All components and sources of evidence related supporting an educator’s professional practice and student growth ratings will be completed and documented to inform the Overall Performance Category. All Summative Ratings will be recorded in the department-approved technology platform. Sources of evidence/Framework for Teaching Alignment FRAMEWORK for TEACHING (FfT) Domain Planning & Preparation Classroom Environment Instruction Professional Responsibilities Component 1a -Knowledge of content/pedagogy 1b-Demonstrate knowledge of students 1c- Setting Instructional Outcomes 1d-Demonstrates knowledge of resources 1e-Designing Coherent Instruction 1f- Designing Student Assessment 2a-Creating Env. of Respect & Rapport 2b-Establish Culture of Learning 2c-Maintaing Classroom Procedures 2d-Managing Student Behavior 2e-Organizing Physical Space 3a-Communicating with Students 3b-Questioning & Discussion Techniques 3c-Engaging Students in Learning Assessment in Learning 3e-Demonstrating Flexibility & Responsive 4a-Reflecting On Teaching 4b-Maintaining Accurate Records 4c-Communicating With Families 4d-Participating in Profess. Learning Comm. 4e-Growing & Developing Professionally 4f-Showing Professionalism SOURCES OF EVIDENCE To Inform Professional Practice Supervisor Observation Evidence (pre and post conferences) Observation Evidence (pre and post conferences) Student Voice Kentucky Student Voice Survey Professional Growth Professional Growth Planning and Self Reflection
Realistic, S.M.A.R.T. goal format Focuses on a enduring skill which students are expected to master Focuses on a enduring skill Contains a skill that is not or does not match enduring skill criteria Identifies an area of need pertaining to current students’ abilities Identifies a specific area of need related to the enduring skill Does not identify a specific area of need or the area of need is not related to the enduring skill Includes growth and proficiency targets that establish and differentiate expected performance for ALL students Includes a growth target that establishes a growth target for ALL students and a proficiency target that establishes the mastery expectation for students Is missing one of the targets or fails to expected for one or both targets Identifies appropriate measure(s) allowing for consistent and comparable mid-course, and data collection Identifies measure(s) for collecting baseline, and data that matches the skill being assessed Fails to identify a measure for data collection, or the measure is not to the skill being assessed Explicitly states interval of instruction Specifies a interval of instruction Fails to specify an interval of instruction, or the interval is less than long
Rigor of the Goal and Measurement Instruments Requirements: The rigor of the goal is acceptable if . . . The of the goal needs revision if . . . It is congruent to KCAS grade level standards for which it was developed It is congruent and appropriate for level/content area standards It is congruent to content but not to grade level standards, or it is not congruent and other data justify the selection of the enduring skill and specific area of need Selection of the enduring skill and specific area of need is supported by multiple data sources for current students Selection of the enduring skill and specific area of need is supported by only one data source for current students, or no data were used and data justify the selection of the growth and proficiency targets Selection of the growth and proficiency targets is supported by multiple data sources for Selection of the growth and proficiency targets is supported by one data source for
current students current students, or no data were used The growth and proficiency targets are challenging for students, but attainable with support The growth and proficiency targets are doable, but stretch the outer bounds of what is attainable The growth and proficiency targets are not achievable, or the targets are achievable but fail to stretch attainability The identified measurement instrument(s) allows for students to demonstrate where they are in meeting or exceeding the intent of the standard(s) being assessed The identified measures students to demonstrate their competency in performing at the level intended in the standards being assessed The identified measures only allow students to of a portion or none of the aspects of the standards being assessed Comparability of Data Requirements: The comparability of the goal is acceptable if . . . The comparability of the goal needs revision if . . . Uses comparable criteria across similar classrooms (classrooms that address the same standards) to determine progress toward mastery of standards/enduring skills It reflects use of common to determine competency in performance at the intended by the standard(s) being assessed It does not reflect common criteria used to determine progress s
