Menu

Agenda

 

CRANSTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING

SEPTEMBER 15, 2014

WESTERN HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL

400 PHENIX AVENUE, CRANSTON, RI 02920

EXECUTIVE SESSION – 6:00 P.M.

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING - PUBLIC SESSION

 

AGENDA

 

 

  1. Call to order- 6:00 p.m. Convene to Executive Session pursuant to RI State Laws  -

 

  1. PL 42-46-5(a)(1) Personnel:

 

  1. PL 42-46-5(a)(2) Collective Bargaining/Litigation:
  1. Contract Negotiations’ Update(s)=
  2. (Secretaries)
  3. (Teachers)
  4. (Teacher Assistants)
  5. (Bus Drivers, Mechanics)
  6. (Tradespeople)

 

  1. PL 42-46-5(3)
  1. District Safety Plan

 

  1. P.L. 42-46-5(8);

A.         Deliberations re: Student “A” Permit Appeal Hearing held on 9/10/14

 

  1. Executive Session
  2. Call to Order  - Public Session
  3. Roll Call – Quorum
  4. Executive Session Minutes Sealed – September 15, 2014
  5. Minutes of Previous Meetings Approved – August 13, 2014 (Student Hearing), August 13, 2014 (Work Session) and August 18, 2014 (Regular School Committee Meeting)
  6. Public Acknowledgements/Communications
  7. Chairperson’s Communications
  8. Superintendent’s Communications
  9. School Committee Member Communications
  10. Public Hearing

      a. Students (Agenda/Non-Agenda Matters)

      b. Members of the Public (Agenda Matters Only)

  1. Consent Calendar/Consent Agenda
  2. Action Calendar/Action Agenda

 

 

 

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

ADMINISTRATION

 

No. 09-14-04     RESOLVED, to Accept or reject decision of Assistant Superintendent re: Student “A” Permit Appeal

 

PERSONNEL

 

No. 09-14-05     RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the Superintendent the following certified personnel be appointed for the 2014-2015 school year:

 

Jared Monteiro, Step 1

Education…URI, BS

Experience…Pawtucket School Department

Certification….Secondary Math

Assignment…Western Hills .4 FTE

Effective date…August 25, 2014

Authorization…Replacement

Fiscal Note… 12911810 51110

 

David Boyajian, Step 5

Education…RIC, BS

Experience…West Warwick School Department

Certification….Technology Education K-12

Assignment…Cranston West 1.0 FTE 

Effective date…August 25, 2014

Authorization…Replacement

Fiscal Note… 12612360 51110

 

Jane Correra, Step 3 + B+36

Education…PC, BS.

Experience…Cranston Substitute

Certification….Secondary English

Assignment…Cranston East .6 FTE

Effective date…August 25, 2014

Authorization…Replacement

Fiscal Note… 11312340 51110

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ian Smith, Step 10

Education…URI, BS

Experience…Warwick School Department

Certification….Secondary English

Assignment…Cranston East 1.0 FTE 

Effective date…August 25, 2014

Authorization…Replacement

Fiscal Note… 11312340 51110

 

Marissa Walker, Step 3

Education…Wheelock College, BA

Experience…Cranston Substitute

Certification…. Elementary 1-6

Assignment…CSR .5 FTE 

Effective date…August 25, 2014

Authorization…Replacement

Fiscal Note… 12012050 51110

 

Jessica Morales. Step 3

Education…URI, BA

Experience…Providence School Department

Certification…Secondary Math

Assignment…Cranston West .6FTE

Effective date…August 25, 2014

Authorization…Replacement

Fiscal Note…12612280 51110

 

Deborah Bessette, Step 12 + Masters

Education…RIC, BS, URI MA

Experience…Cranston Substitute

Certification….Reading K-12

Assignment…Itinerant .5 FTE (private\parochial)

Effective date…August 25, 2014

Authorization…Replacement

Fiscal Note… 12412050 51110

 

Susan Mastrati, Step 12 +MA

Education…RIC, BA, MA

Experience…Cranston Retiree

Certification…Reading

Assignment…CACTC .5 FTE

Effective date…September 15, 2014

Authorization…Replacement

Fiscal Note…51974125 51110

 

 

 

Debra Favicchio, Step 12 +B+36

Education…RIC, BS

Experience…Cranston Retiree

Certification…Secondary Math

Assignment…CACTC .5 FTE

Effective date… September 15, 2014

Authorization…Replacement

Fiscal Note…51974131 51110

 

Elizabeth Ruest, Step 12+ MA

Education…RIC, BA RIC MA

Experience…Cranston School Retiree

Certification….Reading K-12

Assignment…Norwood .3 FTE

Effective date…September 15, 2014

Authorization…Replacement

Fiscal Note… 13813200 51110

 

No. 09-14-06     RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the Superintendent, the 

following certified personnel be appointed as substitutes on a temporary basis as needed:

 

Katie Chamberlain, Middle\Elementary

Lynn Tatewosian, Early Childhood PK-2

Macie Marchetti, Biology\Science

Thomas Heston, Elementary

Shana Girouard, Special Education Elementary\Middle

Jennifer Nachba, Elementary

Stephanie Goetz, General Subject Matter

 

No. 09-14-07     RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the Superintendent, the resignation(s) of the following certified personnel be accepted:

 

Janet Reardon, Nurse-Teacher

Stone Hill

Effective date…August 19, 2014

 

Amy Chapman, Teacher

Itinerant

Effective date…August 21, 2014

 

Janice Devitt, Teacher

Eden Park

Effective date…August 12, 2014

 

Richard Perrotta, Teacher

Cranston West

Effective date…September 12, 2014

 

Laurence Birmingham, Assistant Principal

Bain

Effective date…October 1, 2014

 

No. 09-14-08     RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the Superintendent, the

following individual(s) be appointed as an athletic coach:

 

Jeffrey Robert, Assistant Coach Girls’ Volleyball

CHSE

Step-6

Class-C

Playing Competition-High School

Experience-Assistant Coach Bay View Academy 

Certification-RI Coaches Certification; CPR\AED\First Aid

 

Carl Bishop, Assistant Coach Girls’ Tennis

CHSE

Step-6

Class-D

Playing Competition-None

Experience-\Head Coach tennis 

Certification-RI Coaches Certification; CPR\AED\First Aid

 

No. 09-14-09     RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the Superintendent, the resignation of the following coach (es) be accepted:

 

Ashley Pagliarini, Head Coach Girls’ Co-op Hockey

Cranston West\Cranston East

Effective date…August 21, 2014

 

