilot program. If the commissioner does not receive an adequate amount of applications for participation in the teacher evaluation and support pilot program, the commissioner shall select school districts for participation in such teacher evaluation and support pilot program to satisfy the representation requirements under this subsection.

Sec. 53. (NEW) (Effective from passage) (a) The Neag School of Education at The University of Connecticut shall study the implementation of the teacher evaluation and support pilot program described in section 52 of this act. Such study shall (1) analyze and evaluate the implementation of the teacher evaluation and support program adopted pursuant to subsection (b) of section 10-151b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, for each local or regional board of education participating in the teacher evaluation and support pilot program, (2) compare such teacher evaluation and support program adopted by each local or


regional board of education pursuant to subsection (b) of section 10- 151b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, to the teacher evaluation and support program guidelines adopted by the State Board of Education pursuant to subsection (c) of said section 10-151b, and (3) compare and evaluate the use of student performance data on the state-wide mastery examination, pursuant to section 10-14n of the general statutes, and the use of student performance data on progress monitoring tests approved by the State Board of Education as an indicator of and method for student academic growth and development. (b) Upon completion of such study, but not later than January 1, 2014, the Neag School of Education at The University of Connecticut shall (1) submit to the State Board of Education such study and any recommendation concerning validation of the teacher evaluation and support program guidelines adopted by the State Board of Education pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10-151b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, and (2) submit such study to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to education, in accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a of the general statutes.

Sec. 54. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2012) Prior to the implementation of the teacher evaluation and support program developed pursuant to subsection (b) of section 10-151b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, but not later than July 1, 2014, each local and regional board of education shall conduct training programs for all evaluators and orientation for all teachers employed by such board relating to the provisions of such teacher evaluation and support program developed by such board of education. Such training shall provide instruction to evaluators in how to conduct proper performance evaluations prior to conducting an evaluation under the teacher evaluation and support program. Such orientation shall be completed by each teacher before a teacher receives an evaluation under the teacher evaluation and support program. For purposes of this section, the term "teacher" shall include each professional employee of a board of education, below the rank of superintendent, who holds a certificate or permit issued by the State Board of Education.

Sec. 55. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2012) On July 1, 2014, and annually thereafter, the Commissioner of Education shall randomly select, within available appropriations, at least ten teacher evaluation and support programs developed pursuant to section 10-151b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, to be subject to a comprehensive audit conducted by the Department of Education. The department shall submit the results of such audits to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to education, in accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a of the general statutes.

Sec. 56. Subsection (a) of section 10-220a of the 2012 supplement to the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2012): (a) Each local or regional board of education shall provide an in-service training program for its teachers, administrators and pupil personnel who hold the initial educator, provisional educator or professional educator certificate. Such program shall provide such teachers, administrators and pupil personnel with information on (1) the nature and the relationship of drugs, as defined in subdivision (17) of section 21a-240, and alcohol to health and personality development, and procedures for discouraging their abuse, (2) health and mental health risk reduction education


which includes, but need not be limited to, the prevention of risk-taking behavior by children and the relationship of such behavior to substance abuse, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV-infection and AIDS, as defined in section 19a-581, violence, teen dating violence, domestic violence, child abuse and youth suicide, (3) the growth and development of exceptional children, including handicapped and gifted and talented children and children who may require special education, including, but not limited to, children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or learning disabilities, and methods for identifying, planning for and working effectively with special needs children in a regular classroom, (4) school violence prevention, conflict resolution, the prevention of and response to youth suicide and the identification and prevention of and response to bullying, as defined in subsection (a) of section 10-222d, except that those boards of education that implement any evidence-based model approach that is approved by the Department of Education and is consistent with subsection (d) of section 10-145a, subsection (a) of section 10-220a, asamendedbythis act, sections 10-222d, 10- 222g and 10-222h, subsection (g) of section 10-233c and sections 1 and 3 of public act 08- 160, shall not be required to provide in-service training on the identification and prevention of and response to bullying, (5) cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other emergency life saving procedures, (6) computer and other information technology as applied to student learning and classroom instruction, communications and data management, (7) the teaching of the language arts, reading and reading readiness for teachers in grades kindergarten to three, inclusive, (8) second language acquisition in districts required to provide a program of bilingual education pursuant to section 10-17f, [and] (9) the requirements and obligations of a mandated reporter. Each local and regional board of education may allow any paraprofessional or noncertified employee to participate, on a voluntary basis, in any in-service training program provided pursuant to this section,and(10)the teacherevaluationandsupportprogramdevelopedpursuant tosubsection(b)ofsection10-151b,as amendedbythisact. The State Board of Education, within available appropriations and utilizing available materials, shall assist and encourage local and regional boards of education to include: (A) Holocaust and genocide education and awareness; (B) the historical events surrounding the Great Famine in Ireland; (C) African-American history; (D) Puerto Rican history; (E) Native American history; (F) personal financial management; (G) domestic violence and teen dating violence; and (H) topics approved by the state board upon the request of local or regional boards of education as part of in- service training programs pursuant to this subsection.

*Underlined language was added in P.A. 12-116. Italicized language indicates amendmentsenacted in sections 23 and 24 of P.A. 12-2 of the June Special Session.

II. Section 10‐151b of the 2012 Supplement (C.G.S.), as amended by Section 51of P.A. 12‐116—Evaluation by superintendent of certain educational personnel

(a) The superintendent of each local or regional board of education shall [continuously] annually evaluate or cause to be evaluated each teacher, in accordance with guidelines established by the State Board of Education, pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, and such other guidelines as may be established by mutual agreement between the local or regional board of education and the teachers' representative chosen pursuant to section 10-153b, and may conduct additional


formative evaluations toward producing an annual summative evaluation. An evaluation pursuant to this subsection shall include, but need not be limited to, strengths, areas needing improvement, strategies for improvement and multiple indicators of student academic growth. Claims of failure to follow the established procedures of such evaluation and support programs shall be subject to the grievance procedure in collective bargaining agreements negotiated subsequent to July 1, 2004. In the event that a teacher does not receive a summative evaluation during the school year, such teacher shall receive a "not rated" designation for such school year. The superintendent shall report the status of teacher evaluations to the local or regional board of education on or before June first of each year. For purposes of this section, the term "teacher" shall include each professional employee of a board of education, below the rank of superintendent, who holds a certificate or permit issued by the State Board of Education.

(b) [Each] (1) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, each local and regional board of education shall develop and implement teacher evaluation programs consistent with guidelines [established] adopted by the State Board of Education, pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, and consistent with the plan developed in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of section 10- 220a. (2) Not later than June thirtieth of each year, each superintendent shall report to the Commissioner of Education the status of the implementation of teacher evaluations, including the frequency of evaluations, aggregate evaluation ratings, the number of teachers who have not been evaluated and other requirements as determined by the Department of Education.

(c) On or before July 1, 2012, the State Board of Education shall adopt, in consultation with the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council established pursuant to section 10-151d, guidelines for a model teacher evaluation and support program. Such guidelines shall [provide guidance on] include, but not be limited to, (1) the use of four performance evaluations designators: Exemplary, proficient, developing and below standard; (2) the use of multiple indicators of student academic growth and development in teacher evaluations; [.Such guidelines shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Methods] (3) methods for assessing student academic growth and development; [(2)] (4) a consideration of control factors tracked by the state-wide public school information system, pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10-10a, that may influence teacher performance ratings, including, but not limited to, student characteristics, student attendance and student mobility; [and (3)] (5) minimum requirements for teacher evaluation instruments and procedures, including scoring systems to determine exemplary, proficient, developing and below standard ratings; (6) the development and implementation of periodic training programs regarding the teacher evaluation and support program to be offered by the local or regional board of education or regional educational service center for the school district to teachers who are employed by such local or regional board of education and whose performance is being evaluated and to administrators who are employed by such local or regional board of education and who are conducting performance evaluations; (7) the provision of professional development services based on the individual or group of individuals' needs that are identified through the evaluation process; (8) the creation of individual teacher improvement and remediation plans for teachers whose performance is developing or below standard, designed in consultation with such


teacher and his or her exclusive bargaining representative for certified teachers chosen pursuant to section 10-153b, and that (A) identify resources, support and other strategies to be provided by the local or regional board of education to address documented deficiencies, (B) indicate a timeline for implementing such resources, support, and other strategies, in the course of the same school year as the plan is issued, and (C) include indicators of success including a summative rating of proficient or better immediately at the conclusion of the improvement and remediation plan; (9) opportunities for career development and professional growth; and (10) a validation procedure to audit evaluation ratings of exemplary or below standard by the department, or a third-party entity approved by the department, to validate such exemplary or below standard evaluation ratings. The State Board of Education, following the completion of the teacher evaluation and support pilot program, pursuant to section 52 of this act, and the submission of the study of such pilot program, pursuant to section 53 of this act, shall validate the guidelines adopted under this subsection.

(d) The State Board of Education may waive the provisions of subdivision (1) of subsection (b) of this section for any local or regional board of education that has developed a teacher evaluation program prior to the validation of the model teacher evaluation and support program guidelines described in subsection (c) of this section and that the State Board of Education determines is in substantial compliance with such model teacher evaluation and support program guidelines.

Sec. 52. (NEW) (Effective from passage) (a) For the school year commencing July 1, 2012, the Commissioner of Education shall administer a teacher evaluation and support pilot program. Not later than June 1, 2012, the commissioner shall select, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (d) of this section, at least eight school districts, but not more than ten school districts to participate in a teacher evaluation and support program based on the guidelines adopted pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10-151b of the general statutes, as amended by this act. For purposes of this section, the term "teacher" shall include each professional employee of a board of education, below the rank of superintendent, who holds a certificate or permit issued by the State Board of Education.

(b) The teacher evaluation and support pilot program described in subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section shall (1) assess and evaluate the implementation of a teacher evaluation and support program developed by a local or regional board of education pursuant to subsection (b) of section 10- 151b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, that is in compliance with the guidelines for a teacher evaluation and support program adopted pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10-151b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, (2) identify district needs for technical assistance and support in implementing such teacher evaluation and support program, (3) provide training to administrators in how to conduct performance evaluations under the teacher evaluation and support program, (4) provide training to teachers being evaluated under the teacher evaluation and support program, (5) include a validation process for performance evaluations to be conducted by the Department of Education, or the department's designee, and (6) provide funding for the administration of the teacher evaluation and support program developed by the local or regional board of


education.

(c) On or before May 25, 2012, a local or regional board of education may apply, on a form provided and in a manner prescribed by the commissioner, to participate in the teacher evaluation and support pilot program.

(d) The commissioner shall select a diverse group of rural, suburban and urban school districts with varying levels of student academic performance to participate in the teacher evaluation and support pilot program. If the commissioner does not receive an adequate amount of applications for participation in the teacher evaluation and support pilot program, the commissioner shall select school districts for participation in such teacher evaluation and support pilot program to satisfy the representation requirements under this subsection.

