1. Educator Evaluations 436 Caney Valley February 12, 2016 Bill Bagshaw, Assistant Director Teacher Licensure and Accreditation

2. 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

3. 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.

4.  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 Initiatives

7. 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

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

9. Evaluation Requirements

10. Evaluation Timelines and Deadlines

11. 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

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

13. 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 Educator Evaluation Systems

14.  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. Student Performance

15.  Definitions  Exemplars  Videos  Artifacts  Support Materials Quality Training

16. Parameters: Small groups (3-4 people) 4x6 Notecards 15 minute time limit Activity Objectives: 1.Define student performance on front of card 2.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)

17. Activity Results DEFINITIONS POTENTIAL DATA

18.  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 Defining Student Performance (Do these still make sense?)

19. 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 AugSeptOctNovDecJanFebMarchAprilMay 4th Grade Curriculum Standards 85% Grade Level Expectation Assuming 85% of students exiting 3 rd grade accomplished 3 rd grade curriculum, the expectation would be at least the same amount of growth would occur by completion of the 4 th 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.

20. SP 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP Summary Rating Met Highly Effective Met Highly Effective Met Highly Effective MetNot MetMetEffective Not MetMet Effective Met Not MetEffective Not Met MetDeveloping Not MetMetNot MetDeveloping Not Met MetDeveloping Not Met Ineffective Not Met Ineffective Kansas Performance Matrix Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility IPP Summary Rating HE Highly Effective EEEEEffective DDDDDeveloping EHE Highly Effective EDEEEffective DEDDDeveloping EEEEEffective EDDIEDeveloping IE D Ineffective DDDDDeveloping IE Ineffective Final Summative Rating Highly Effective Highly Effective or Effective Effective or Developing Highly Effective or Effective Effective Effective or Developing Developing Developing or Ineffective Ineffective 1.Recommended educator meets 3 SPs to be considered highly effective or its equivalent.** 2.Must meet at least two SPs to be considered effective or its equivalent for the SP Summary Rating. 3.Must meet at least one SPs to be considered developing or its equivalent for the SP Summary Rating. 4.The Final Summative Rating can only be rated one performance level higher than the lowest summary rating. 5.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

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

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

23. SP 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP Summary Rating Met Not Met MetEffective Not Met Met Effective Met Not Met Effective Matrix (middle) Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility IPP Summary Rating EHE Highly Effective EDEEEffective DEDDDeveloping IPP Summary Rating Highly Effective or Effective Effective Effective or Developing Not Met MetDeveloping Not Met Met Not Met Developing Not Met MetDeveloping EEEEEffective EDDIEDeveloping IE D Ineffective Effective or Developing Developing Developing or Ineffective

24.  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. Matrix Rules used to determine educator impact on student performance

25. Impact on Student Performance Low ImpactHigh Impact

26. Record IPP Summary Rating Pt. 1

27. Record IPP Summary Rating Pt. 2

28. Record IPP Summary Rating Pt. 3

29. Record Student Performance Summary Rating

30. Record Final Summative Rating

31. 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 Inter-rater Agreement (IRA)

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

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