KEEP2 Debriefing February 4, 2016 Bill Bagshaw, Assistant Director Teacher Licensure and Accreditation

Every Student Succeeds Act The Every Student Succeeds Act aligns with Key Priorities for ESEA Reauthorization: Maintains annual assessments and authorizes innovative assessment pilots Gives states increased flexibility to design school accountability systems, school interventions, and student supports Gives states flexibility to work with local stakeholders to develop educator evaluation and support systems Increases state and local flexibility in the use of federal funds

Teacher Evaluation and Support The Every Student Succeeds Act does not require specific educator evaluation measures or methods; It allows but does not require that Title II funds be used to implement specific teacher evaluation measures; It reauthorizes the Teacher Incentive Fund, a competitive grant to support innovative educator evaluation systems.

Initiatives Accreditation Model ESSA Individual Plans of Study Social Emotional Character Development Kindergarten Readiness Civic Engagement Kansas Learning Network Teacher/Leader Evaluations Ambitious Long-Term Goals (AMO’s) Teacher/Student Equity Post-Secondary Measures Graduation Rates

K.S.A 72-9003 Title: Policy of personnel evaluation; adoption; filing; forms; contents; time. Addresses timeline for evaluation www.kslegislature.org Statute > Chapter 72 > Article 90 > Section 3

TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING Evaluation Systems The ultimate goal of all educator evaluations should be… TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING

Evaluation Requirements

Evaluation Timelines and Deadlines

K.S.A. 72-9004 Title: Evaluation policies; criteria; development; procedure; evaluation required prior to nonrenewal. Employee attribute to include student performance Self-evaluation www.kslegislature.org Statute > Chapter 72 > Article 90 > Section 4

Kansas Evaluation Systems Instructional Practice Student Performance components *KSDE makes no implication of weighting

Educator Evaluation Systems FINAL SUMMATIVE Rating Instructional Practice Protocol Summary Rating Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Student Performance Summary Rating Student Performance 1 Student Performance 2 Student Performance 3

Student Performance Student performance may include any combination of: Locally created methods Commercial products State assessments State assessments are not required for use in the educator evaluation. This is a district decision.

Quality Training Definitions Exemplars Videos Artifacts Support Materials

Student Performance Activity (students demonstrating learning) Parameters: Small groups (3-4 people) 4x6 Notecards 15 minute time limit Activity Objectives: Define student performance on front of card Provide 3-6 potential examples of student performance “data” on back of card 3. Turn in cards for discussion Student Performance Activity (students demonstrating learning)

Activity Results DEFINITIONS POTENTIAL DATA

Defining Student Performance (Do these still make sense?) The change in student performance for an individual student between two or more points in time. To include gains and progress toward post-secondary and workforce readiness To include progress in academic and functional goals in an individualized education program or meeting academic student performance objectives

4th Grade Curriculum Standards 85% Grade Level Expectation 5.00 4.12 4.11 4.10 4.09 4.08 4.07 4.06 4.05 4.04 4.03 4.02 4.01 4.00 Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May Assuming 85% of students exiting 3rd grade accomplished 3rd grade curriculum, the expectation would be at least the same amount of growth would occur by completion of the 4th grade, or on any given measure used. Example: In a class of 24 students, 20 students would be above the Grade Level Expectation line by the end of the Academic Year. 24 x .85 = 20.2 This scenario would indicate a way to identify improved student performance.

Kansas Performance Matrix SP Summary Rating Met Highly Effective Not Met Effective Developing Ineffective Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility IPP Summary Rating HE Highly Effective E Effective D Developing IE Ineffective Final Summative Rating Highly Effective Highly Effective or Effective Effective or Developing Effective Developing Developing or Ineffective Ineffective Recommended educator meets 3 SPs to be considered highly effective or its equivalent.** Must meet at least two SPs to be considered effective or its equivalent for the SP Summary Rating. Must meet at least one SPs to be considered developing or its equivalent for the SP Summary Rating. The Final Summative Rating can only be rated one performance level higher than the lowest summary rating. When both summary ratings are the same, that rating becomes the Final Summative Rating. NOTE: One Kansas State Assessments are required as an SP for teachers of tested grades and subject only. IE = Ineffective D = Developing E = Effective HE = Highly Effective

Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Matrix (upper tier) SP 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP Summary Rating Met Highly Effective Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility IPP Summary Rating HE Highly Effective E Effective D Developing IPP Summary Rating Highly Effective Highly Effective or Effective Effective or Developing

Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Matrix (bottom tier) SP 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP Summary Rating NotMet Not Met Ineffective Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility IPP Summary Rating D Developing IE Ineffective IPP Summary Rating Developing or Ineffective Ineffective

Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Matrix (middle) SP 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP Summary Rating Met Not Met Effective Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility IPP Summary Rating E HE Highly Effective D Effective Developing IPP Summary Rating Highly Effective or Effective Effective Effective or Developing Not Met Met Developing E Effective D IE Developing Ineffective Effective or Developing Developing Developing or Ineffective

Matrix Rules used to determine educator impact on student performance Should meet at least two SPs to be considered effective, highly effective or the equivalent for the SP Summary Rating. Meeting only one SP may indicate educator is developing or the equivalent for the SP Summary Rating. Meeting no student performance expectations may indicate educator is ineffective in the area. The Final Summative Rating can only be rated one performance level higher than the lowest summary rating. When both summary ratings are the same, that rating becomes the Final Summative Rating.

Impact on Student Performance Low Impact High Impact

Record IPP Summary Rating Pt. 1

Record IPP Summary Rating Pt. 2

Record IPP Summary Rating Pt. 3

Record Student Performance Summary Rating

Record Final Summative Rating

Inter-rater Agreement (IRA) Rate of agreement between/among two or more raters or ratings (individual x events) Clarity among raters Accurate data collection Ensures fairness Legal defensibility Proper feedback to teachers Essential to support accountability Essential to evaluation quality

All Evaluation Systems Should Be: Administratively feasible Publicly credible Professionally accepted Legally defensible Economically affordable

Contact Information: Bill Bagshaw, Assistant Director, Teacher Licensure and Accreditation, Kansas State Department of Education bbagshaw@ksde.org 785.296.2198