III. Section 10‐151d of the 2012 Supplement (C.G.S.)—Performance EvaluationAdvisory Council (a) There is established a Performance Evaluation Advisory Council within the Department of Education. Membership of the council shall consist of: (1) The Commissioners of Education and Higher Education, or their designees, (2) one representative from each of the following associations, designated by the association, the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, Connecticut Federation of School Administrators, the Connecticut Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers-Connecticut, and (3) persons selected by the Commissioner of Education who shall include, but not be limited to, teachers, persons with expertise in performance evaluation processes and systems, and any other person the commissioner deems appropriate.

(b) The council shall be responsible for (1) assisting the State Board of Education in the development and implementation of the teacher evaluation guidelines, pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10-151b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, and (2) the data collection and evaluation support system, pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10-10a of the general statutes. The council shall meet at least quarterly.

IV. Section10‐10a of the 2012 Supplement (C.G.S.)—Public school informationsystem. (1) "Teacher" means any certified professional employee below the rank of superintendent employed by a board of education for at least ninety days in a position requiring a certificate issued by the State Board of Education;

(2) "Teacher preparation program" means a program designed to qualify an individual for professional certification as an educator provided by institutions of higher education or other providers approved by the Department of Education, including, but not limited to, an alternate route to certification program.


[(a)] (b) The Department of Education shall develop and implement a state-wide public school information system. The system shall be designed for the purpose of establishing a standardized electronic data collection and reporting protocol that will facilitate compliance with state and federal reporting requirements, improve school-to-school and district-to-district information exchanges, and maintain the confidentiality of individual student and staff data. The initial design shall focus on student information, provided the system shall be created to allow for future compatibility with financial, facility and staff data. The system shall provide for the tracking of the performance of individual students on each of the state-wide mastery examinations under section 10-14n in order to allow the department to compare the progress of the same cohort of students who take each examination and to better analyze school performance. The department shall assign a unique student identifier to each student prior to tracking the performance of a student in the public school information system.

(c) On or before July 1, 2013, the department shall expand the state-wide public school information system as follows: (1) Track and report data relating to student, teacher and school and district performance growth and make such information available to local and regional boards of education for use in evaluating educational performance and growth of teachers and students enrolled in public schools in the state. Such information shall be collected or calculated based on information received from local and regional boards of education and other relevant sources. Such information shall include, but not be limited to:

(A) In addition to performance on state-wide mastery examinations pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, data relating to students shall include, but not be limited to, (i) the primary language spoken at the home of a student, (ii) student transcripts, (iii) student attendance and student mobility, and (iv) reliable, valid assessments of a student's readiness to enter public school at the kindergarten level;

(B) Data relating to teachers shall include, but not be limited to, (i) teacher credentials, such as master's degrees, teacher preparation programs completed and certification levels and endorsement areas, (ii) teacher assessments, such as whether a teacher is deemed highly qualified pursuant to the No Child Left Behind Act, P.L. 107-110, or deemed to meet such other designations as may be established by federal law or regulations for the purposes of tracking the equitable distribution of instructional staff, (iii) the presence of substitute teachers in a teacher's classroom, (iv) class size, (v) numbers relating to absenteeism in a teacher's classroom, and (vi) the presence of a teacher's aide. The department shall assign a unique teacher identifier to each teacher prior to collecting such data in the public school information system; (C) Data relating to schools and districts shall include, but not be limited to, (i) school population, (ii) annual student graduation rates, (iii) annual teacher retention rates, (iv) school disciplinary records, such as data relating to suspensions, expulsions and other disciplinary actions, (v) the percentage of students whose primary language is not English, (vi) the number of and professional credentials of support personnel, and (vii) information relating to instructional technology, such as access to computers.


(2) Collect data relating to student enrollment in and graduation from institutions of higher education for any student who had been assigned a unique student identifier pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, provided such data is available.

(3) Develop means for access to and data sharing with the data systems of public institutions of higher education in the state.

(d) On or before July 1, 2011, and each year thereafter until July 1, 2013, the Commissioner of Education shall report, in accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a, to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to education on the progress of the department's efforts to expand the state-wide public school information system pursuant to subsection

(c) of this section. The report shall include a full statement of those data elements that are currently included in the system and those data elements that will be added on or before July 1, 2013.

[(b)] (e) The system database of student information shall not be considered a public record for the purposes of section 1-210. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of a full-time permanent employee of a nonprofit organization that is exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or any subsequent corresponding internal revenue code of the United States, as from time to time amended, and that is organized and operated for educational purposes, to obtain information in accordance with the provisions of subsection [(e)] (h) of this section.

[(c)] (f) All school districts shall participate in the system, and report all necessary information required by this section, provided the department provides for technical assistance and training of school staff in the use of the system.

[(d)] (g) Local and regional boards of education and preschool programs which receive state or federal funding shall participate, in a manner prescribed by the Commissioner of Education, in the state-wide public school information system described in subsection [(a)] (b) of this section. Participation for purposes of this subsection shall include, but not be limited to, reporting on (1) student experiences in preschool by program type and by numbers of months in each such program, and (2) the readiness of students entering kindergarten and student progress in kindergarten. Such reporting shall be done by October 1, 2007, and annually thereafter.

V. Subsection (b) of Sec. 10‐220a (C.G.S.) of the 2012 Supplement— Professional Development Committee

Pursuant to Public Act No. 09-1 each local and regional board of education shall establish a professional development committee consisting of certified employees, and such other school personnel as the board deems appropriate, including representatives of the exclusive bargaining representative for such employees chosen pursuant to subsection (b) of section 10-153. The duties of such committees shall include, but not be limited to, the development, evaluation and annual updating of a comprehensive local professional development plan for certified


employees of the district. Such plan shall: (1) Be directly related to the educational goals prepared by the local or regional board of education pursuant to subsection (b) of section 10- 220, (2) on and after July 1, 2011, be developed with full consideration of the priorities and needs related to student outcomes as determined by the State Board of Education, and (3) provide for the ongoing and systematic assessment and improvement of both teacher evaluation and professional development of the professional staff members of each such board, including personnel management and evaluation training or experience for administrators, shall be related to regular and special student needs and may include provisions concerning career incentives and parent involvement. The State Board of Education shall develop guidelines to assist local and regional boards of education in determining the objectives of the plans and in coordinating staff development activities with student needs and school programs.

(c) The Department of Education, in cooperation with one or more regional educational service centers, is authorized to provide institutes annually for Connecticut educators. Such institutes shall serve as model programs of professional development and shall be taught by exemplary Connecticut teachers and administrators and by other qualified individuals as selected by the Department of Education. The Department of Education shall charge fees for attending such institutes provided such fees shall be based on the actual cost of such institutes.

(d) The Department of Education may fund, within available appropriations, in cooperation with one or more regional educational service centers: (1) A cooperating teacher program to train Connecticut public school teachers and certified teachers at private special education facilities approved by the Commissioner of Education and at other facilities designated by the commissioner, who participate in the supervision, training and evaluation of student teachers; and (2) institutes to provide continuing education for Connecticut public school educators and cooperating teachers, including institutes to provide continuing education for Connecticut public school educators offered in cooperation with the Connecticut Humanities Council. Funds available under this subsection shall be paid directly to school districts for the provision of substitute teachers when cooperating teachers are released from regular classroom responsibilities and for the provision of professional development activities for cooperating and student teachers. The cooperating teacher program shall operate in accordance with regulations adopted by the State Board of Education in accordance with chapter 54, except in cases of placement in other countries pursuant to written cooperative agreements between Connecticut institutions of higher education and institutions of higher education in other countries. A Connecticut institution may enter such an agreement only if the State Board of Education and Board of Governors of Higher Education have jointly approved the institution's teacher preparation program to enter into such agreements. Student teachers shall be placed with trained cooperating teachers. Cooperating teachers who are Connecticut public school teachers shall be selected by local and regional boards of education. Cooperating teachers at such private special education and other designated facilities shall be selected by the authority responsible for the operation of such facilities. If a board of education is unable to identify a sufficient number of individuals to serve in such positions, the commissioner may select qualified persons who are not employed by the board of education to serve in such positions. Such regulations shall require primary consideration of teachers' classroom experience and


recognized success as educators. The provisions of sections 10-153a to 10-153n, inclusive, shall not be applicable to the selection, placement and compensation of persons participating in the cooperating teacher program pursuant to the provisions of this section and to the hours and duties of such persons. The State Board of Education shall protect and save harmless, in accordance with the provisions of section 10-235, any cooperating teacher while serving in such capacity.


VI. Common Core of Teaching: Domain 6: Professional Responsibilities andTeacher Leadership Teachers maximize support for student learning by developing and demonstrating professionalism, collaboration with others, and leadership by: 6.1 Continually engaging in reflection, self-evaluation and professional development to enhance their understandings of content, pedagogical skills, resources and the impact of their actions on student learning;

6.2 Seeking professional development opportunities to enhance skills related to teaching and meeting the needs of all students;

6.3 Collaborating with colleagues, administrators, students and their families to develop and sustain a positive school climate;

6.4 Collaborating with colleagues and administrators to examine student learning data, instructional strategies, curricula, and organizational structures16 to support continuous school and district improvement;

6.5 Guiding and coaching paraprofessionals and collaborating with colleagues, administrators, and special services staff to monitor the impact of instructional or behavioral support and interventions;

6.6 Proactively communicating in culturally respectful and sensitive ways with families in order to ensure their ongoing awareness of student progress and encourage opportunities to support their child’s learning;

6.7 Understanding the legal rights of students with disabilities and their families within the intervention, referral, and individualized education plan process;

6.8 Understanding how one’s race, gender and culture affect professional interactions with students, families and colleagues;

6.9 Using communication technology in a professional and ethical manner;

6.10 Collaborating with colleagues, administrators, and families in the development of individualized student success plans to address goal setting, personal and academic development, post-secondary and career exploration, and/or capstone projects; and

6.11 Conducting themselves as professionals in accordance with the Connecticut’s Code of Professional Responsibility for Educators.

(a) Preamble The Code of Professional Responsibility for Educators is a set of principles which the education profession expects its members to honor and follow. These principles set forth, on behalf of the


education profession and the public it serves, standards to guide conduct and the judicious appraisal of conduct in situations that have professional and ethical implications. The Code adheres to the fundamental belief that the student is the foremost reason for the existence of the profession.

The education profession is vested by the public with a trust and responsibility requiring the highest ideals of professionalism. Therefore, the educator accepts both the public trust and the responsibilities to practice the profession according to the highest possible degree of ethical conduct and standards. Such responsibilities include the commitment to the students, the profession, the community and the family.

Consistent with applicable law, the Code of Professional Responsibility for Educators shall serve as a basis for decisions on issues pertaining to certification and employment. The code shall apply to all educators holding, applying or completing preparation for a certificate, authorization or permit or other credential from the State Board of Education. For the purposes of this section, "educator" includes superintendents, administrators, teachers, special services professionals, coaches, substitute teachers and paraprofessionals.