Dina Cesana, Head Coach Girls’ Indoor Track

Cranston East

Effective date…August 29, 2014

 

Richard Perrotta, Head Coach Girls’ Basketball\ Boys’ Tennis

Cranston West\Cranston East

Effective date…September 11, 2014

 

No. 09-14-10     RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the Superintendent, the following individuals be appointed as volunteer coaches:

 

Richard Grenier, Jr., Boys’ Soccer

Cranston High School East

 

 

 

 

 

No. 09-14-11     RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the Superintendent, the following non-certified employee(s) be appointed:

 

Laura Ceballos, Teacher Assistant

Orchard Farms

Effective date…August 26, 2014

Replacement

Fiscal Note… 13646100 51110

 

Lorraine French, Teacher Assistant

Orchard Farms

Effective date…August 26, 2014

Replacement

Fiscal Note…13646100 51110

 

Jennifer Scappaticci, Teacher Assistant

Western Hills

Effective date…August 26, 2014

Replacement

Fiscal Note…12646020 51110

 

Nikki Notarianni, 3hr Teacher Assistant

Waterman

Effective date…August 26, 2014

Replacement

Fiscal Note 11046010 51110

 

Michelle Bergantino, Secretary

Arlington

Effective date…September 8, 2014

Replacement

Fiscal Note….12543210 51110

 

Katherine Lucchetti, Bus Monitor

Transportation

Effective date…August 26, 2014

Replacement

Fiscal Note… 10345090 51110

 

Dianne Broxson, Bus Monitor

Transportation

Effective date…August 26, 2014

Replacement

Fiscal Note…13445090 51110

 

 

 

Nancy Rudacevsky, 3HR Teacher Assistant

Gladstone

Effective date…September 4, 2014

New

Fiscal Note…11946010 51110

 

No. 09-14-12     RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the Superintendent, the following non-certified personnel be appointed as substitutes on a temporary basis as needed:

 

Emmanuel Suggs, Custodian

Nathan Stone, Custodian

Nicole DiDino, Secretary

Nicole Brousseau Rustici, Secretary

                     Helen Akinlapa, Teacher Assistant

 

No. 09-14-13     RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the Superintendent, the resignation(s) of the following non-certified personnel be accepted:

 

Nikki Notarianni, Bus Monitor

Transportation

Effective Date…August 22, 2014

 

Shelia Testa, Teacher Assistant

Stone Hill

Effective Date…August 27, 2014

 

Juan Cartagena, Custodian

Plant

Effective Date…August 6, 2014

 

BUSINESS

 

PURCHASED AND PURCHASED SERVICES

 

No. 09-04-14     Resolved that the following purchases be approved:

 

Lumber in the amount of $5,379.62

                                    

                                    Number of bids issued     5

                                    Number of bids received   3

 

 

 

 

Custodial Paper Supplies in the amount of $67,756 for 2014-2015 and $68,316 for 2015-2016 based on a two year bid (actual quantities to be adjusted based on needs and funds available)

 

Number of bids issued     6

                                    Number of bids received   3

 

Lease / purchase of 15 small buses at a cost of $44,452 per bus.  Financing of the vehicles shall be no greater than a fixed interest rate of 1.879% per annum over a five year term.   Final financial lender to be determined.

 

Number of bids issued     3

                                    Number of bids received   3

 

POLICY AND PROGRAM

 

No. 09-14-15        RESOLVED, that the following New Construction: 7000 series- to be deleted or amended for second reading (see C.P.S. for old policies)

 

#7000 General Policy statement- Amend

 

#7100 New Construction- Planning - delete. Amend to read “For pertinent legal information, refer to: General Laws of R.I., 16-2-15.”

 

#7110 (a)(b) Determining Needs - delete. Amend to read “For pertinent legal information, refer to: General Laws of R.I., 16-9-4 through 16-9-8.”

#7111Projecting Educational Programs - delete. Amend to read “For pertinent legal information, refer to: General Laws of R.I., 16-9-4 through 16-9-8.”

 

#7113Evaluating Existing BuildingsDelete

#7114Determining Extent of New ConstructionDelete

#7115Developing Educational SpecificationsDelete

#7120Patterns of ParticipationDelete

#7121Involving the StaffDelete

#7122Involving the PublicDelete

#7123Using Educational ConsultantsDelete

#7130Relations with the PublicDelete

#7140Relations with other Governmental UnitsDelete

#7142Relations with the StateDelete

#7210Site Development - delete and amend to read “For pertinent legal information, refer to General Laws of R.I., 16-2-25.”

#7211Selection of SiteDelete

#7212Land UseDelete

  •  

#7220Building DesignDelete

#7230Equipment and FurnitureDelete

  •  

#7310Training the StaffDelete

#7320Inspection of Completed ProjectDelete

#7330Acceptance of Completed ProjectDelete

#7411Bonded Indebtedness - Amend to read: Refer to General Laws of R.I., 16-60-4.9iv.

#7550Dedication of a Project – Amend to add “Tot Parks”

#7551Naming the BuildingDelete

 

No. 09-14-16     BE IT RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the Superintendent, the following Conferences/Field Trips of Long Duration be authorized:

 

  1. Thomas Barbieri, Principal at Cranston High School West, to travel to Orlando, Florida from January 20, 2105 – January 23, 2015 to attend 2015 FETC Conference.  Travel and accommodation expenses to be funded by the Perkins Grant. Please see attached conference and registration form.

 

  1. Gerald Auth, Director of the Cranston Area Career & Technical Center at Cranston High School West, to travel to Orlando, Florida from January 20, 2105 – January 23, 2015 to attend 2015 FETC Conference.  Travel and accommodation expenses to be funded by the Perkins Grant. Please see attached conference and registration form.

 

  1. The Cranston High School West and SkillsUSA Rhode Island will be will be traveling to Washington, DC, by van departing September 19, 2014 and returning September 24, 2014. The purpose of the trip is for students to learn about government issues and meet with RI elected officials to discuss reallocation of Perkins funding as it pertains to CACTC. There are eight students attending, accompanied by three chaperones. Group will be staying at the Hilton Washington Dulles, 13869 Park Center Rd, Herndon, VA. Each individual attending will be responsible for financing his/her trip and providing chaperones with insurance cards prior to trip.

 

No. 09-14-17     RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the Superintendent, the Revised Cranston Public Schools Evaluation Handbook and Policy Agreement for Educators and Non-classroom/Related Service Providers be approved for first reading (see policy attached).

 

  1. Public Hearing on Non-Agenda Items

 

  1. Announcement of Future Meeting(s) – October 8, 2014 and October 20, 2014
  2. Adjournment

 

School Committee members who are unable to attend this meeting are asked to notify the Chairperson in advance.