A numerical value will be assigned for each of the goals: 1 point for LOW, 2 points for EXPECTED, and 3 points for HIGH. The two point values will be averaged together to determine the State Growth Rating using the table below. ( For example, if the reading MSGP is LOW and the math MSGP is expected, then 1+2=3 and 3/2=1.5. Then the state growth rating would be EXPECTED based on the table below.) When up to three years of student growth data is available, the student growth rating will be averaged to determine overall Student Growth Rating for teachers. A numerical value will be assigned to each year’s overall rating with 1 point for LOW, 2 points for EXPECTED, and 3 points for HIGH. The point values assigned for each year will be averaged with equal weighting for each year. Then the score ranges given in the following table will be used to determine the final trend rating for the Local Student Growth Rating. STATE GROWTH RATING BASED ON TREND DATA AVERAGE SCORE RANGE Low 1.00 -- 1.49 Expected 1.50 -- 2.49 High 2.50 -- 3.00 Determining the Overall Performance Category An educator’s Overall Performance Category is determined using the following steps:
Teacher’s Signature* Date Evaluator’s Signature Date *Denotes sharing of results, not necessarily agreement with the formative rating METCALFE COUNTY SCHOOLS (TPGES) Formative EVALUATION Educators are scored as follows: Ineffective, Developing, Accomplished, Exemplary Name:____________________________ Date___________________________ Script/Documentation
4A - Reflecting on practice I D A E 4B - Preparing and submitting budgets and reports I D A E 4C - Coordinating work with other instructional specialists I D A E 4D - Participating in a professional community I D A E 4E - Engaging in professional development I D A E 4F - Showing professionalism including integrity and confidentiality I D A E Therapeutic Specialist Observation Tool Directions: Highlight a rating for each component and then match evidence from your observation notes to explain the rating for each component. Text boxes expand to accommodate multiple evidence examples. Therapeutic Specialist: School: Evaluator: Date: Component: Rating: Evidence: 1A - Demonstrating knowledge and skill in the specialist therapy area holding the relevant certificate or license I D A E 1B - Establishing goals for the therapy program appropriate to the setting and the students served I D A E
DOMAIN 1 EXEMPLARY ACCOMPLISHED DEVELOPING INEFFECTIVE DOMAIN 2 EXEMPLARY ACCOMPLISHED DEVELOPING INEFFECTIVE DOMAIN 3 EXEMPLARY ACCOMPLISHED DEVELOPING INEFFECTIVE DOMAIN 4 EXEMPLARY ACCOMPLISHED DEVELOPING INEFFECTIVE High Expected Low If Domains 2 & 3 are rated “I” Prof. Practice shall be “I” If Domains 2 or 3 are rated “I” Prof. Practice be “D” or “I” If Domains 1 or 4 are rated “I” Prof. practice shall NOT be “E” If 2 Domains are “D” and 2 are rated “A” Prof. Practice shall be “A” If 2 domains are rated “D” and 2 are rated “E” Prof. Practice shall be “A” If 2 domains are rated “A” and 2 Domains are rated “E” Prof. Practice shall be “E” I-Ineffective D-Developing A-Accomplished E-Exemplary I agree with the above evaluation. I disagree with the above evaluation for the following reasons: Evaluatee Comments: Evaluator Comments:
and levels of teacher skill in delivering that program 1C - Establishing goals for the instructional support program appropriate to the setting and the teachers served I D A E 1D – Demonstrating knowledge of resources both within and beyond the school and district I D A E 1E - Planning the instructional support program integrated with the overall school program I D A E 1F - Developing a plan to evaluate the instructional support program I D A E 2A- Creating an environment of respect and rapport I D A E 2B - Establishing a culture for ongoing instructional improvement I D A E 2C - Establishing clear procedures for teachers to gain access to the instructional support I D A E 2D - Establishing and maintaining norms of behavior for professional interactions I D A E 2E - Organizing physical space for workshops and trainings I D A E 3A - Collaborating with teachers in the design of instructional units and lessons I D A E 3B -Engaging teachers in learning new instructional skills I D A E 3C - Sharing expertise with I D A E 3D - Locating resources for teachers to support instructional improvement I D A E 3E - Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness I D A E 4A - Reflecting on practice I D A E 4B - Preparing and submitting budgets and reports I D A E
___________________School Year **The Individual Corrective Action Plan is developed when an immediate change is required in teacher behavior or performance. INDIVIDUAL CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR Date Work Site __________________________________ Standard # Growth Objective/Goal(s) (describe learning outcomes) Procedures and Activities for Achieving Goals and Objectives (including support personnel) Appraisal Method and Target Dates Employee’s Comments Evaluator’s Comments: Individual Corrective Action Plan Developed: Status: Achieved Revised Continued Employee Signature Date Employee Signature Date