1. PDS Coalition Meeting April 22, 2016
Ann Yates, Education Program Consultant
Teacher Licensure and Accreditation

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

3. Evaluation Requirements

4. Evaluation Timelines and Deadlines

5. 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
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.
NOTE: Kansas State Assessments are not required as a performance indicator in educator evaluations.
IE = Ineffective
D = Developing
E = Effective
HE = Highly Effective

6. 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.

7. 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

11. Self-assessment

12. Goals

13. Record IPP Summary Rating Pt. 1

14. Record IPP Summary Rating Pt. 2

15. Record IPP Summary Rating Pt. 3

16. Student Performance Definitions
Student performance can be positively measured academically, vocationally and/or behaviorally.
Student performance can be defined as the application of knowledge.
Student performance is a result of showing positive growth in meeting established standards and proficiencies.
Student performance is showing growth in learning over time.

17. Student Performance Methods
Certifications
Civic engagement/ Service learning
College credits
Grades
Individual Education Plans
Individual Plans of Study
Local assessments
MTSS
Participation in activities
Portfolios
Pre-Post competency exams
Rubrics
Soft skill demonstration
State assessments
Student interviews
Student work samples
Surveys

18. Impact on Student Performance
Low Impact
High Impact
How many ways does an educator positively impact student performance?

19. Record Student Performance Summary Rating

20. Record Final Summative Rating

21. 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

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

23. Contact Information:
Ann Yates
Education Program Consultant
Teacher Licensure and Accreditation
Kansas State Department of Education