 

Interested persons and the public at large, upon advance notice, will be given a fair opportunity to be heard at said meeting on the items proposed on the agenda.

 

Individuals requesting interpreter services for the hearing impaired must notify the Superintendent’s Office at 270-8170  72 hours in advance of hearing date.

 

Any changes in the agenda pursuant to RIGL 42-46-6(e) will be posted on the school district’s website at www.cpsed.net, Cranston Public Schools’ administration building, 845 Park Ave., Cranston, RI; and Cranston City Hall, 845 Park Ave., Cranston, RI and will be electronically filed with the Secretary of State at least forty-eight hours (48) in advance of the meeting. 

 

Notice posted:  September 12,  2014


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cranston Public Schools

 

Evaluation Handbook and Policy Agreement

For Educators and

Non-Classroom/Related Service Providers

 

 

September 2014

 

 

Equal Opportunity Employer:

Cranston Public Schools is committed to maintaining a work and learning environment free from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, pregnancy, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital/civil union status, ancestry, place of birth, age, citizenship status, veteran status, political affiliation, genetic information or disability, as defined and required by state and federal laws. Additionally, we prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose such discrimination and harassment or who participate in an equal opportunity investigation.

Title II & Title IX Coordinator of Employment                       504 Coordinator

Raymond L. Votto Jr.                                                             Joseph Rotz

Chief Operating Officer                                                          Executive Director of Educational Programs       

 

School Committee Members

 

Andrea M. Iannazzi, Esq., Chairman

Trent Colford

Stephanie Culhane

Jeffrey Gale

Paula McFarland

Janice Ruggieri

Michael A. Traficante

 

 

Cranston Public Schools Administration

 

Judith Lundsten, Superintendent

Jeannine Nota-Masse, Asst. Superintendent

Joe Balducci, Chief Financial Officer

Raymond Votto, Chief Operating Officer

Joseph Rotz, Executive Director of Education Programs and Services

Michele Simpson, Executive Director of Pupil Personnel Services

James Dillon, Executive Director of Student Information Services & Data Management

 

Cranston Teachers’ Alliance

 

Lizbeth A. Larkin, President

John A. Santangelo, Jr., Vice President

Kathleen A. Torregrossa, Secretary

Amy S. Misbin, Treasurer

 

Evaluation Design Team

 

Thomas Barbieri,

Frank Flynn

Lizbeth Larkin

Peter Nero

Kathleen Torregrossa

 

District Evaluation Committee (DEC)

 

The DEC serves as a governing body to support the educator evaluation system.  It is representative body comprised of central office administrators, building administrators, a program supervisor, and educators.  Selection is determined through Central Administration and the Cranston Teachers’ Alliance (CTA).  The following five members of the DEC are selected by the Superintendent or designee:  central office administrator, Human Resources representative, high school administrator, middle school administrator, and elementary school administrator.  The following five members are selected by the CTA President or designee:  program supervisor, high school educator, middle school educator, elementary school educator, and CTA Executive Board Member.  Additionally, the Educator Evaluation Coordinator serves on this committee as the Committee Chairperson.  Each committee member serves a two-year term.   All representatives of the DEC complete evaluator training, with the exception of the representative from Human Resources.  

 

DEC Members

 

Kathleen Torregrossa- Chairperson, Evaluation Coordinator

Joseph Rotz – Executive Director of Educational Programs and Services

John Santangelo – Vice President, Cranston Teachers’ Alliance

Raymond Votto – Chief Operating Officer

Michael Crudale - Principal, Park View Middle School

Darcy Mollo – Sp. Ed. Teacher, Park View Middle School

James Zanfini, Principal, Oaklawn

Jodi Murphy – Guidance, Cranston High School East

Joseph Potemri - Assistant Principal, Cranston High School East

David Regine – Program Supervisor

Matthew Sheridan – Elementary Teacher, Arlington


A Message From:

 

Lizbeth Larkin

President, Cranston Teachers’ Alliance

 

 

 

 

The Cranston Teachers’ Alliance played a vital role in the development and design of the new teacher evaluation process.  It is the union’s position that all teachers who are to be reviewed have the appropriate professional development to understand the format and, therefore, be better able to participate in the process. 

 

It is also imperative that all administrators have the appropriate training so they can effectively evaluate and support their staff.  The Alliance supports all efforts to make the teacher evaluation a meaningful experience for all concerned.  It is important to note that this initiative was accomplished through a labor management agreement between the Cranston Teachers’ Alliance and the administration of the Cranston Public Schools.  We are grateful for the financial and professional support we have received from the American Federation of Teachers’ Innovation Grants and the continued professional support from the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals.  The union will be available to assist the district to insure the success of this evaluation process. 

 

Lizbeth A. Larkin, President

Cranston Teachers’ Alliance

American Federation of Teachers, Local 1704


 

 

 

A Message From

 

Dr. Judith A. Lundsten

Superintendent, Cranston Public Schools

 

 

 

Developing an effective, fair and accurate evaluation system for teachers and administrators is hard work. Cranston Public Schools in collaboration with the Cranston Teachers’ Alliance has worked collaboratively to develop such a system.  We appreciate the support of additional resources provided through the I3 grant to be part of this important work in developing a system where teachers and administrators receive feedback, have time for reflection and be involved in professional conversations that strengthen their practices. The effort to improve teaching and learning through a new teacher evaluation system has pushed us to think about our policies, and practices and will provide us with data to help shape professional development and other initiatives. Supporting teachers and administrators is a priority as well as support student achievement.  We look forward to continuing this demanding work with the Cranston Teachers’ Alliance.

 

Judith A. Lundsten, Ed.D.