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

(b) Responsibility to the student (1) The professional educator, in full recognition of his or her obligation to the student, shall:

(A) Recognize, respect and uphold the dignity and worth of students as individual human beings, and, therefore, deal justly and considerately with students;

(B) Engage students in the pursuit of truth, knowledge and wisdom and provide access to all points of view without deliberate distortion of content area matter;

(C) Nurture in students lifelong respect and compassion for themselves and other human beings regardless of race, ethnic origin, gender, social class, disability, religion, or sexual orientation;

(D) Foster in students the full understanding, application and preservation of democratic principles and processes;

(E) Guide students to acquire the requisite skills and understanding for participatory citizenship and to realize their obligation to be worthy and contributing members of society;

(F) Assist students in the formulation of worthy, positive goals;

(G) Promote the right and freedom of students to learn, explore ideas, develop critical thinking, problem-solving, and necessary learning skills to acquire the knowledge needed to achieve their full potential;


(H) Remain steadfast in guaranteeing equal opportunity for quality education for all students;

(I) Maintain the confidentiality of information concerning students obtained in the proper course of the educational process, and dispense such information only when prescribed or directed by federal or state law or professional practice;

(J) Create an emotionally and physically safe and healthy learning environment for all students; and

(K) Apply discipline promptly, impartially, appropriately and with compassion. (c) Responsibility to the profession

(1) The professional educator, in full recognition of his or her obligation to the profession, shall:

(A) Conduct himself or herself as a professional realizing that his or her actions reflect directly upon the status and substance of the profession;

(B) Uphold the professional educator's right to serve effectively;

(C) Uphold the principle of academic freedom;

(D) Strive to exercise the highest level of professional judgment;

(E) Engage in professional learning to promote and implement research-based best educational practices;

(F) Assume responsibility for his or her professional development;

(G) Encourage the participation of educators in the process of educational decision making;

(H) Promote the employment of only qualified and fully certificated, authorized or permitted educators;

(I) Encourage promising, qualified and competent individuals to enter the profession;

(J) Maintain the confidentiality of information concerning colleagues and dispense such information only when prescribed or directed by federal or state law or professional practice;

(K) Honor professional contracts until fulfillment, release, or dissolution mutually agreed upon by all parties to contract;

(L) Create a culture that encourages purposeful collaboration and dialogue among all stakeholders;

(M) Promote and maintain ongoing communication among all stakeholders; and


(N) Provide effective leadership to ensure continuous focus on student achievement.

(d) Responsibility to the community (1) The professional educator, in full recognition of the public trust vested in the profession, shall:

(A) Be cognizant of the influence of educators upon the community-at-large, obey local, state and national laws;

(B) Encourage the community to exercise its responsibility to be involved in the formulation of educational policy;

(C) Promote the principles and ideals of democratic citizenship; and

(D) Endeavor to secure equal educational opportunities for all students. (e) Responsibility to the student’s family

(1) The professional educator in recognition of the public trust vested in the profession, shall:

(A) Respect the dignity of each family, its culture, customs, and beliefs;

(B) Promote, respond, and maintain appropriate communications with the family, staff and administration;

(C) Consider the family’s concerns and perspectives on issues involving its children; and

(D) Encourage participation of the family in the educational process.

UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT*

(f) The professional educator, in full recognition of his or her obligation to the student, shall not: (A) Abuse his or her position as a professional with students for private advantage;

(B) Discriminate against students.

(C) Sexually or physically harass or abuse students;

(D) Emotionally abuse students; or

(E) Engage in any misconduct which would put students at risk; and

(g) The professional educator, in full recognition of his or her obligation to the profession, shall not:

(A) Obtain a certificate, authorization, permit or other credential issued by the state board of education or obtain employment by misrepresentation, forgery or fraud;


(B) Accept any gratuity, gift or favor that would impair or influence professional decisions or actions;

(C) Misrepresent his, her or another's professional qualifications or competencies;

(D) Sexually, physically or emotionally harass or abuse district employees;

(E) Misuse district funds and/or district property; or

(F) Engage in any misconduct which would impair his or her ability to serve effectively in the profession; and

(h) The professional educator, in full recognition of the public trust vested in the profession, shall not:

(A) Exploit the educational institution for personal gain;

(B) Be convicted in a court of law of a crime involving moral turpitude or of any crime of such nature that violates such public trust; or

(C) Knowingly misrepresent facts or make false statements. *Unprofessional conduct is not limited to the descriptors listed above. When in doubtregarding whether a specific course of action constitutes professional or unprofessional conduct please seek advice from your school district or preparation institution.

(i) Code revision This Code shall be reviewed for potential revision concurrently with the revision of the Regulations Concerning State Educator Certificates, Permits and Authorizations, by the Connecticut Advisory Council for Teacher Professional Standards. As a part of such reviews, a process shall be established to receive input and comment from all interested parties.


VII. Example of a matrix rating system

Practice Rating O

utco

me

Ratin

g 4 3 2 1

4 Rate Exemplary

Rate Exemplary

Rate Proficient

Gather further information

3 Rate Exemplary

Rate Proficient

Rate Developing

Rate Below Standard

2 Rate Proficient

Rate Developing

Rate Developing

Rate Below Standard

1 Gather further information

Rate Below Standard

Rate Below Standard

Rate Below Standard

VIII. Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) MembersNames Bruce Douglas

Title Executive Director

OrganizationRepresented CREC (RESC)

Carole Clifford Consultant, Professional American Federation of Teachers-CT (AFT) Development

Dennis Carrithers Assistant Executive Director CT Association of Schools (CAS) Diane Ullman Interim Chief Talent Officer CSDE Ed Malin Department of Education Chair Sacred Heart University Joe Cirasuolo Executive Director CT Association of Public School

Superintendents, Inc. (CAPSS) Karissa Niehoff Executive Director CT Association of Schools (CAS) Linette Branham Education Issues Specialist CT Education Association (CEA) Malia Sieve Associate Director Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR) Mary Loftus Levine Executive Director CT Education Association (CEA) Mike Buckley Associate Executive Director CT Association of Schools (CAS) Nancy Pugliese Bureau Chief CSDE Patrice McCarthy Deputy Executive Director CT Association of Boards of Education (CABE) Paula Colen Executive Director EASTCONN (RESC) Phil Apruzzese President CT Education Association (CEA) Robert Rader Executive Director CT Association of Boards of Education (CABE) Roch Girard President CT Federation of School Administrators

(CFSA) Sharon Palmer Executive Director CT-American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Stefan Pryor Commissioner CSDE

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Approval of the above Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation, dated June 2012, will allow the Department to institute evaluation systems for teachers and administrators state- wide in accordance with these Guidelines.

FOLLOW‐UP ACTIVITIES PLANNED

The PEAC will meet at least quarterly to discuss the progress of the pilot districts and evaluation study.

Approvedby:

Stefan Pryor Commissioner of Education


97

Appendix B

CCT Alignment Upon completion of the WHPS Instructional Framework and using feedback from the teacher and administrative staff of West Hartford Public Schools, the TRAC Steering Committee finalized the WHPS Instructional Framework and completed a CCT Alignment.

98

Domain Code TeacherPerformance District Domain(s)/Indicators

Domain 1 1.1 Demonstrating proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics skills;

1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 4A-E, 5A-G

Domain 1 1.2

Demonstrating discipline-specific knowledge and skills as described in the relevant national and state professional teaching standards; 3A-E, 4A-E,5A-G

Domain 1 1.3 Using developmentally appropriate verbal, non-verbal and technological communications; 2A-D, 4D, 5E

Domain 1 1.4

Using technological and digital resources to promote learning, collaboration with colleagues and communication within a learning community; 5E, 1B, 1C, 1D, 3D, 4D,

Domain 1 1.5

Demonstrating understanding of how to use content area literacy skills to enable students to construct meaning through reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing and presenting; and 3A-E, 4A-E, 5A-G

Domain 1 1.6

Demonstrating understanding of how to use content area numeracy and analytical skills to enable students to problem solve, interpret and use data and numerical representations. 3A-E, 4A-E, 5A-G

Domain 2 2.1

Creating a class climate that is responsive to and respectful of the learning needs of students2 with diverse backgrounds, interests and performance levels;

2A-D, 3A-E, 4B, 4D, 5B,5C, 5D, 5F

Domain 2 2.2

Promoting engagement in and shared responsibility for the learning process and providing opportunities for students to initiate their own questions and inquiries; 5B, 5C, 5D, 2D, 3A-E

Domain 2 2.3

Providing explicit instruction about social skills to develop students’ social competence3 and responsible and ethical behavior by using a continuum of proactive strategies4 that may be individualized to student needs; 2A-D, 1A, 5C

Domain 2 2.4 Fostering appropriate standards of behavior that support a productive learning environment for all students; and 2A-D,

Domain 2 2.5 Maximizing the amount of time spent on learning by effectively managing routines and transitions5. 2C,

Domain 3 3.1

Determining students’ prior knowledge to ensure that content instruction is at an appropriate level of challenge and differentiated to meet their learning needs2; 3A-E, 4A-E, 5 A-G

Domain 3 3.2

Developing and organizing coherent and relevant units, lessons and learning tasks that build on students’ prior knowledge, skills and interests and engage students in the work of the discipline; 4A-E, 5A-G

Domain 3 3.3

Promoting the development and application of skills with conceptual understanding, and anticipating students’ contentmisconceptions; 3 A-E, 4A-E,5A-G

Domain 3 3.4 Selecting appropriate assessment strategies to monitor ongoing student progress; 3A-E

Domain 3 3.5

Selecting or designing instructional strategies, resources6 and flexible groupings that provide opportunity for students to think critically and creatively, and solve problems; 5G, 5B, 2D, 4B, 4C, 4D

99

Domain 3 3.6

Integrating learning activities that make real-world, career or global connections, and promote interdisciplinary connections whenever possible; 4E, 3D, 4A

Domain 3 3.7

Designing or selecting academic and/or behavioral interventions through differentiated, supplemental, specialized instruction for students who do not respond to primary instruction alone; 3A-E, 4B, 4D, 5C, 5D,

Domain 3 3.8

Designing strategic questions and opportunities that appropriately challenge students and actively engage them in exploring the content through strategies such as discourse7 and/or inquiry-based learning8; and 3A-E, 5B, 5C,

Domain 3 3.9 Including strategies for teaching and supporting content area literacy skills and, when appropriate, numeracy skills. 4A-E, 5A-G, 3A-E

Domain 4 4.1 Using a variety of evidence-based strategies to enable students to apply and construct new learning;

5B, 5C, 4A, 4B, 4D, 3A, 3B, 3C

Domain 4 4.2 Using technological and digital resources strategically to promote learning; 5E, 4D

Domain 4 4.3

Leading students to construct meaning through the use of active learning strategies such as purposeful discourse and/or inquiry-based learning; 5G, 2D, 5B

Domain 4 4.4

Varying the student and teacher roles9 in ways that develop independence and interdependence with the gradual release of responsibility to students; 5G, 2D, 5F, 5D, 3E, 3C

Domain 4 4.5

Using differentiated instruction and supplemental interventions to support students with learning difficulties, disabilities and/or particular gifts and talents; 5C, 5E, 4B, 4D

Domain 4 4.6

Monitoring student learning and adjusting teaching during instruction in response to student performance and engagement in learning tasks; and

