Today’s website:

Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers Virginia Department of Education Approved April 2011

Goals for this Transition Meet the state regulation requirements. Stay true to our work around gathering evidence for evaluation. Honor the work we have already done around evaluation. Create as little BUMP as possible to current practice. Do it WELL!

The Process 1.Instructional Leadership sets the goals. 2.Planning Team of teachers, principals and central office leaders meets to build initial process. 3.Specialists meet with teams of grade/content teachers to plan measures. 4.Principals provide comments and ideas on base process.

The Process, Continued 5. Planning Team reconvenes to respond to principal ideas. 6. Updated version of the plan sent to all teachers for review. 7. Teacher input sessions held across the county. 8. Planning team reconvenes to consider teacher ideas and build a final draft of the process.

Code of Virginia Requires: 1.That teacher evaluations be consistent with the performance objectives (standards) included in the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards (by 7/1/12) 2.That school boards shall develop procedures in evaluating instructional personnel that address student academic progress (how this requirement is met is the responsibility of the local school board) (by 7/1/12) 3.Continuing contract teachers shall be evaluated not less than once every three years (those not on continuing contract or those receiving an unsatisfactory rating shall be evaluated each year)

Performance Standards: 1.Professional Knowledge 2.Instructional Planning 3.Instructional Delivery 4.Assessment of and for Student Learning 5.Learning Environment 6.Professionalism 7.Student Academic Progress (the work of the teacher results in acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student academic progress)

The Board Recommends (but does not require): That each teacher receive a summative evaluation rating of unsatisfactory, needs improvement, proficient, or exemplary That the rating be determined by weighting the first 6 standards equally at 10%, and the 7th standard (student academic progress), account for 40% of the summative evaluation

The Board Further Recommends: When considering student academic progress…… Student learning should be determined by multiple measures of student academic progress. At least 20% of the teacher evaluation (half of the student academic progress measure) is comprised of student growth percentiles as provided by VDOE (NOTE: less than 30% of VA teachers will have this). Another 20% of the teacher evaluation should be measured using one or more alternative measures with evidence that the alternative measure is valid.

Henrico Response PQRs are our Performance Standards and they are correlated to the recommended standards. Our summative evaluation rating will have a two category scale: meets or does not meet standards. We will consider student academic progress in our system through the PGEP planning document and a set of division measures and targets.

Determining the Scale We will use a 100 point scale where: The Instructional Responsibilities will be worth 30 points. The Professional Qualities will be worth 30 points. There will be two student outcome measures used - each worth 20 points (for a total of 40 points).

Determining the Rating If a teacher earns 80 or more points he/she will “Meet Standards.” If a teacher earns less than 80 points he/she will “Not Meet Standards.”

Once Again: The Rating Scale Instructional Responsibilities: 30 pts. Professional Qualities: 30 pts. Academic Target #1: 20 pts. Academic Target #2: 20 pts. TOTAL: 100 pts.

Examples of Using the Scale to Determine the Evaluation Rating 1.Teacher meets Instructional Responsibilities: 30 pts. 2. Teacher meets Professional Qualities: 30 pts. 3. Teacher meets student academic progress target #1: 20 pts. 4. Teacher DOES NOT meet student academic progress target #2: 0 pts. Summative Rating: Teacher MEETS STANDARDS with 80 pts.

Examples of Using the Scale to Determine the Evaluation Rating 1.Teacher meets Instructional Responsibilities: 30 pts. 2. Teacher DOES NOT meet Professional Qualities: 0 pts. 3. Teacher meets student academic progress target #1: 20 pts. 4.Teacher meets student academic progress measure #2: 20 pts. Teacher DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS with 70 pts.

Nuts and Bolts: The Planning Form At your table, review the proposed updates to the Planning Form and discuss the changes you see.

Proposed Changes to the Observation Planning Form Current FORMPROPOSED FORM Discussion of student data when appropriate Two measures and target required for all teachers A PQR is selected as a focus. Instructional Responsibility is selected- Professional Quality is selected if needed.

More Nuts and Bolts: The evaluation cycle will move from a two- year cycle for continuing contract teachers to a three-year evaluation cycle. Probationary teachers will be evaluated every year. The evaluation form will be used only in the evaluation year of the cycle.

More Nuts and Bolts Review the proposed PQR Evaluation form and identify the changes.

The Proposed PQR Evaluation Form Evaluation year (for Probationary Teachers) is indicated on the form. There are four meets/does not meets “Performance Indicators” delineated according the PQRs and SGMs. The score of the four indicators determines the overall summative rating.

A WALK THROUGH THE PROCESS Timelines and Components

Measures and Targets Philosophy – to involve stakeholders to create measures that accurately reflect the impact of a teacher on student learning Implementation – Gradual, slow, measures will evolve based on feedback – Year 1 relies of measures we already have – Year 2 create new measures – Targets challenging Year 1

Potential Long-Term Benefits To evaluate teacher impact beyond passing an SOL test To measure learning that we value as part of an evaluation To bring consistency in level of instruction across the district To have teachers focused on pushing students further

“Potential” Elementary Measures KReading Only PALS Gr. 1Reading OnlyPALS Gr. 2Reading OnlyPALS Gr. 3Reading & MathSOLs & MAPS/PALs Gr. 4Reading & MathSOL SGPs & MAPS Gr. 5Reading & MathSOL SGPs & MAPS Notes: Alternative measures for 3-5 at in development for In 3-5, consideration is being given to a choice model among core content areas.

“Potential” Secondary Measures Standardized Tests – NWEA – SOLs (SGP) – Advanced Placement – CTE Certification Pre and Post-Test Assessments Performance Based Tasks Portfolios

Leveled Group Discussions (Capture Issues on Electronic Form) Elementary: Review and discuss DRAFT reading and math measures and targets Secondary: Review and discuss DRAFT science and ESL/foreign language measures and targets Whole Group Discussion: A sampling of groups will report out Feedback/Input: Feedback will be collected for review and consideration

March 15 Teacher Evaluation Committee review draft March 16 to April 17 Sub-Committees of teachers provide input April 18 Draft presented to all principals April 20 Planning committee reconvenes April 30-May 23Regional Input Sessions for teachers May 24Final meeting with planning committee May 30 Drafts posted for public review Summer Sessions with teachers (on measures/targets) August 9 Training for all administrators August Site-Based Training for all teachers