Superintendent

Cranston Public Schools
Table of Contents

 

 

History/Rationale/Purpose                                                                                                        7

Educator Evaluation Components                                                                                          10

Suggested Education Evaluation Year Schedule                                                       11

Educator Self-Assessment and Reflection                                                                 12

Professional Growth Goals (PGGs)                                                                            13

Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)                                                             14

Conferences                                                                                                                15

            Goal Setting Conference                                                                                15

            Pre Observation Conference                                                                           16

            Post Observation Conference                                                             16

            Mid-Year Review Conference                                                                        17

            Summative Conference                                                                                   18

Observations                                                                                                               19

            Formal Observation                                                                                        19

            Unannounced Observation                                                                             20

Yearly Effectiveness Rating                                                                                       22

Scoring SLOs                                                                                                  23

Final Effectiveness Rating                                                                              28

Appeals Protocol                                                                                                         29

Appendices

            A – Cranston Public Schools Professional Practice Rubric                30

            B – Sample Evidence  for Evaluation Rubric Components                            46

            C – Non-Classroom/Related Service Provider Evaluation Rubric     50

            D –RSP Considerations for Standard 1 by Position                          51

            E – CTA/CPS Contract Language Regarding Evaluation                              59                   

`

 

 

                       

 

 


History/Rationale/Purpose

 

            

Over a decade ago, Cranston Public Schools (CPS) recognized a need to redesign the evaluation process for educators.  That new model, based on work by Charlotte Danielson, addressed the need to have a better, more accurate picture of what constitutes good teaching practice in order to serve two purposes – to both inform and guide educators on improving their practice through focused professional development, and to see that improvement in practice translated into improved student achievement.  While that system was successful for the time in which it was implemented, more current research on educator evaluation, as well as the current political climate, have illuminated the need to record and review multiple measures of a educator’s practice in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of effective practice in a world that is rapidly changing.

 

In 2009, Cranston was invited to join a consortium with five other districts (Central Falls, Pawtucket, Providence, West Warwick, and Woonsocket) to develop a high quality educator evaluation and support system.  The RIIC, Rhode Island Innovation Consortium, was formed. In May of 2010, an educator contract was approved for Cranston that included the creation of a new educator evaluation system. The eventual model is fully aligned with the RI Educator Evaluation System Standards and the RI Professional Teaching Standards, and adapted from Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (2007). 

 

The RI Innovation Initiative on Educator Evaluation was a collaborative effort led by the RI Federation of Educators and Health Professionals, the districts’ superintendents and union presidents. Administrative and union teams worked side by side, along with national experts to create a research based system that is focused on professional growth, based on multiple measures of evidence, and provides meaningful feedback and to support continuous improvement in professional practice.

 

In 2011, the RIIC model was approved for gradual implementation.  Over the course of the 2011-2012 school year the model underwent a rigorous restructuring, based on feedback from all constituents involved that year.  In May of 2012, a new, redesigned RIIC model gained approval from the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) for full implementation in the fall of 2012.  In August of 2013, the educator rubric was revised and a rubric for related service providers was approved for pilot implementation.  In July of 2014, the RI Legislature approved a new cyclical model, which is reflected in this document.

 

The Innovation Evaluation and Support System is focused on educator growth and student achievement.  It relies on multiple measures of educator effectiveness, including impact on student growth and achievement.  Educator effectiveness will be rated on the following domains:


 

  • Planning & Preparation (Standard 1)

 

  • The Classroom Environment (Standard 2)

 

  • Instruction (Standard 3)

 

  • Professional Growth & Responsibilities (Standard 4)

 

  • Student Growth Measures (RIDE’s SLOs/SOOs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Educator Effectiveness Rating

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professional Practice

 

  • Planning & Preparation

 

  • Classroom Environment

 

  • Instruction

 

  • Professional Growth &
  •  

 

 

(EVALUATION RUBRIC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Growth Measures

 

  • Student Learning Objectives

 

  • State Standardized Testing, where applicable

 

  • District Assessments

 

  • School Level Assessments

 

  • Teacher Created Assessments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following processes frame the system:

 

  • Goal setting and reflection

 

  • Formal observations and unannounced observations by highly trained evaluators

 

  • Review of additional evidence of effectiveness

 

  • RIDE’s student growth measures

 

  • High quality, timely feedback

 

  • Personalized professional development plans

 

  • Intensive support with timelines for improvement for personnel identified as ineffective or developing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Educator Evaluation Components

 

In accordance with Article XVIII and any and all relevant sections of the collective bargaining agreement (Appendix E), all educators will be required to participate in the differentiated evaluation process. All non-tenured educators and educators new to the Cranston Public Schools will be evaluated on an annual basis for three consecutive years.  All other educators will be placed in a differentiated cycle for evaluation based on their rating.  A teaching year shall consist of a minimum of 135 days worked. 

 

The Cranston Public Schools will have certified evaluators.  In order to ensure this, the Cranston Public Schools and the Cranston Teachers’ Alliance agree to collaborate in the provision of initial evaluator training and continuous support.

 

Prior to the end of September, Human Resources will provide each building principal a list of faculty members.   The building principal is then required to notify educators, in writing of their official evaluation status for that academic year.    This will serve as the educator’s official notification of the pending evaluation. 

 

In the event that an educator should obtain an overall rating of Developing or Ineffective, an Intervention Plan will be created by the evaluator with the educator.  Human Resources will coordinate the District Educator Intervention Plan.

 

        Any teacher who has a Professional Practice rating of Developing on the formal teacher evaluation instrument may not participate in the Teacher Assignment Process.

 

Any teacher who has a Professional Practice rating of Ineffective on the formal teacher evaluation instrument may not participate in the Teacher Assignment Process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Educator Evaluation Schedule

 

Month

Effective & Highly Effective – Not in Formal Year

 

Effective &

Highly Effective

Formal Year

 

Non Tenured Educators, Using New Certification, Ineffective, & Developing

 

 

RSPs

    Evaluators

September &

October

 

 

 

1st Self Assessment

Design 1 PGG

Review Student Data

Design two SLOs

 

1st Self Assessment

Design 1 PGG

Review Student Data

Design two SLOs

Steps here are determined based on the differentiated cycle that they are placed in.

 

 

RSPs do not have to do a lesson plan, however, if they normally teach lessons and choose to do a lesson plan and are in their formal year, they certainly may submit a lesson plan for an observation.

Review &

Approve PGGs

Review &

Approve SLOs

for those teachers in a formal evaluation year.

November & December

 

 

Suggested

1 Unannounced Observation

 

Suggested

2 Unannounced

Observations

 

Suggested

Observe all Non tenured twice

Observe 1/3 Tenured

January & February

.

 

 

Review goals with Evaluator if necessary.  Enter mid year data only if adjusting SLO/PGG.

Suggested

Formal Observation, write Reflection

Review goals with Evaluator and enter mid year data if adjusting SLO/PGG.

Suggested

Observe Non Tenured once,

Observe 1/3 Tenured  & complete all Formal  Observation

Review educator’s goals

March & April

 

 

Suggested

1 additional

Observation

 

Complete all observations

May

Prepare for & participate in Summative Conference

2nd Self Assessment, prior to Summative Conference

Prepare for & participate in Summative Conference

2nd Self Assessment, prior to Summative Conference

Prepare for & participate in Summative Conference

Prepare for & participate in Summative Conference

Prepare and hold summative conferences.

 

*EVALUATORS should submit observation feedback to educator within 12 school days following the observation.