5D, 5F, 2D, 4D, 3A, 3B, 3D, 5F

Domain 4 4.7

Providing meaningful, appropriate and specific feedback to students during instruction to improve their performance. 3E, 5F, 5D

Domain 5 5.1

Understanding the different purposes10 and types of assessment11 that capture the complexity of student learning across the hierarchy of cognitive skills12; 3A-E, 4C, 5D, 5F

Domain 5 5.2

Using and/or designing a variety of formative13 and summative14 assessments and criteria that directly align with the learning objectives and value the diversity of ways in which students learn; 3A-E, 4C, 5D

Domain 5 5.3

Using a comprehensive set of data that provides depth and breadth of understanding of student achievement at a particular point in time and over time; 3A, 5D

Domain 5 5.4

Collaborating with colleagues to review and interpret assessment data to monitor and adjust instruction to ensure students’ progress; 1B, 3D

Domain 5 5.5

Providing students with assessment criteria and individualized, descriptive feedback to help them improve their performance and assume responsibility for their learning; 3C, 5F, 5G

100

Domain 5 5.6

Supporting students’ progress by communicating academic and behavioral performance expectations and results with students, their families and other educators; 3E, 1D

Domain 5 5.7

Understanding the role that lack of opportunity to learn, lack of effective instruction, and assessment bias can play in the overrepresentation in special education of students with cultural, ethnic, gender and linguistic differences; and 1E, 4E, 5C, 5D

Domain 5 5.8

Using academic, behavioral and health data to select and/or design interventions, and assist in the development of individualized education programs for students with disabilities. 5C, 1E, 3B, 1A, 4B, 2D

Domain 6 6.1

Continually engaging in reflection, self-evaluation and professional development to enhance their understandings of content, pedagogical skills, resources and the impact of their actions on student learning; 1C, 1A, 1B, 1E

Domain 6 6.2

Seeking professional development opportunities to enhance skills related to teaching and meeting the needs of all students15; 1C, 1E

Domain 6 6.3

Collaborating with colleagues, administrators, students and their families to develop and sustain a positive school climate; 1B, 1D, 3E

Domain 6 6.4

Collaborating with colleagues and administrators to examine student learning data, instructional strategies, curricula, and organizational structures16 to support continuous school and district improvement; 3D, 1B

Domain 6 6.5

Guiding and coaching paraprofessionals and collaborating with colleagues, administrators, and special services staff to monitor the impact of instructional or behavioral support and interventions; 1B, 1C, 2B

Domain 6 6.6

Proactively communicating in culturally respectful and sensitive ways with families in order to ensure their ongoing awareness of student progress and encourage opportunities to support their child’s learning; 1E, 2A, 2B, 3E

Domain 6 6.7

Understanding the legal rights of students with disabilities and their families within the intervention, referral, and individualized education plan process; 1A, 1E, 1C

Domain 6 6.8

Understanding how one’s race, gender and culture affect professional interactions with students, families and colleagues; 1E, 1A, 4E, 4B

Domain 6 6.9 Using communication technology in a professional and ethical manner; 1D, 1A, 3E, 5F

Domain 6 6.1

Collaborating with colleagues, administrators, and families in the development of individualized student success plans to address goal setting, personal and academic development, post secondary and career exploration, and/or capstone projects; and 1B, 1D, 1A, 4B, 4D, 6D

Domain 6 6.11

Conducting themselves as professionals in accordance with the Connecticut’s Code of Professional Responsibility for Educators. 1A

101

Appendix C WHPS Instructional Framework

102

Classroom Environment The Classroom Environment focus area has four (4) indicators of performance. For each indicator, exemplars of practice have been provided and, where applicable, student behaviors, outcomes and/or products have been suggested. Finally a list of teacher dispositions has been provided in support of the types of habits and patterns associated with establishing a quality classroom environment for learning.

Dispositions Safety-oriented, respectful, professional, nurturing, caring, responsive, culturally-sensitive, fair, honest, reflective, flexible, analytical, non-judgmental

Focus Area: Classroom Environment

Indicators Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

A. Teacher creates an environment that is safe and conducive to learning.

Teacher does not effectively address negative student behavior, which interferes with the learning, safety or well- being of others.

Teacher inconsistently addresses student behavior, which impacts the learning, safety or well- being of others.

Teacher actively promotes student behavior that supports a positive learning environment.

Teacher and students actively and consistently promote behavior that supports a positive learning environment.

Exemplars The teacher acknowledges, promotes, and models responsible and respectful behaviors corrects irresponsible and inappropriate behaviors and sets up clear rules/norms. The teacher promotes safety and respect in the classroom so that learning is accessible to all students including those with special needs The teacher manages movement, manages attention, manages rules/norms, and sets up high expectations for all the students. The teacher interacts with students, supports student diversity, and reinforces positive interaction among students.

Student Behaviors, Outcomes, and Products

The students exhibit respect for the teacher and contribute to high levels of civility among all members of the class. The students respect rules/norms to promote safety in the classroom. The students assume responsibility for high quality learning by initiating improvements, making revisions, adding details, and/or helping peers. Routines are well understood and may be initiated by the students. The students interact with one students and teacher.

103



B. Teacher models and promotes an atmosphere of respect and responsibility for self, others and property.

Teacher provides little or no evidence of modeling an atmosphere of respect and responsibility for self, others and property.

Teacher provides some evidence of modeling an atmosphere of respect and responsibility for self, others and property.

Teacher-to- student and student-to- student relationships frequently demonstrate respect and responsibility for self, others, and property and sensitivity to students’ diversity and levels of development.

Teacher-to-studentand student-to-student relationshipsconsistently demonstrate respect and responsibility for self, others and property, and sensitivity to students’ diversity and levels of development.

Teacher establishes a classroom community that does not promote risk- taking and learning.

Teacher establishes a classroom community that inconsistently promotes risk-taking and learning.

Teacher establishes a classroom community that frequently promotes appropriate social skills to support risk-taking and learning.

Teacher establishes a classroom community that consistently promotes appropriate social skills to support risk-taking and learning.

Exemplars The teacher promotes safety and respect in the classroom so that learning is accessible to all students including those with special needs


Students respect rules/norms to promote safety in the classroom.

104



C. Teacher maximizes the amount of time spent on learning by effectively managing procedures and routines.

Teacher rarely uses learning time effectively.

Teacher inconsistently uses learning time effectively.

Teacher frequently maximizes learning time.

Teacher consistently maximizes learning time.

No evidence of rules, routines, expectations and procedures.

Some rules, routines and procedures are established but are inconsistently implemented.

Classroom rules, routines and procedures are established and consistently implemented

Classroom rules, routines and procedures that promote student self-control are clearly established and consistently implemented by teachers and students

Exemplars The teacher manages movement, manages attention, manages rules/norms and sets up high expectations for all students.


Students assume responsibility for high quality learning by initiating improvements, making revisions, adding details and/or helping peers. Routines are well understood and may be initiated by students.

105



D. Teacher promotes student engagement by providing opportunities to participate and interact productively.

Teacher rarely promotes student engagement.

Teacher inconsistently promotes student engagement.

The teacher frequently promotes productive student engagement by providing opportunities for students to participate in the learning process.

The teacher consistently promotes productive student engagement by providing varied opportunities for students to participate in the learning process.

Little or no evidence of productive student participation and interaction.

Some evidence of productive student participation and interaction.

Exemplars The teacher interacts with students, supports student diversity, reinforces positive interaction among students.


The students interact with other students and teacher.

106

Planning and Preparation The Planning and Preparation focus area has five (5) indicators of performance. For each indicator, exemplars of practice have been provided and, where applicable, student behaviors, outcomes and/or products have been suggested. Finally a list of teacher dispositions has been provided in support of the types of habits and patterns associated with planning classroom instruction for learning.

Dispositions Strategic, reflective, intuitive, flexible, adaptive progressive, culturally sensitive, knowledgeable, organized, responsible, detail-oriented, diagnostic, analytical, student-centered, creative, open-minded, student-centered, insightful, innovative, resourceful, confident

Focus Area: Planning and Preparation


A. Teacher designs instruction based on existing district curriculum guides.

Teacher’s planning process does not reflect the use of existing curriculum guides to design instruction.

Teacher’s planning process occasionally reflects the use of existing curriculum guides to design instruction.

Teacher’s planning process reflects the use of existing curriculum guides to design instruction.

Teacher’s planning process consistently reflects the use of existing curriculum guides to design instruction.

Exemplars Teacher develops and implements strategies and resources targeted to individual needs consistent with CCSS and district standards.


High levels of student engagement throughout the lesson.

107

Focus Area: Planning and Preparation (cont.)


B. Teacher designs lessons that meet the needs of all learners by planning differentiated learning tasks.

Teacher does not design lessons that meet the needs of all learners by planning differentiated learning tasks.

Teacher occasionally designs lessons that meet the needs of all learners by planning differentiated learning tasks.

Teacher designs lessons that meet the needs of all learners by planning differentiated learning tasks.

Teacher consistently designs lessons that meet the needs of all learners by planning differentiated learning tasks.

There is no evidence of the teacher’s knowledge of students’ background knowledge, interests and individual learning needs.

There is minimal evidence of the teacher’s knowledge of students’ background knowledge, interests and individual learning needs.

There is evidence of the teacher’s knowledge of students’ background knowledge, interests and individual learning needs.

There is substantial evidence of the teacher’s knowledge of students’ backgroundknowledge, interests and individual learning needs.

Exemplars Teacher differentiates based on multiple sources of data and resources, and opportunities for students to be assessed and demonstrate mastery in non-traditional ways.


Authentic artifacts that reflect higher levels of student understanding

108



C. Teacher plans meaningful and ongoing assessments that measure student understanding and mastery.

Teacher does not plan assessments that measure student understanding and mastery.

Teacher occasionally plans meaningful assessments that measure student understanding and mastery.

Teacher plans meaningful assessments that measure student understanding and mastery.

Teacher consistently plans meaningful, ongoing assessments that measure student understanding and mastery.

Exemplars Teacher designs assessment opportunities based on student choice, student self assessment, use of rubrics, in-the- moment checking for understanding, and use of formative and summative aligned with standards based instruction.


Higher levels of student mastery.

109



D. Teacher plans lessons with multiple opportunities for student engagement using multimodal methodology and communication.

Teacher does not plan lessons with opportunities for student engagement.

Teacher occasionally plans lessons with multiple opportunities for student engagement.

Teacher plans lessons with multiple opportunities for student engagement using multimodal methodology and communication.

Teacher consistently plans lessons with multiple opportunities for student engagement using multimodal methodology and communication.

Exemplars Teacher designs inquiry based lessons with opportunities for student choice, the use of diverse instructional modalities and multiple resources.


Higher levels of student engagement, responsibility for work, and demonstration of mastery.

110



E. Teacher plans lessons with relevant context (e. g., thematic units, real-world connections,cross- curricular, global or current events).

Teacher does not plan for contextual learning and lessons are frequently isolated from any context.

Teacher occasionally plans to promote student curiosity and understanding of the context (e.g., thematic, real-world connections, cross-curricular, global or current events).

