1. PUSD Teacher Evaluation SY 14/15 Governing Board Presentation May 13, 2014 Dr. Heather Cruz, Deputy Superintendent

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

3. Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-203(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.”

4. HB 2823  Effective June, 2012  Allowed governing boards to delay the implementation of the Teacher and Principal Evaluation data component until SY13-14  Peoria Unified implemented the data component in 12/13

5. 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

6. ADE Adopted Model Framework  Changes for 14/15  Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver  Districts and charters shall ensure that the total measure of Academic Progress (classroom-level and/or school- level) includes a calculation of the amount of Academic Growth students experience between two or more points in time. The Academic Growth calculation shall comprise at least 20% of the total evaluation outcome.

7. Continuous Improvement of Process  Reconvened Governing Board appointed Certified Teacher Evaluation Committee (CTEC) to look at current evaluation tool and system  Administration is bringing back CTEC’s recommended changes to the tool and process to the Governing Board for approval this evening  Recommended changes  Change current goal structure to Student Learning Objectives to align with requirements of ESEA Waiver

8. CTEC Committee

9. Overview of the Peoria Model-13/14  Professional Practices – Implemented 11/12  Self-Evaluation  Goals – Student Achievement, Instructional, & Exit Outcomes  Reflection  Rubric Components Aligned to Arizona Teaching Standards  Professional Expectations  Student Achievement Data – Implemented 12/13

10. Definitions  Group A Teacher  A Peoria Unified teacher who has two or more valid and reliable individual data pieces.  Group B Teacher  A Peoria Unified teacher who does not have two or more valid and reliable individual data pieces.

11. Changes for 14/15  Goals - Moving to Student Learning Objectives  A specific learning goal with specific measures of student learning used to track progress toward that goal  Research supports this direction  Can be found on beginning p. 10 of the PUSD Teacher Evaluation for 14/15

12. Benefits of SLO’s  Empowers teachers to set goals based on their current students and setting  Equalizes the percentage of data for Group A & Group B teachers  All data for SLO’s comes from current school year  Perceived to be a more fair way to align teacher data to evaluation  Satisfies the ESEA Waiver

13. SLO Committee  Sub-committee of CTEC

14. Data Model Guiding Principles  Collaborative thinking  Guiding principles  Equity  Comprehensive  Manageable  Choice – Menu Driven  Balance  Transparency  Spirit of the Law

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

16. Peoria Data Model for 13/14  Standing Data Committee Recommendation  Group A  Group B Instructional Practices Classroom- level Data School-level Data

17. Peoria Data Model for 14/15

18. 18 Comparison of Group A and B  20% - SLO  13% - Achievement Data  3 Individual Choices AIM is mandatory  2School-wide Choices A survey choice is mandatory  67% Professional Practices  Domains, Self-Assessment, Professional Expectations  20% - SLO  13% - Achievement Data  5 School-wide Choices AIMS is mandatory A survey is mandatory Individual data points are mandatory, if available  67% Professional Practices  Domains, Self-Assessment, Professional Expectations Group A - 20/13/67Group B - 20/13/67

19. Inadequacy of Classroom Performance  Not recommending any changes  Currently is any one Unsatisfactory rating in any one component in Domains 1- 4  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

20. Performance Pay  Currently there is no pay tied to the evaluation performance classification for 13/14  HB 2823 requires 33% of Fund 12 from the Classroom Site Fund (301) to be tied to student progress for the evaluation beginning in 14/15  SLO’s would satisfy this requirement

21. 301 Plan for 14/15  Update 301 plan to align with HB 2823  SLO’s will meet the requirement for this  By law, we will need to survey the teachers and receive at least 70% agreement with the plan in order to move forward  After teacher approval, the plan will be brought to the board for approval  Plan to do this in August, 2014

22. 22 Questions