 

Educator Self Assessment & Reflection

(Formal Evaluation Year)

 

Educators will begin each school year by rating themselves on the CPS Professional Practice Rubric prior to designing that year’s Professional Growth Goal (PGG). Again, prior to the summative conference, educators will rate their practice.  In addition, either after a formal or unannounced observation, educators will review the evidence, write a brief reflection, and can rerate themselves on those targeted areas should they choose.  Over the course of a school year, educators may discover patterns and note areas of increasing strength as well as continuing areas for growth.

 

Purpose: Review for patterns of practice, note areas of strength and growth

 

Types:

  1. Rubric Rating
  2. Evidence Reflection

 

Commence:

  1. Prior to designing PGG
  2. After evidence from a formal or unannounced observation
  3. End of the year, before the summative conference

 

Process/Number of times per school year:

  1. Minimum of two times, prior to developing the yearly PGG and again later in the school year, in preparation for the summative conference and rating.
  2. A reflection is completed in Aspen after either a formal lesson or an unannounced observation (during a formal year) once the evidence in the evidence collection template has been reviewed.

 

Participant(s):  Educator

 

Materials Needed:

  1. CPS Professional Practice Rubric
  2. Reflection template in Aspen

 

Outcome(s):  Direct professional growth plan

 

 

 

 

 

Professional Growth Goals (PGGs)

(Formal Evaluation Year Only)

 

These targeted goals shape every educator’s professional development for the school year and are to be developed only during an educator’s formal evaluation year. They are developed after self-assessment on the CPS Professional Practice Rubric and after reflection of the prior year’s ratings.  This will form a clear understanding of individual areas of strength and for growth.

 

Purpose:  Continual, personalized, targeted, documented professional growth

 

Commence:  Start of each school year or after educator self-assessment of practice       

 

Process/Number of Times per school year:  Design, receive evaluator approval at start of year, review progress throughout the school year through the action plan, and they may be modified (with approval of Evaluator) at mid year.

 

Participants:  Educator, Evaluator

 

Materials Needed:  CPS Professional Practice, PGG Template

 

Conclusion:  PGG is rated within the CPS Professional Practice, 4.4b and 4.4c, at the conclusion of the school year, with evidence provided by educator prior to the summative conference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Learning Objectives (SLO’s)

(Mandated by RIDE)

(Formal Evaluation Year Only)

 

SLOs are long-term academic goals, set by educators for groups of students, are based on student data, and are to be developed only during an educator’s formal evaluation year.  They should represent important concepts in learning, must be measurable by valid and reliable assessments, and can be either progress or mastery based.

 

Purpose:  Continual, targeted, documented student growth

       

Types:  Reading, writing, math, or content specific

 

Commence:  Start of school year (October), after a review of student data

 

Process/Number of times per school year:  Design, receive evaluator approval at the start of school year, review throughout the school year and progress through academic plan, and may be revised (with approval of Evaluator) as appropriate at midyear, with supportive evidence to provide rationale for the adjustment.  Revisions are based on the RIDE guidelines.

 

Participants:  Educator, evaluator, students

 

Materials Needed:  Student Data on specific assessment criteria, SLO template in Aspen, RIDE approval and rating process

 

Conclusion:  SLOs are rated using the RIDE SLO attainment process, at the end of the school year, with evidence provided by the educator, in advance of the summative conference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conferences

 

        There are five types of conferences: goal setting, midyear, pre and post observation, and summative. ONE conference is required for all educators every year: the summative.  Non-tenured educators, those new to the district, those using a new certification, Developing, and Ineffective educators will also have a mid-year conference.  While summative conferences must be conducted, in person, between each educator and their evaluator, goal setting and mid year review conferences may be conducted with small groups of educators, when appropriate (for example, by grade level, department, or program).  End of year conferences, for educators in their formal year, require the collection, analysis, and continuous review of data, Educator Self-Assessment and Reflection data and Student Assessment data.  End of year conferences, for those educators not in their formal year, will be reflective in nature and will be between the evaluators and educators.

 

The pre-observation and post-observation conferences occur surrounding a lesson plan and are only required during a formal observation year.

 

Goal Setting Conference – Optional

 

This beginning of the school year meeting between an educator and their evaluator solidifies both an educator’s PGG, as well as their SLOs.

 

Purpose:  During the goal setting conference, the educator and evaluator should review the data used to set both the Professional Growth Goal and two Student Learning Objectives, determine the appropriateness of the goals, and complete the approval process.

 

Commence:  Start of School Year

 

Process/Number of times per school year:  The Educator reviews the data and goals are submitted to the Evaluator for approval.  The Evaluator should use the PGG Approval Rubric to complete that process and RIDE guidance to approve SLOs.  The data that supports the attainment of goals should be continuously reviewed throughout the year.  Goals can be revised as needed, in collaboration between the educator and the evaluator, but no later than mid year. 

 

Participants:  Educator, Evaluator

 

Materials Needed:  PGG and/or SLO Materials

 

Conclusion:  Implement action plans for goals once approval has been granted

 

Pre-Observation Conference (only necessary when submitting a lesson plan)

 

The pre-observation conference is used by the evaluator to clarify specific elements of an educator’s lesson plan prior to an observation.

 

Purpose: Conducted prior to a formal observation, this conference gives the educator an opportunity to respond to any questions about the lesson the evaluator may have.

 

Commence:  This conference will take place prior to the observation.

 

Process/Number of times per school year:  The first step is for the evaluator to request a lesson plan from the educator and set a preliminary pre-observation conference and observation date.  The educator then designs and submits the lesson plan to the evaluator and peer evaluator (if appropriate).  The lesson plan is reviewed, and the educator and evaluator(s) meet to discuss the upcoming lesson.  This process should occur prior to each formal observation.

 

Participants:  Educator, evaluator, peer evaluator (as appropriate)

 

Materials Needed:  Lesson plan

 

Conclusion:  Confirm observation date and time

 

Post Observation Conference

 

During a post observation conference, the educator and evaluator have an opportunity to review and discuss what was observed during an educator’s lesson.  These professional conversations should provide additional insight into an educator’s continually evolving professional practice.

 

Purpose:  Research suggests that positive, productive, timely feedback is essential to establishing a culture of change for educators.  Professional conversations between an educator and evaluator should serve as a catalyst for ongoing professional growth.

 

Commence:  After each formal observation, after the educator has reviewed the recorded evidence, and written a reflection, which in turn is reviewed by the evaluator.