Teacher plans to promote student curiosity and application of learning within a context (e.g., thematic, real-world connections, cross- curricular, global or current events).

Teacher consistently plans to promote student curiosity and application of learning within a context (e.g., thematic, real-world connections, cross- curricular, global or current events).

Exemplars Teacher designs lessons implementing culturally relevant approaches, opportunities to demonstrate global relevance, use of developmental contexts that promote deeper student engagement, and research using diverse technology integration.


Student artifacts that reflect an appreciation of a broader world view, creative approaches to demonstrating learning, and the ability to apply knowledge to relevant life experiences.

111

Instructional Practice The Instructional Practice focus area has seven (7) indicators of performance. For each indicator, exemplars of practice have been provided and, where applicable, student behaviors, outcomes and/or products have been suggested. Finally a list of teacher dispositions has been provided in support of the types of habits and patterns associated with quality instruction for learning.

Dispositions Reflective, analytical, metacognitive, respect for diversity, strategic, thoughtful, flexible, organized, thoughtful, intuitive, supportive, high expectations for all, attentive to detail, thoroughness, organized, diagnostic and prescriptive, advocacy, experimental, innovative, forward-thinking, technologically savvy, diagnostic, responsive, high expectations, student-centered, rapport-building

Focus Area: Instructional Practice

Indicator Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

A. Teacher sets and communicates clear and rigorous expectations for learning.

Teacher rarely sets and communicates expectations for learning that are clear to students. Expectations are confusing and/or inappropriate for the students’ developmental levels.

Teacher inconsistently sets and communicates expectations. Some confusion exists. Clarification is necessary and frequently provided.

Teacher sets rigorous expectations for learning that are clear to students.

Teacher’s oral, written, and nonverbal communication is clear, and appropriate to students’ diversity and levels of development.

Teacher consistently set rigorous expectations for learning that are clearly communicated to students.

Teacher’s oral, written, and nonverbal communication is consistently clear and appropriate to students’ diversity and levels of development.

Teacher proactively anticipates possible

112

studentmisconceptions.

Exemplars Teacher communicates objectives clearly and explicitly. Teacher refers to objectives/expectations throughout the lesson. Teachers makes connections between objectives, essential questions and real world expressions.


Students can articulate the objective and purpose of the lesson. Students follow the expectations and complete the learning tasks successfully.

Focus Area: Instructional Practice (cont.)


B. Teacher employs a variety of evidence-based strategies to enable all students to apply and construct new learning.

Teacher employs predominantly one evidence-based instructional strategy.

Teacher employs a limited number of evidence-based instructional strategies.

Teacher employs a variety of effective, evidence- based instructional strategies.

Teacher seamlessly and responsively employs a wide variety of highly effective, evidence-based instructional strategies.

Exemplars Teacher designs lesson that include multiple research-based strategies and culturally relevant practices. Teachers give students opportunities to process new information and skills utilizing a variety of methods, and strategies in alignment with the content and the individual student’s needs


Students experience challenge and engage in purposeful activities..

113



C. Teacher uses differentiated instruction and interventions to support the diverse needs of students.

Teacher does not differentiated instruction, and consideration is not given to individual students’ needs, interests, or learning styles.

Teacher uses limited differentiated instruction, and gives some consideration to individual students’ needs, interests, or learning styles.

Teacher frequently provides differentiated instruction based on students’ individual learning needs, interests, and learning styles.

Teacher consistently provides differentiated instruction based on students’ individual learning needs, interests, and learning styles.

Exemplars Teacher designs lesson from the start utilizing multiple representations of the task, multiple forms of expression and multiple forms of engagement. Teacher offers students multiple entry points into a learning experience.


Students are engaged in work that is purposeful and appropriately matched to learning needs. Students utilize a variety of resources.

114



D. Teacher monitors student learning and adjusts instructional strategies and pacing, as needed, in response to student performance and engagement.

Teacher’s monitoring is limited to student task completion and/or behavior. Teacher rarely adjusts instruction relative to student performance and engagement.

Teacher’s monitoring of learning is focused on whole group understanding. Teacher makes few adjustments to instruction in response to student performance and engagement.

Teacher monitors student learning and adjusts instruction in response to student performance and engagement.

Teacher consistently monitors student learning and efficiently adjusts instruction in response to student performance and engagement.

Exemplars Teacher routinely checks for understanding during instruction utilizing a variety of methods and strategies. Teacher individually coaches students to redirect instruction based on the students’ performance. Teacher utilizes data based measures to track student progress.


Students frequently ask questions and offer solutions. Students demonstrate persistence, effort and task completion.

115



E. Teacher incorporates available technological and digital resources to promote learning as appropriate.

Teacher uses available technology as a non- instructional tool. Students have limited opportunity for interaction with technology.

Teacher promotes the use of available technology to help students access, organize, and present information.

Teacher facilitates the use of available technology to help students evaluate, analyze, interpret and communicate information in order to demonstrate and apply learning.

Teacher incorporates student-centered use of technology to engage learners in critical thinking activities that promote cooperative problem solving, creativity and innovation.

Exemplars Teacher utilizes technology and digital resources strategically during lessons. Teacher provides students with specific opportunities to express their learning using technology


Students access and use a range of technological and digital resources to organize and present information.

116



F. Teacher provides constructive feedback to students during instruction to improve performance.

Teacher provides limited and/or inaccurate feedback.

Feedback discourages creativity and/or discourages risk taking.

Teacher occasionally provides feedback to students about the quality of their work. Feedback is mostly general.

Teacher provides constructive feedback to students about the quality of their work. Feedback promotes active risk- taking.

Teacher consistently provides ongoing, specific and accurate feedback to students about the quality of their work that promotes risk-taking and enhances their learning.

Exemplars Teacher provides feedback to students in a timely manner. Teacher routinely provides students with feedback that is specific, concrete and related to the target objectives.


Students make changes to their work that reflect feedback received. Students demonstrate growth over time. Students produce work that aligns with criteria and/or exemplars

117



G. Teacher promotes engagement through shared responsibility for the learning process.

Teacher provides limited active learning opportunities. Instruction is primarily teacher driven.

Teacher sometimes provides active, student- centered learning activities. Teacher provides occasional opportunities for students to take responsibility for their learning.

Teacher provides active, student-centeredlearning activities. Teacher provides regular opportunities for students to take responsibility for their learning.

Teacher consistently provides active, student- centered learning activities. Teacher provides ample opportunities for students to take responsibility for their learning.

Exemplars Teacher designs lessons that invite active participation. Teacher provides multiple opportunities for students to interact and engage in discourse with one another about learning tasks and lesson content.


Students engage in collaboration and/or discourse throughout the lesson. Students interact frequently with each other and the teacher. Students participate actively throughout the lesson in a variety of ways.

118

Assessment The Assessment focus area has five (5) indicators of performance. For each indicator, exemplars of practice have been provided and, where applicable, student behaviors, outcomes and/or products have been suggested. Finally a list of teacher dispositions has been provided in support of the types of habits and patterns associated with the development and implementation of quality assessment for learning.

Dispositions Advocacy, interpretive, evaluative, encouraging, diagnostic, prescriptive

Focus Area: Assessment


A. Teacher uses a comprehensive variety of formative and summative assessments that align with the learning objectives and inform instruction.

Teacher does not use a variety of formative and/or summative assessments.

Teacher occasionally uses formative and/or summative assessments that align with learning objectives and inform instruction.

Teacher uses formative and summative assessments that align with learning objectives and inform instruction.

Teacher consistently uses a variety of formative and summative assessments that align with the learning objectives and inform instruction.

Exemplars Examines and evaluates objectives for each lesson


Students demonstrate growth, student focus on performance and learning over grades, strengthening communication among all stakeholders

119

Focus Area: Assessment (cont.)


B. Teacher uses a variety of alternative formative and summative assessments to differentiate for the diverse ways that students demonstrate their learning.

Teacher does not use alternative assessments to differentiate for the diverse ways that students demonstrate their learning.

Teacher occasionally uses alternative formative and summative assessments to differentiate for the diverse ways that students demonstrate their learning.

Teacher uses a variety of alternative formative and summativeassessments to differentiate for the diverse ways that students demonstrate their learning.

Teacher consistently uses a variety of alternative formative and summativeassessments to differentiate for the diverse ways that students demonstrate their learning.

Exemplars Provides accommodations and modifications to meet individual learner needs


Students feel all assessments are fair and within reach

120



C. Teacher uses rubrics and/or assessment tools to guide student reflection, to improve student performance, and to promote responsibility for their learning.

Teacher does not use rubrics and/or assessment tools for student reflection.

Teacher occasionally uses rubrics and/or assessment tools for student reflection.

Teacher uses rubrics and/or assessment tools to guide student reflection, to improve student performance, and to promote responsibility for their learning.

Teacher consistently uses rubrics and/or assessment tools to guide student reflection, to improve student performance, and to promote responsibility for their learning.

Exemplars Routine use of rubrics connected to learning objectives that invite self assessment


Student has growth mindset and knows what is expected. He/she tries to meet expectations.

121



D. Teacher collaborates with colleagues to review and interpret assessment data to monitor and adjust instruction.

Teacher does not collaborate with colleagues to review assessment data.

Teacher occasionally collaborates with colleagues to review and report required assessment data to monitor and adjust instruction.

Teacher collaborates with colleagues to review and interpret assessment data to monitor and adjust Instruction to meet the needs of individual learners.

Teacher proactively shares and interprets multiple sources of student data with colleagues to improve individual student performance and monitor and adjust instruction to meet the needs of individual learners.

Exemplars Routinely reviews data in collaboration with others


Students feel successful

122



E. Teacher provides specific, constructive, and timely feedback to students and families to reinforce and improve student learning.

Teacher does not provide constructive feedback to students and families to improve student learning.

Teacher provides general and/or untimely feedback to students and families to improve student learning.

Teachercommunicates specific, constructive, and timely feedback to students and families to reinforce and improve student learning.

Teacher proactively communicatesspecific, constructive, and timely feedback to students and families to reinforce and improve student learning.

Exemplars Results of assessments are communicated to students in a specific and timely manner to promote progress


Student always know how and when to improve. Parents know when performance changes (positive and negative)

123

Professional Responsibilities The Professional Responsibilities focus area has five (5) indicators of performance. For each indicator, exemplars of practice have been provided and, where applicable, student behaviors, outcomes and/or products have been suggested. Furthermore, a list of teacher dispositions has been provided in support of the types of habits and patterns associated with professional practice and ethical behavior.

Dispositions Continuous/active learner, communicates with professional decorum, strong verbal skills, good intra/interpersonal skills, curious, flexible, confident, self-awareness, risk taker, proactive learner, honest, flexible to learning

Focus Area: Professional Responsibilities


A. Teacher conducts self as a professional in accordance with CT Code of Responsibility for Educators and district policy.

Teacher does not comply with state/district policy and engages in activities that are not in the best interest of students.

Teacher inconsistently complies with state/district policy and inconsistently engages in activities that are not in the best interest of students.

