PUSD Teacher Evaluation SY 13/14 Governing Board Presentation May 9, 2013 Dr. Heather Cruz, Deputy Superintendent

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

Arizona Revised Statutes § (A)(38)  The State Board of Education shall…”on or before December 15, 2011 adopt and maintain a model framework for a teacher and principal evaluation instrument that includes quantitative data on student academic progress that accounts for between thirty-three percent and fifty percent of the evaluation outcomes and best practices for professional development and evaluator training. School districts and charter schools shall use an instrument that meets the data requirements established by the State Board of Education to annually evaluate individual teachers and principals beginning in school year 2012 – 2013.”

HB 2823  Effective June, 2012  Allowed governing boards to delay the implementation of the Teacher and Principal Evaluation data component until SY13-14  Administration recommended we move forward

HB 2500  Currently on the Governor’s desk to be signed  Makes changes to required observations  Has several policy implications for:  Transfers  Length of time for improvement  Definition of Inadequacy of Classroom Performance  Impact on continuing teachers status based on evaluation performance classification

ADE Adopted Model Framework  ADE Adopted Model Framework for Educator Effectiveness April, 2011  Classroom observation tool must be:  Rubric-based  Tied to Arizona Teaching Standards  33% to 50% of the evaluation must be based on student achievement data  PUSD began to make the shift in evaluation practices in SY 11/12

Overview of the Peoria Model  Professional Practices – Implemented 11/12  Self-Evaluation  Goals  Reflection  Rubric Components Aligned to Arizona Teaching Standards  Professional Expectations  Student Achievement Data – Implemented 12/13

Peoria Data Model  Standing Data Committee Recommendation  Group A  Group B Instructional Practices Classroom- level Data School-level Data

Data Model Guiding Principles  Collaborative thinking  Guiding principles  Equity  Comprehensive  Manageable  Choice – Menu Driven  Balance  Transparency  First Year’s Needs  Spirit of the Law

Alignment  ACT and Freshman College Success  PUSD Data Model and AZ Learns

Group A – 33/7/40  6 Overall Data Points  33%  4 Choices  2 are mandatory  7% - Surveys  Pick 2 1 Survey Mandatory Parent Student  Choices are made at the end of the year  60%- Professional Practices  Danielson/PUSD Framework

Group B – 33/67  5 Overall data points  33%  1 Mandatory – Survey Parent Student  If a valid and reliable data point exists, that is mandatory  Choices are made at the end of the year  67% Professional Practices- Danielson/PUSD Framework

Where We Are Today  All teacher evaluations are completed electronically  Teacher  Administrator  Data components are also done electronically  Web-based application developed by Peoria IMT  Quality assurance  Facilitates data collection and analysis

Continuous Improvement of Process  Reconvened Governing Board appointed Certified Teacher Evaluation Committee (CTEC) to look at current evaluation tool and system  In order to gain broader teacher representation the remaining CTEC and Standing Data Committees were combined  Volunteers were asked to move forward with CTEC  Administration is bringing back CTEC’s recommended changes to the tools and process to the Governing Board for approval this evening

CTEC Process  Held two meetings  Reviewed current legislation  Reviewed and consolidated Danielson language from the components in Domains 1-4  Reflection on current practices  Formulated updated Definition of Inadequacy of Classroom Performance

Recommended Changes for 13/14  Wording changes to components in Domains 1-4  Changes to required observational minutes  Aligns final performance classifications to ADE required framework  Add definitions page  Revised Definition of Inadequacy of Classroom Performance  Reviewed Critical Attributes

Probationary Teacher - Revised  Minimum 70 minutes per semester  Minimum of TWO classroom observations – one scheduled, one unscheduled – each semester  Mid-Year Review  Domains 1-4  Professional Responsibilities  Scheduled Observation  Length is agreed upon at pre-conference  Includes pre-conference and post-conference  Continuous and uninterrupted lesson

Continuing Teacher - Revised  Minimum of 70 minutes of observation  Minimum of Two observations  Must be 60 days apart  At least one observation must be scheduled Length is agreed upon at pre-conference Includes pre-conference and post-conference Continuous and uninterrupted lesson  Continue the Mid-Year Conference to collect evidence on Domains 1 and 4  Completed no later than February 1st.

19 Overall Performance Classifications  Current  Unsatisfactory  Developing  Proficient  Excelling  Will remain the same in Domains 1-4  Proposed for 13/14  Ineffective  Developing  Effective  Highly Effective  Required by SB 2823

Inadequacy of Classroom Performance  Currently is any one Unsatisfactory rating in any one component in Domains 1-4  Changes required by HB 2500  If a teacher scores in the ineffective performance classification on their evaluation, they will be deemed inadequate This will require a Preliminary Notice of Inadequacy of Classroom Performance

Next Steps with Data Component  There are no recommended changes to the data component at this time  A full cycle is needed to see if the current model has the desired result  CTEC will reconvene in the fall to analyze the data and make necessary adjustments  Changes will be procedural  Student achievement percentages will remain the same

Performance Pay  There is Currently there is no pay tied to the evaluation performance classification

Requirement for 14/15  HB 2823 requires 33% of Fund 12 from the Classroom Site fund to be tied to the individual performance on the evaluation  A committee will be formed in 13/14 to realign our current 301 Performance Plan with the requirements of HB 2823  The current 301 Performance Plan and processes will remain unchanged this year and in 13/14

24 Questions