 

Process/Number of times per school year:  Once a formal observation has occurred, the evidence has been reviewed and the educator has written a reflection, the post observation conference will take place. This conference should be both holistic in nature with respect to an educator’s practice and targeted to specific areas of both professional strengths and areas for growth.  Individual components and elements for the CPS Professional Practice should be used as a basis for this conversation, which should take place at the culmination of each formal observation cycle.

 

Participants:  Educator, evaluator, peer evaluator (as appropriate)

 

Materials Needed:  Evidence collection template, CPS Professional Practice rubric, reflection template, student work (as appropriate)

 

Conclusion:  Discuss next steps towards professional growth

 

 

 

Mid Year Review Conference – Optional for Highly Effective & Effective unless Educator is adjusting the SLO/SOO/PGG (based on data) and only done during a formal evaluation year.

 

A mid year review conference provides an opportunity to collect and analyze data on PGGs, SLOs, and an educator’s professional practice.  Agreed upon modifications can then be made to goals and/or teaching practice.

 

Purpose:  This conference serves as a mid-year check on an educator’s PGG and SLOs and allows for agreed upon modifications to be made if necessary.  These modifications must have the approval of an educator’s evaluator(s).  Mid Year Review conferences may be conducted with small groups of educators, when appropriate (for example, by grade level, department, or program).

 

Commence:  Mid-year

 

Process/Number of times per school year:  It is essential that the data for both PGGs and SLOs, be continuously reviewed by the educator.  The mid-year conference is the last opportunity to make changes to an educator’s goals.  In writing, using the Mid-Year Revision/Review template in Aspen, educators may communicate a request for revision and must provide supporting documentation to the evaluator by the last day of the second quarter. If approved, then the revision process must be completed, in collaboration between the educator and evaluator, by the Friday before February break.  In addition, educators may request feedback on their professional practice using the Mid-Year Revision/Review template. 

 

Participants:  Educator, evaluator, peer evaluator (as appropriate)

 

Materials Needed:  Data, PGG and SLO templates

 

Conclusion:  Goals are reviewed and modifications are made as needed

 

Summative Conference: All educators, every year.

 

For an educator in a formal year, the end-of-year summative conference provides the opportunity to review an educator’s evidence of goal attainment, as well as a cumulative view of professional practice, which leads to a final educator effectiveness rating for that school year.

 

For an educator not in a formal evaluation year, the end of year summative conference will be reflective in nature and will be between the evaluators and educators.

 

Purpose:  The summative conference is a professional conversation that serves a number of purposes.  While the educator and the evaluator review and discuss the various components that lead to a educator’s final cumulative effectiveness rating, it also should provide guidance to the educator regarding their progress over the year, areas that indicate growth as well as a blueprint for the design of next year’s PGG for continued professional development.

 

Commence:  End-of-year (April to June).

 

Process/Number of times per school year:  Evaluators should begin to collect evidence of effectiveness and the attainment of goals in April. All student data on the assessments selected must be completed by the end of the first full week of May. Summative conferences can be scheduled with educators.  Evaluators should establish a summative conference schedule. Educators should have at least five school days to prepare materials for submission to their evaluators.  Evaluators should have at least five school days to review and rate an educator’s evidence in advance of the summative conference date.  This once-a-year conference completes the educator evaluation process for the school year.

 

Participants: Educator, evaluator, peer evaluator (as appropriate)

 

Materials:  All materials, data, evidence related to educator evaluation, final summative rating sheet

 

Conclusion:  This conversation should end with an educator and their evaluator’s comprehensive understanding of the educator’s current level of effectiveness, areas of strength and growth, and considerations for next year’s PGG.

 

Observations

 

There are three types of observations.   At least one observation is required for all educators in their formal evaluation year.  At least three observations are required for non-tenured educators, those who are using a different certification, and those who have been rated as developing or ineffective.

 

Principals may observe a teacher’s classroom and classroom instruction at any time; however, formal scripted evidence is only collected during a formal evaluation year. Evaluators may take notes during unannounced observations that occur during a non-formal evaluation year.

 

Formal Observation

 

This is the most comprehensive type of observation, and is required for educators in their formal observation year, non-tenured educators, those who have been rated as either developing or ineffective, and those who are now using a different teaching certification. (Minimum 30 minutes)

 

Sequence of events:

        Lesson plan

        Pre-observation conference

        Observation

        Evidence feedback

        Self reflection (and rating)*

        Post conference

 

Purpose:  This type of observation provides a complete picture of an educator’s preparation, implementation, performance, and reflection on a specific lesson.

 

Commence:  At least once a year for non-tenured educator and those rated as either developing or ineffective, educators who have changed certifications or are in their formal observation year. Both the educator and their evaluator agree upon the observation time.

 

Process/Number of times per year: The formal observation cycle should begin and conclude within twelve school days.  The evaluator requests a lesson plan from the educator, then reviews and aligns the evidence prior to the pre-observation conference.  During this conference, the evaluator has the opportunity to ask clarifying questions and the educator can provide additional information about the lesson.  Within the next one or two school days, the observation occurs. 

 

The Evaluator then aligns the evidence, which is reviewed by the educator prior to writing their reflection.  The reflection evidence is also added to the evidence collection template in preparation of the post observation conference.  During this conference the educator and evaluator review the lesson holistically as well as on focused areas.

 

Formal observation cycles occur at least once a year for non-tenured educators and those rated as either developing or ineffective, once for those educators who have changed certifications or are in their formal observation year.

 

Participants: Educator, evaluator, peer evaluator (as appropriate)

 

Materials:  Lesson plan, evidence collections template, reflection template, CPS Professional Practice Rubric rating sheet

 

Conclusion:  Collection of evidence is provided to an educator at the end of the cycle. 

 

 

Unannounced Observation (During Formal Evaluation Year)

 

During an unannounced observation, the evaluator collects evidence to be shared with the educator.  These observations are more informal in nature yet help to provide evaluators with a more comprehensive view of an educator’s daily practice.  Every educator should have a minimum of one unannounced observations per year.  Non-tenured educators, those who have been rated as either developing or ineffective, and those who are now using a different teaching certification should have a minimum of two unannounced observations.   These observations may be 10 to 20 minutes in duration. 

 

Sequence of Events:

        Observation

        Evidence Feedback

        Self Reflection (and Rating)*

       

 

Purpose:  Although this is an unannounced observation and does not include a lesson plan, a pre-observation or post observation conference; there is an additional opportunity for the evaluator to collect instructive evidence on a educator’s practice and for the educator to then review that evidence in order to grow professionally.

 

Process/ Number of times per school year: The unannounced observation cycle should begin and conclude within twelve school days.  The evaluator visits the classroom and collects evidence of a educator’s practice. The evaluator then aligns that evidence, which is reviewed by the educator.  If educators chose to write a reflection to this observation, this evidence is also added to the evidence collection template.