Teacher exhibits a high level of ethics and professionalism in compliance with district policy and frequently engages in activities that are in the best interest of students.

Teacher consistently exhibits the highest ethical standards in compliance with state/district policy and consistently engages in activities that are in the best interest of students.

Exemplars Teacher maintains appropriate boundaries among parents, students and colleagues Teacher demonstrates respect for ethnicity and cultural differences Teacher demonstrates respect for student and family confidentiality Teacher uses technology in an ethical manner


Student displays appropriate use of technology Student/teacher dialogues are respectful Student maintains boundaries with teachers and other students

124

Focus Area: Professional Responsibilities (cont.)


B. Teacher collaborates with colleagues in a professional community.

Teacher rarely participates in the professional community and demonstrates little commitment to collaborate with colleagues.

Teacher inconsistently participates in the professional community and shows a developing commitment to collaborating with colleagues.

Teacher frequently contributes to the professional community and collaborates productively with colleagues.

Teacher consistently contributes to the professional community, and proactively seeks opportunities to collaborate with colleagues

Exemplars Teacher actively participates and shares materials and ideas during collaborative meetings Teacher demonstrates open-mindedness towards colleague feedback.

Student Behaviors/Outcome s/Products

Student shows a consistent increase in academic growth.

125

Focus Area: Professional Responsibilities (cont)


C. Teacher engages in professional growth/development and reflection to enhance teaching and student learning.

Teacher rarely reflects on instructional practice, uses feedback, or engages in professional growth.

Teacher inconsistently reflects on instructional practice, occasionally uses feedback, and participates in some professional growth opportunities.

Teacher frequently reflects on instructional practice, uses feedback, and participates in opportunities for professional growth.

Teacher consistently and proactively reflects on instructional practices, incorporates feedback, and seeks opportunities for professional growth to improve instructional practice.

Exemplars Teacher attends and/or presents at workshops and conferences Teacher utilizes new learnings acquired during professional development opportunities Teacher seeks opportunities to share practice and student work with colleagues Teacher aligns future professional development with their growth needs Teacher demonstrates a growth mindset in receiving constructive feedback


Student shows high engagement during lessons Student produces dynamic work product Student displays high quality of work

126



D. Teacher communicates with families to promote positive home- school relationships.

Teacher rarely attempts to inform and involve families in the educational program.

Teacher inconsistently attempts to inform and involve families in the educational program beyond required contacts.

Teacher frequently communicates with and involves families in the educational program, often by using more than one method of communication.

Teacher consistently employs a variety of methods to involve and inform families in the educational program and create a partnership between the school and families.

Exemplars Teacher aligns method of communication with family needs Teacher uses district and building resources to support communication with family Teacher communicates academic, behavioral and emotional feedback to family about child. Teacher provides strategies for parents to support student learning

Student Behaviors, Outcomes/, and Products

Student shows a higher level of trust between student/teacher resulting in student higher risk taking Student accepts instructional assistance from teachers Student displays a higher achievement Student displays a decrease in adverse behaviors Student displays an Increase in student/teacher communication

127



E. Teacher exhibits sensitivity and respect for cultural, social, economic and learning diversity.

Teacher demonstrates limited sensitivity of cultural, social, economic and learning diversity through interactions or instruction.

Teacher demonstrates some sensitivity to and respect for cultural, social, economic and learning diversity through interactions and instruction.

Teacher demonstrates sensitivity to and respect for most cultural, social, economic and learning diversity through interactions and instruction.

Teacher consistently demonstrates a high level of knowledge, sensitivity, and respect for cultural, social, economic and learning diversity through interactions and instruction.

Exemplars Teacher uses language or words that avoid demonstrates Teacher acknowledges and address their personal biases


Student feels comfortable to take risks.

Appendix D Sample Orientation Topics and Materials

128

Proposed Timeline and Orientation Topics for year 1 and year 2

Date Target Audience

Message/Event Method/Media Delivery By Status

May/June 2013 all certified staff and administrators

Overview of Teacher Effectiveness & Performance Evaluation Pilot Process for Year 1 Building level meeting for professional development

Powerpoint/ Teacher Evaluation Document

Video to ensure consistency across the schools

August/Sept. 2013

all certified staff Opening staff meeting/ Overview of Teacher Effectiveness & Performance Evaluation Pilot Process for Year 1 (w/alignment to adm. eval.)

Powerpoint/ Teacher Evaluation Document and adm. eval. alignment slide

Principals/district leaders

August/Sept. 2013

all certified staff Self-Reflective Practice: An opportunity to review the instructional framework (teacher practice) and parent feedback

Collaborative Activity: review the framework in teams and determine current levels of performance and areas for potential growth

Building representatives on Teacher Eval Committee

September, 2013

all certified staff and administrators

Goal Setting - Setting targets for Ourselves and our Students: (teacher practice and parent feedback) Staff meeting

Powerpoint/ Teacher Evaluation Document/Goal Setting/Parent surveys

Administrator

April – June 2014


Solicit feedback on pilot process Surveys and focus groups Building representatives on Teacher Eval Committee

May 2014 Teacher evaluation committee

Review stakeholder feedback Review results of Neag Study of SEED pilot

Feedback Neag Study

Steering Committee

Date Target Audience

Message/Event Method/Media Delivery By Status

May/June 2014 All certified staff and administrators

Review feedback and any proposed changes Share results of Neag Study Overview of year 2 – full implementation: • Practice (continued)• Outcomes: Update of state and locally

determined measures for 2014-15

PowerPoint – summary of feedback and Neag study results Teacher Evaluation document

June 2014 SDE Submit revisions - Teacher Effectiveness & Performance Evaluation

District Leaders

August/Sept. 2014

all certified staff Opening staff meeting/ Overview of Teacher Effectiveness & Performance Evaluation Pilot Process for Year 2 – full implementation

Powerpoint/ Teacher Evaluation Document – SLOs and student surveys

Principals/district leaders

August/Sept. 2014

all certified staff Self-Reflective Practice: An opportunity to review SLOs and student feedback

Collaborative Activity: develop sample SLOs, review student surveys

Building representatives on Teacher Eval Committee

September, 2014


Goal Setting - Setting targets for Ourselves and our Students: practice and outcomes Staff meeting

Powerpoint/ Teacher Evaluation Document/Goal Setting, SLO forms, Student surveys

Administrator

April – June 2015


Solicit feedback on of Teacher Effectiveness & Performance Evaluation process and survey feedback

Surveys and focus groups Building representatives on Teacher Eval Committee

June 2015 SDE Submit revisions - Teacher Effectiveness & Performance Evaluation

District Leaders

West Hartford Extended Leadership

Teacher Evaluator Professional Development

Dear West Hartford Extended Leadership Team: We are looking forward to continuing our work with West Hartford and wanted

to provide some context to that work prior to our next meeting. We have outlined below the subjects and dates for our professional development meetings for your convenience and have provided a complete description of your professional development on page 2 of this document. Page 3 outlines additional, targeted workshops we have been offering to districts in an effort to provide on-‐going support for the technical components of the work. I provided an overview of these workshops at our last meeting to help you understand the type of on-‐going support that is available from ReVision Learning. It is important to note that our model is a strong combination of training that reflects both adaptive and technical needs of teacher evaluators in CT districts. As is the case with any new initiative, taking the time to ensure that people understand and can apply key skills necessary to complete the work is equal in importance to the collective shifts in thinking that may be necessary to carry out the work. Changes in teacher evaluation practice will require this same approach and our commitment to working together to understand both of these important aspects of new learning will be paramount to our success in the upcoming year.

The Teacher Evaluator Professional Development Series is the Third Module in ReVision Learning’s Teacher Effectiveness and Performance Evaluation programming. We have been refining this module based on feedback from our clients. We have committed to designing the best possible structures to support evaluators of teachers as they transition throughout next year.

Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely,

Patrick Flynn and the ReVision Learning Team www.revisionlearning.com

Workshop Date Location Evaluator Calibration Training Day 1 6/21 Conard High School, Rm. 169

(8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.) Evaluator Calibration Training Day 2 6/26 Conard High School, Rm. 169

(8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.) Understanding Your Leadership Style Day 1 8/19 Town Hall, Auditorium

(8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.) Understanding Your Leadership Style Day 2 8/20 Town Hall, Auditorium

(8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.) Teacher Evaluation and Support Day 1 and Day 2 TBD

Fall EL Meetings

Teacher Evaluator Professional Development Series ��ǯ��ơ��

and Performance Evaluation programming. This Module is designed to prepare primary and complementary evaluators

��ơ��Ǥ��ǣ

Ȉ operationalize their district rubric (Instructional Framework)

Ȉ build inter-rater agreement

Ȉ�� Ƥ��

Ȉ analyze their leadership style and its impact on providing feedback

Ȉ��

Professional Development for Implementation of Teacher Evaluation

SERVICE AND TRAINING DURATION

Module 3 Session A: Understanding Your District Rubric 3 hours

During this session, evaluators are introduced to their district’s rubric (instructional

framework) and engage in activities to help them develop an understanding of the framework.

These activities can also be used to support the work at the school level to introduce and

dissect the framework with teachers.

Module 3 Session B: Evaluator Calibration Training 12 hours

These two days are focused on calibration activities. Administrators engage in activities

to view and dissect instruction and then align their observations to the district framework.

Through reviews of evidence collected on sample lessons, an understanding of the inter-rater

agreement that currently exists among administrators is established and targeted growth

needs are recommended.

Module 3 Session C: Understanding Your Leadership Style 12 hours

These two days are dedicated to DiSC®��Ƥ�� with a focus on helping

administrators understand how their leadership style plays a role in supervision and

evaluation work with teachers.

Module 3 Session D: Teacher Evaluation Support and Feedback 12 hours

This two-day session is focused on feedback and support. The work is designed to help

administrators and other teacher evaluators consider the leadership approaches they take

with teachers. The session is focused through the lens of the Learner Focused Relationship

model and integrates elements of Cognitive CoachingTM research. A direct link is made to the

DiSC® work completed in M3SC as administrators are introduced to leadership preferences

in relationship to their interaction with teachers.

On-going calibration training is recommended to ensure constant interaction with the rubric (framework of instruction) being used. Additional intensive support is available through the ReVision Learning One-One Coaching Model to support administrators and evaluators in implementation of the district system.

Can be divided into 6 hour segments

ReVision Learning Partnership, LLC All Rights Reserved.

MODULE

3

Can be divided into 3 or 6 hour segments

Best when completed as consecutive days

MODULE

3

Targeted Workshops to Support Teacher Evaluators

SESSION DURATION

Methods of Evidence Based Observation 90 Minutes This session will allow teacher evaluators to explore various models and methods of

instructional observation. Evaluators will examine the purpose of observations, beyond

standard compliance, and begin to discover how their own skills for instructional review can

improve. Activities and discussions will include examination of the various types of data

gathering tools used for observations and how and when these should be used to improve

outcomes for teachers and students.

Recognizing Rater Bias in Performance Appraisal 90 Minutes Bias occurs whenever an evaluator allows personal opinion of the teacher and/or

��ƪ��Ǥ��

process, it is essential that teacher evaluators consistently review their own biases and

��ƪ��Ǥ��

typical types of bias in performance review in order to begin to address them to improve

their instructional eye.

