1. KEEP2 Debriefing February 4, 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. 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

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

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

9. Evaluation Requirements

10. Evaluation Timelines and Deadlines

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

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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. Quality Training Definitions Exemplars Videos Artifacts
Support Materials

16. 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)

17. Activity Results
DEFINITIONS
POTENTIAL DATA

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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.

25. Impact on Student Performance
Low Impact
High 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. 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

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

40. Contact Information:
Bill Bagshaw, Assistant Director,
Teacher Licensure and Accreditation,
Kansas State Department of Education