 

Commence:  Unannounced observation cycles occur at least twice a year for all educators.

 

Participants: Educator, Evaluator, Peer Evaluator (as appropriate)

 

Materials:  Evidence collection template

 

Conclusion:  Collection of evidence is provided to an educator at the end of the cycle. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yearly Effectiveness Ratings

 

At the end-of-the-year conference, the evaluator will provide the educator with their summative Professional Practice/Growth & Responsibilities rating (PPGR). The following ranges will be used to determine level of effectiveness.

 

Scoring Key for CPS Professional Practice Effectiveness Ratings:

                       HE= Highly Effective            (3.5 - 4.0)

                     E= Effective                       (2.5 – 3.49)

                     D= Developing                    (1.5 – 2.49)

                     I= Ineffective                     (1.49 or less)

 

 

The CPS Professional Practice Rubric is the vehicle for scoring an educator’s Professional Practice, Growth and Responsibilities. The PPGR rating will be combined with the Student Learning Rating (SLR) to determine the overall effectiveness rating.  The SLR is a combination of the Student Learning Objectives (SLO) Attainment Score and, where appropriate, the Student Growth Score.  Once the SLR has been determined and shared with the educator, the SLR and the PPGR will be plotted into the matrix to determine the Final Effectiveness Rating.

 

Scoring Individual Student Learning Objectives

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample SLO:

 

Objective: Students will improve their expository writing in response to informational text, including a clear thesis statement and the inclusion of appropriate textual evidence.

 

Assessment: District writing prompt assessment (administered quarterly)

 

Targets: (The following example is based on a 4 point rubric with 60 students, adjust if you use another rubric)

 

Of my population of 60 students across two classes:

 

-The 6 students who scored a 4 on the Q1 assessment will maintain their achievement level through Q4.

-The 20 students who scored a 3 on the Q1 assessment will improve by at least 1 level by Q4.

-The 34 students who scored a 1 or 2 on the Q1 assessment will improve by at least 2 levels by Q4.

 

You could opt to write a goal with 4 or more tiers depending on your student population.

 

Step 1:  Scoring Individual SLOs Examples

 

Exceeded

 

This category applies when all or almost all students met the target(s) and many students exceeded the target(s). For example, exceeding the target(s) by a few points, a few percentage points, or a few students would not qualify an SLO for this category. This category should only be selected when a substantial number of students surpassed the overall level of attainment established by the target(s).

 

Criteria:  85% or more of the students met the target and 35% of the those students exceeded the target = Exceeded

 

In the example below, with 60 students, for a teacher to achieve Exceeded, at least 51 students (85%) must meet the target and of those 51, 18 (35%) must exceed the target.

 

 

 

Sample Data:

-6 out of 6 students who scored a 4 on the Q1 assessment maintained their achievement level through Q4, thus meeting the target.

-20/20 students who scored a 3 on Q1 assessment improved by at least 1 level by Q4, meeting their target. 16 of the 20 students improved by at least 2 levels, exceeding their target.

-33/34 students who scored a 1 or 2 on Q1 assessment improved by at least 2 levels by Q4, meeting their target and 7 of the 34 students improved by at least 3 levels, exceeding their target. 1 student only gained one level.

 

All but one student met the target. In addition, 59 out 60 met their target with 23 out of those 59 students exceeding their targets. This can be considered a “substantial” improvement.

 

Met

 

This category applies when all or almost all students met the target(s). The bar for this category should be high and it should only be selected when it is clear that the students met the overall level of attainment established by the target(s).

 

Criteria:  75% - 84% (45-51) or more of the students met the target = Met

 

Sample Data:

5/6 students who scored a 4 on the Q1 assessment maintained their achievement level through Q4.

•15/20 students who scored a 3 on Q1 assessment improved by at least 1 level by Q4. 5 of the 20 students improved by 2 levels.

•32/34 students who scored a 1 or 2 on Q1 assessment improved by at least 2 levels by Q4. 3 of the 34 students improved by 3 levels.

 

Most students met their targets. 8/60 students exceeded their targets (not 35%). Only 3/60 students did not meet their targets. 

 

Nearly Met

 

This category applies when many students met the target(s), but the target(s) was missed by more than a few points, a few percentage points, or a few students. This category should be selected when it is clear that students fell just short of the level of attainment established by the target(s).

 

Criteria:  65%-74% (39-44) of students met the target = Nearly Met

 

SAMPLE DATA

-3/6 students who scored a 4 on the Q1 assessment maintained their achievement level through Q4.

-14/20 students who scored a 3 on Q1 assessment improved by at least 1 level by Q4.

-26/34 students who scored a 1 or 2 on Q1 assessment improved by at least 2 levels by Q4. 2 of the 34 students improved by 3 levels.

 

Each of the targets were missed by more than a few students with only 44/60 students meeting the targets. However, 2 students exceeded their targets.

 

Not Met

 

This category applies when the results do not fit the description of what it means to have “Nearly Met”. If a substantial proportion of students did not meet the target(s)the SLO was not met. This category also applies when results are missing, incomplete, or unreliable.

 

Criteria: <65% of students met the target (38 or less)  = Did Not Meet

 

Sample Data:

-2/6 students who scored a 4 on the Q1 assessment maintained their achievement level through Q4.

-8/20 students who scored a 3 on Q1 assessment improved by at least 1 level by Q4.

16/34 students who scored a 1 or 2 on Q1 assessment improved by at least 2 levels by Q4.

 

        The targets were not met in any of the tiers. 4 students did not maintain their level in the first tier, 8 missed the target in the second tier and 16 students missed the target in the third tier. This can be considered a substantial proportion for a group of this size (26/60)

 

 

 

 

 

Cranston Public Schools criteria for scoring individual SLOs:

 

85% or more of the students met the target and of those, 35% of the students exceeded the target = Exceeded

 

75% - 84% or more of the students met the target = Met

 

65%-74% of students met the target = Nearly Met

 

<65% of students met the target  = Did Not Meet

 

 

 

Step 2: How the two individual scores combine into one rating:

 

 

(RIDE August 2013)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rubric to holistically score both SLO’s:

 

 

The following matrix combines both the SLO and state standardized testing, where applicable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appeals Protocol to an Educator Evaluation Rating

 

  1. Appeal process can only be used if an overall educator rating is ineffective or developing.
     
  2. Communication, in written form, requesting an appeal is to be initiated on the part of the educator and sent to Human Resources.  In this notification, the reasons why the appeal is being requested must be included.  Along with the notification, it is the educator’s responsibility to submit documentation supporting their appeal.
     