Coaching for Change 90 Minutes� ��ơ��Ȁ��

mutual respect and trust. This will ensure that the impact of feedback and post conferences

��ơ��Ǥ��

��ơ��

��Ǥ��ƪ��

��ơ��Ǣ��Ǥ�

Observing for Common Core State Standards 90 Minutes How do teacher evaluators know what they are looking for in a Common Core classroom?

What does every teacher evaluator need to know about the shifts in practice? What

alignment exists between the district’s selected performance indicators/framework and the

CCSS? How can they provide the type of support and feedback to their teachers to help

��ơ��ǫ�

��

support of the transition to the CCSS.

Writing, Reviewing and Monitoring Student Learning Outcomes 90 Minutes During this session, teacher evaluators will build their understanding of the role that student

learning objectives (SLOs) play in supporting teacher professional growth. Evaluators will

review a process that can be used with teachers to help establish rigorous yet realistic SLOs

that focus classroom practice on what we truly want students to know and be able to do as a

result of our instruction. Integration of our developing understanding of SBAC Performance

Tasks will also be explored to provide a context to the development of these assessments.

ReVision Learning Partnership, LLC All Rights Reserved.

Additional targeted PD to support Teacher Evaluators

134

Appendix E Forms

135

Form A - Self-Reflection Form

(#1-4 to be completed by the teacher at the beginning of the year; #5a to be completed mid- year; #5b to be completed end of year)

At the beginning of each school year, teachers self reflect by reviewing the CCSS (Common Core State Standards) and the WHPS (West Hartford Public Schools) Instructional Framework in consideration of the needs of the incoming student population, changes in curriculum and professional growth/development needs.

Self-reflection bridges the goal setting from previous years evaluation to a new school year context.

1. How will my professional growth plan for this year reflect the specific needs for my incomingstudents? (as evidenced by Student Learning Outcomes (SLO), Individualized Education Programs (IEP), 504 plans, SSP/SRBI plans, ELL, other special needs, etc.)

2. How will the curriculum (and/or changes or developments in the curriculum) affect myplanning, teaching, or assessments in my content area?

3. How has any recent professional learning informed my understanding of teaching andlearning for this year? Are there any professional development strategies or opportunities that might be especially appropriate for my professional growth needs in this academic year?

4. What factors are likely to influence or play a role in my teaching and professionalperformance this year?

5. a. To be completed Mid-Year: Based on my self-reflection, what adjustments does my professional growth plan require from now until the end of the year?

5. b. To be completed End-of-Year: Based on my self-reflection, what adjustments does my professional growth plan require for the next academic year?

136

Form B, C and D Observation Forms Evaluators will record evidence of classroom practice using selected indicators from the WHPS Instructional Framework. Data entered from classroom observation visits will be entered in an online talent management system that allows teachers to access and review in preparation for post-observation feedback that may include a post conference for Formal Assessment Observations. Form C on the following pages provides a sample from this form.

137

Form B – Pre-Observation Form

Teacher Name: Curricular Area: Date of Observation: Time of Observation: Start: End:

1. What is the objective of this lesson? What do you want the students to learn?(This is different than what you want the students to do.)

2. What outcome (s) from the curriculum does this lesson support? (Refer to yourcurriculum guide.)

3. What specific content, topic, and/or skill will be taught? (Please indicate if this isa new, practice, review, or diagnostic lesson.)

4. What research-based teaching strategies and instructional arrangements will youuse to accomplish this objective? (e.g., these include modeling, lecture, smallgroup, individual, and Marzano’s strategies)

5. What will you expect the students to do? (If applicable, please attach copies ofany handouts students will use.)

6. How will you assess their learning? How will you know if they learned it?

7. What opportunities will be included for differentiation of instruction?

8. What will you do if students do not learn it?

9. How does this lesson reflect the building goals and/or your professional goals?

10. Are there any special circumstances or specific students you want the evaluatorto be aware of and/or observe?

11. Does this lesson build on recommendations from a previous evaluation this year?

138

Form C West Hartford Instructional Framework – Observation

Teacher: Grade/Assignment: Subject: Date:

Note: Not all Focus Areas and/or Indicators may be observed in each professional observation. Focus Areas and Indicators Professional Responsibilities Observations/Evidence 1. Teacher conducts self as a professional in accordance with CT Code ofResponsibility for Educators, and advocates for all students. 2. Teacher collaborates with colleagues in a professional community.3. Teacher exhibits knowledge of and respect for cultural, social, and economicdiversity. Classroom Environment Observations/Evidence 1. Teacher creates an environment that is safe and conducive to learning2. Teacher models and promotes an atmosphere of respect and responsibility forself, others and property 3. Teacher maximizes the amount of time spent on learning by effectively managingprocedures and routines 4. Teacher promotes student engagement by providing opportunities to participateand interact productively Assessment Observations/Evidence 1. Teacher uses a comprehensive variety of summative and formative assessmentsthat directly align with the learning objectives and inform ongoing instruction. 2. Teacher uses a variety of alternative formative and summative assessments todifferentiate for the diverse ways that students learn, grow and demonstrate their learning. 3. Teacher uses rubrics and/or assessment tools for student reflection to helpimprove performance and take responsibility for their learning. 4. Teacher provides timely and descriptive feedback to students and families to helpstudents improve their learning.

Formal

Informal

139

Planning and Preparation Observations/Evidence 1. Teacher designs instruction based on existing district curriculum guidesInstructional Practice Observations /Evidence 1. Teacher communicates clear and rigorous expectations for learning2. Teacher uses a variety of evidence- based strategies to enable students to applyand construct new learning 3. Teacher uses differentiated instruction and supplemental interventions to supportthe diverse needs of students 4. Teacher monitors student learning and adjusts instructional strategies and pacingas needed in response to student performance and engagement. 5. Teacher incorporates available technological and digital resources to promotelearning 6. Teacher provides feedback to students during instruction to improve performance7. Teacher promotes engagement through shared responsibility for the learningprocess

140

Form D – Post-Observation Form

This report should be completed by the teacher prior to the post-conference and brought to the meeting with the principal. Teacher Name:

Date and Time of Post-Conference:

Please reflect on the lesson taught and answer the following questions:

What instructional skills did you use in the lesson that you feel were effective in promoting student learning?

As you think about your lesson and the learning that occurred, what changes would you make?

Please provide an update of your team goal or professional goal for this year.

141

Form E and Form F Goal Setting Forms

Form E Professional Learning Objectives From F Student Learning Objectives – Standardized and Non-Standardized

142

Form E West Hartford Public Schools

Objective Setting Meeting Professional Learning Objectives

Teacher’s Name: Tenure Status: [box ] Date:

District Goal(s): [Pull down of current goals]

School/Department Goal(s):

Teachers will review data from various points in order to establish two (2) to four (4) mutually agreed to Professional Learning Objectives with their administrator. In preparation for an initial goal-setting meeting, teachers will complete a Self-Assessment using the WHPS Framework and use this to help guide their decision towards professional learning for the year.

Professional Learning Objective(s):

Objective(s):

Desired Student Outcomes:

Instructional Framework Alignment: (Pull Down of Focus Areas/Indicators)

Action Steps: Measurable Evidence: (How I will assess whether a change happens)

Professional Development Needed:

Resources Needed:

Designated Evaluator Date :

Evaluatee: Date

143

Form F Teacher Objective-Setting: Standard and Non- Standardized

Assessment(s) Student Learning Objective 2013-2014

Teacher Name: School: Date:

Grade: # of students covered by this SLO: Subject: % of students covered by this SLO:

A Student Learning Objective (SLO) should be a broad goal for student learning. It should reflect high expectations for student learning and should be aligned to relevant state, national (e.g. Common Core), and/or district standards.

An Indicator of Academic Growth and Development (IAGD) is a measure you use to determine success in achieving the SLO and should represent at least one year’s growth and/or mastery of grade-level content standards.

If you teach in a tested grade and/or subject or another standardized indicator is available, one SLO must be based solely on standardized IAGDs and will account for 22.5% of your final rating. Your second SLO, which will account for an additional 22.5% of your final rating, must be based solely on non-standardized IAGDs. If your students are not assessed through any standardized measure, both SLO’s can be based on non- standardized IAGDs.

Each SLO must have at least one IAGD. Multiple IAGDs may be used but are not required.

Type of IAGD: Standard Non-Standard

Student Learning Objective (SLO):

Interval of Instruction:

Rationale for Objective (1) Why was this SLO chosen?

(2) What specific Connecticut and/or national standards does it address?

144

Indicator(s) of Academic Growth and Development (IAGD) Please clearly indicate the targeted performance expectation for the selected students. An IAGD should represent at least one year’s growth and/or mastery of grade-level content standards.

Indicator #1: (Required)

Indicator #2: (Optional)


Baseline Data/Background Information Please include what you know about the targeted students’ performance, skills and achievement levels at the beginning of the year (relevant to this SLO) as well as any additional student data or background information that you used in setting your objective. Provide this information for each indicator, if specific pre-test or baseline data are available.

Strategies/Actions to Achieve the SLO (include additional strategies as needed)

1.

2.

3.

145

Interim Assessments (1) What interim assessments do you plan to use to gauge student progress toward this SLO?

Data Collection/Assessment of Progress Toward Achieving the SLO (1) How will you collect and score evidence for your IAGDs?

Professional Learning/Support (1) What professional learning and/or other type of support will help you to achieve this SLO?

Approval of Student Learning Objectives Acceptable Unacceptable Priority of Content Objective is deeply relevant to teacher’s assignment and addresses a large proportion of his/her students Comments:

☐ ☐

Quality of Indicators Indicators provide specific, measurable evidence and allow judgment about students’ progress over the school year or semester. Comments:

☐ ☐

146

Rigor of Objective Objective is attainable, but ambitious, and represents at least one year’s student growth (or appropriate growth for a shorter interval of instruction). Comments:

☐ ☐

Signatures (to be completed after discussion of SLO)

Revisions Required Resubmit by:

Approved:

Teacher Date

Evaluator Date

147

Form F- SAMPLE Teacher Objective-Setting: Standard and Non- Standardized



Grade: 6 # of students covered by this SLO: 85 Subject: Spanish % of students covered by this SLO: 100

A Student Learning Objective (SLO) should be a broad goal for student learning. It should reflect high expectations for student learning and should be aligned to relevant state, national (e.g. Common Core), and/or district standards.

An Indicator of Academic Growth and Development (IAGD) is a measure you use to determine success in achieving the SLO and should represent at least one year’s growth and/or mastery of grade-level content standards.

If you teach in a tested grade and/or subject or another standardized indicator is available, one SLO must be based solely on standardized IAGDs and will account for 22.5% of your final rating. Your second SLO, which will account for an additional 22.5% of your final rating, must be based solely on non-standardized IAGDs. If your students are not assessed through any standardized measure, both SLO’s can be based on non- standardized IAGDs.

Each SLO must have at least one IAGD. Multiple IAGDs may be used but are not required.


Student Learning Objective (SLO):

Students will demonstrate improvement in writing as measured by the district-developed Common Formative Assessments (CFAs) administered in each of the four marking periods.

Interval of Instruction: 2013-14 School Year

148

Rationale for Objective (1) Why was this SLO chosen? (2) What specific Connecticut and/or national standards does it address?

As a World Language department, we are committed to rigorous standards and have high expectations of our students. Learning language is most successful and effective when students are given multiples opportunities to communicate in both oral and written forms. All students had 2012-2013 elementary school final results in Spanish test that demonstrated scores of proficient or higher in the writing prompt. However, the scores ranged from 35% to 80% on the 6th grade Spanish diagnostic assessment.

CT World Language Framework CONTENT STANDARD 3: Communication (Presentational Mode) How do I present information, concepts and ideas in another language in a way that is understood?: In at least one language other than English, students will present information, concepts and ideas to listeners or readers on a variety of topics.

Indicator(s) of Academic Growth and Development (IAGD) Please clearly indicate the targeted performance expectation for the selected students. An IAGD should represent at least one year’s growth and/or mastery of grade-level content standards.

Indicator #1: (Required) 100% of 6th grade students will demonstrate mastery of writing skills by June, 2014. Mastery is indicated by the district as a score of 16 or better on a 20 point writing rubric.




The students have taken a diagnostic assessment of writing skills that was used as a baseline for all 6th grade students in the district. Scores ranged from 35% to 80% on the 20 point rubric.

149


1. I will provide my students with a language rich environment that allows them multiple opportunities forwritten responses. Students will be responsible for weekly written journals that encourage language development. I will provide parents with the resources to help encourage writing at home as a way of strengthening their student’s language skills.

2. I will provide direct instruction on writing skills, grammar, and vocabulary development that will enablestudents to appropriately communicate in Spanish. Students will practice editing and revision skills to develop their writing skills.

3.


There will be at least one pre-assessment of writing skills using the rubric each marking period.


1. District-developed pre-assessment of new skills administered at the beginning of each marking period

2. District-developed formative assessments administered at the end of each marking period


- Collaborative planning with WL Teachers to discuss writing skill development - Collaborative time to assess writing and calibrate rubric. - Continued professional readings

150

Approval of Student Learning Objectives Acceptable Unacceptable Priority of Content Objective is deeply relevant to teacher’s assignment and addresses a large proportion of his/her students Comments:

☐ ☐


☐ ☐


☐ ☐



Approved:

Teacher Date

Evaluator Date

151

Form F- SAMPLE 2 Teacher Objective-Setting: Standard and Non- Standardized



Grade: 7 # of students covered by this SLO: 110 Subject: American History % of students covered by this SLO: 100% Student Learning Objective (SLO): Students will successfully complete the 7th grade social studies curriculum and demonstrate both an understanding of material, as well as the ability to analyze, both verbally and in writing, informational text using both primary and secondary sources.

At the conclusion of the course, the students that are in Social Studies 7 need to leave the class with the following skill sets: - Knowledge of United States History from 1500‐1865.

- The ability to answer Constructed Response Questions (CRQs). These are referred to as “scaffolding” questions when the students reach grades 9, 10, and 11 and work on the Document Based Questions (DBQs). - The ability to construct a Document Based Question (DBQ) essay.

- The ability to construct a Thematic Essay. These are major hurdles for students who may not have had these skills presented to them before. In addition, the students are expected to retain information from fifteen textbook chapters, as well as a geography unit. One of the main reasons for the integration of CRQs, DBQs, and Thematic essays is due to the fact that the students will be expected to utilize those skills in Grade 9, Grade 10, and Grade 11 Social Studies. The writing skills of the students will need to be refined as they enter Grade 8 and beyond. Students who have learning disabilities are expected to learn the same skills during the course of the year. For those students who are reading below the Grade 7 level, alternative methods of instruction will be needed. Using modified CRQs and DBQs may be necessary to help bring a student up to (and beyond) the Grade 7 reading level. The students will be learning skills that will prepare them for future college career or career readiness, as well as subsequent grades and courses, by being able to read and follow directions, the ability to construct a writing piece, and the ability to think critically. Interval of Instruction: September – June 2013-2014

152

Rationale for Objective (1) Why was objective chosen? (2) What specific Connecticut and/or national standards does it address?

The National Learning Standards for Social Studies (7th Grade Level; some Commencement Level) will be used, as well as following the Connecticut and West Hartford Core Curriculum for Social Studies (Grades 7‐8). Information from the Common Core Standards will be implemented where applicable.

153

Social Studies 7 is the beginning of a two‐year sequence that traces the human experience in the United States from pre‐Columbian times to the present. Major political, social, and economic events of United States history are studied. We will link these experiences to New York State history where appropriate. This class will utilize the social history approach, which allows the students to explore different contexts of history. The six major units of study in Social Studies 7 that will be covered over the course of the year include:

Unit I:The Global Heritage of the American People Prior to 1500

Unit II:European Exploration and Colonization of the Americas

Unit III: A Nation is Created

Unit IV: Experiments in Government

Unit V: Life in the New Nation and State

Unit VI: Division and Reunion

The book that the District has selected to guide instruction is: America: History of Our Nation.

(Davidson, J. W., &Stoff, M. (2007). America: History of our Nation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.)

Indicator(s) of Academic Growth and Development (IAGD) An IAGD is evidence you use to determine success in achieving the SLO and should represent at least one year’s growth and/or mastery of grade-level content standards.

1) The District has determined that there is a minimum target for this course:75% of the students will achieve a score of 80 or higher on the district‐developed summative assessment in June. This percentage must include all students with disabilities to receive a score in the Effective range or higher.

2)


154


This is the first time that the students will have taken a “survey” course in United States History. Therefore, the baseline will need to be obtained from the scores that the students receive on the district‐developed pre‐ assessment in September 2013.


1.

2.

3.


Students are continuously assessed for both knowledge and skills as part of standards-based instruction. SRBI interventions will be made available to support students as needed.


1. A district‐approved pre‐assessment will be administered to the students within the first two (2) weeks of

school. 2. A district‐approved summative assessment will be administered to the students during the second or thirdweek in June 2014.

• The District‐developed pre and post assessment consists of 50 multiple‐choice questions and aDocument Based Question (DBQ), complete with scaffolding questions.

• Assessments will be scored with another Social Studies teacher within the school to enhance reliabilityof scores.

155


- Collaborative planning with social studies team teachers. - CSI opportunities to develop writing instructional skills and DBQ development. - Professional Readings.

Approval of Student Learning Objectives Acceptable Unacceptable

Priority of Content Objective is deeply relevant to teacher’s assignment and addresses a large proportion of his/her students Comments:

☐ ☐


☐ ☐


☐ ☐



Approved:

156

Teacher Date

Evaluator Date

157

Form G Mid-Year/End-Year Conference Form

Teacher: This form is provided to assist you in conducting the mid-year conference and to be a vehicle for discussion of progress towards goals.

Teacher Name: School:

Subject:

School Year: Grade: Date:

Teacher Self-Assessment and Reflection Describe the results to date and provide evidence: A. Provide your overall assessment of progress toward the objective to date B: Describe what you have done so far that produced these results C: Describe what you have learned and how you will use it going forward D: What professional learning and/or other type of support would help you to achieve your objectives E: Describe any revisions to strategies and/or adjustments of student learning objectives

Student Growth Student Growth & Development (45%)

158

Teacher Self-Assessment and Reflection Describe the results to date and provide evidence: A. Provide your overall assessment of progress toward the objective to date B: Describe what you have done so far that produced these results C: Describe what you have learned and how you will use it going forward D: What professional learning and/or other type of support would help you to achieve your objectives E: Describe any revisions to strategies and/or adjustments of student learning objectives

Teacher Practice Observation of Teacher Practice and Performance (40%)

Parent/Student Feedback Objectives (15%)

Signatures

Teacher: Date:

Evaluator: Date:

159

Appendix F Appeal Worksheets I, II, III

160

West Hartford Public Schools West Hartford, Connecticut

Appeal Worksheet I

Teacher Assignment Building Date

Statement of Appeal

A conflict exists between

and with regard to the following issue(s):

(Please site specific area, section, process or procedure within the evaluation program that is under appeal.)

Signature of Appeal

Initiator White Copy to Appeal Committee Canary Copy to Initiator Pink Copy to Second Party

(Revised 9/00)

161


Appeal Worksheet II

To:

Chairperson

From: Richard Ledwith, Executive Director of Human Resources

Date:

Re: Appeal - Procedure

This will acknowledge receipt of Appeal Worksheet I.

The Committee chosen to hear this appeal include:

1. __________________________________________

2.

3. _________________________________________

The hearing of the appeal is scheduled:

Day:

Date:

Time:

Location:

Room #:

White Copy to Appeal CommitteeCanary Copy to Initiator Pink Copy to Second Party

(Revised 9/00)

162


Appeal Worksheet III

To: Initiator of Appeal

From:

Appeals Committee Date:

In response of your appeal of regarding

,

We make the following recommendation(s):

White Copy to Appeal Committee Canary Copy to Initiator Pink Copy to Second Party

(Revised 9/00)

163

Appendix G Sample Survey Questions

West Hartford will produce its own surveys based on various samples reviewed by the TRAC Steering Committee. Below are sample questions from each of the surveys to be administrated to both Students and Parents. Surveys will be designed to be age appropriate.

All Surveys will be based on the following scale: Strongly Agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree; I Don’t Know

Sample Questions Instructions Thank you for taking this survey. When you answer these questions, think about your experiences across all of your classes. Please answer honestly. No one at your school will see your answers. Your teacher will not see what you write.

Student Survey Students feel comfortable asking their teachers for help. My teacher(s) explain things clearly. My teachers know their content area and are skilled in presenting it. My teacher(s) enforce the rules My teachers talk to my parents about how I am doing in school.

Parent Survey My student's teachers are knowledgeable and responsive to my child's needs. At our school, all of the students including my student have great school spirit. I talk with my child's teacher(s) about what I can do to help my child learn. I know how my child is doing in school before I get my child's report card. I have attended at least one meeting or event at school this year. I feel welcome at this school.

Full surveys are available from the district Central Office for review.

Sample Instructions for Staff

2012 WHPS Student Survey – Teacher Instructions

Please explain to the children that the Board of Education is surveying their feelings about a number of issues that affect them in the classroom.

Please make sure the students bubble in on side 1 of the answer sheet – which is the side that has the name field in the left half of the bubble sheet.

The students should not fill out anything on the left half of the bubble sheet. They only need to answer and bubble in questions 1 – 29. No need to fill in their name, etc.

164

Please have the students bubble in their gender in question 1.

Explain to them that questions 2 – 25 are statements and that we are looking to see whether they agree or disagree. Elementary students have a 3 point scale and middle school students have a 5 point scale. Please read it to them and make sure they understand it.

Thank you for your assistance.

Teacher Evaluation & Development Pilot Program

Documents

Transcript of Teacher Evaluation & Development Pilot Program