  3. Appeals must be initiated on the part of the educator within five workdays of the summative conference or receipt of the final effectiveness rating.
     
  4. A subcommittee consisting of three individuals from the District Evaluation Committee (DEC), one of which will be a Master Coder, will meet with the educator within five workdays of Human Resources receiving notification to review the rating.  Each subcommittee will determine a chairperson and every effort will be made to incorporate an administrator at the same level as the educator.

 

  1. Hearing Procedure:
  1. Chairperson will coordinate the meeting time and place.
  2. Appeals Hearing:
    1. First, the subcommittee will meet to review documentation submitted by the educator.
    2. Second, the subcommittee will meet with the educator.
    3. Third, the subcommittee will meet with the evaluator.
    4. Finally, the subcommittee will debrief to render a decision.
  3. The decision of the committee will be submitted to the Director of Human Resources.

 

  1. The educator and evaluator will be notified, in writing, of the DEC subcommittee’s decision by the director of Human Resources, within three workdays of the meeting.
     
  2. The educator would be allowed to bring representation (union and/or legal) to the meeting with the subcommittee. If legal counsel is going to be present, the subcommittee needs to be notified within forty-eight hours of the meeting.
     
  3. If the educator is dissatisfied with the subcommittee’s decision, a request to meet with the superintendent needs to be submitted within five calendar days. The educator would be allowed to bring representation (union and/or legal) to the meeting with the superintendent.

 

 

 

Appendix A

 

Cranston Public Schools

 Professional Practice Rubric

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

08

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fall

 

 

 

Standard 1: Planning and Preparation

 

 

 

 

 

Component 1.1: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content & Students

 

Educators must also know their students: their strengths and weaknesses, their interests, their readiness levels and skill sets, and the outside influences that affect their learning... Furthermore, educators must demonstrate this knowledge and understanding and also incorporate appropriate 21st century skills in the planning and preparation of their lessons (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Elements

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

1.1a

Knowledge of Content

RIPTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

In planning, educator makes content errors.

Educator is familiar with the important concepts in the discipline, but may display lack of awareness of how these concepts relate to one another.

Educator displays solid knowledge of the important concepts in the discipline and how these relate to one another and to 21st century skills.

Educator displays knowledge of the important concepts in the discipline and how these relate both to one another and to other disciplines and to 21st century skills.

1.1b

Knowledge of Students

RIPTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

 

Educator displays little or no knowledge of students’ skills, knowledge, language proficiency, backgrounds, and/or medical needs.  

Educator displays knowledge of students’ skills, knowledge, language proficiency, backgrounds, and/or medical needs, but only for the class as a whole.

Educator tracks students’ skills, knowledge, language proficiency, backgrounds and/or medical needs, and displays this knowledge for groups of students in order to determine growth over time.

Educator understands and tracks individual students’ skills, knowledge, language proficiency, and/or medical needs, and has a strategy for maintaining such information in order to determine growth over time for each student.

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

                                           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard 1: Planning and Preparation

  

 

Education is goal-directed and designed to achieve certain well-defined purposes.  It is through the articulation of instructional outcomes that the educator describes these purposes.  They should be clear and related to what it is that the students are intended to learn as a consequence of instruction.   21st Century outcomes must be included, as students must also learn the essential skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, communication and collaboration. (Danielson, FfT 2007)

 

Element

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

1.2

Establishing Instructional Outcomes

RIPTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

 

Outcomes do not reflect the appropriate standards, set low expectations for students, lack rigor, and/or only include one type of learning. Outcomes are stated as activities rather than as student learning.

Outcomes reflect the appropriate standards. Expectations and rigor are inconsistent and are suitable for most of the students in the class. Outcomes are written as a combination of student learning and activities.

Outcomes reflect the appropriate standards, set rigorous expectations for students and include different types of learning according to varying needs of groups of students.  All the instructional outcomes are clear, written in the form of student learning.

Outcomes reflect the appropriate standards, set rigorous expectations for students and include different types of learning according to varying needs of individual students.  All the instructional outcomes are clear, written in the form of student learning and represent opportunities for both coordination and integration with other disciplines.

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 


Standard 1: Planning and Preparation

Component 1.3: Designing Coherent Instruction

 

An educator translates instructional outcomes into learning experiences for students through the design of instruction. Educators design instruction that reflects the needs of 21st century learners and include opportunities to collaborate, innovate, create and solve problems. (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Elements

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

1.3a

Learning Activities, Lesson Structure & Content-Related Pedagogy

 

RIPTS 1, 2, 3,4,5

 

Learning activities are not suitable to instructional outcomes, do not include a range of pedagogical approaches, and are not designed to engage students. The lesson has no clearly defined structure, and/or time allocations are unrealistic.

Learning activities are inconsistent in their suitability to the instructional outcomes and represent little cognitive challenge. Learning activities include a limited range of effective pedagogical approaches and are not differentiated. The lesson has a recognizable structure, although the structure is not uniformly maintained throughout. Progression of activities is uneven, with unreasonable time allocations.

Learning activities are suitable to the instructional outcomes, include a range of effective pedagogical approaches and cognitive challenge. Activities are differentiated for groups of students, help students construct content knowledge and build 21st Century Skills. The lesson has a clearly defined structure with even progression of activities and reasonable time allocations.

Learning activities are suitable to the instructional outcomes, include a range of effective pedagogical approaches and cognitive challenge. Activities are differentiated for individual students, help students construct content knowledge and build 21st Century Skills. The lesson has a clearly defined structure with even progression of activities and reasonable time allocations, allowing for different pathways according to diverse student needs.

 1.3.b

Instructional Materials and Resources

RIPTS 1, 2, 3,4,5

Materials, technology, and resources being used do not support the instructional outcomes nor engage students in meaningful learning.

Some of the materials, technology, and resources being used support the instructional outcomes, and engage students in meaningful learning.

Materials, technology, and resources being used support the instructional outcomes, and are designed to engage students in meaningful learning.

Materials, technology, and resources being used support the instructional outcomes, and are designed to engage students in meaningful learning, including student participation in selecting or adapting materials.

1.3.c

Instructional Groups

RIPTS 1, 2, 3,4,5,9

 

Instructional groups do not support the instructional outcomes.

Instructional groups support the instructional outcomes, with an effort at providing some variety as appropriate to the students and the different instructional outcomes.

Instructional groups are varied as appropriate to the students and the different instructional outcomes.

Instructional groups are varied as appropriate to the students and the different instructional outcomes. There is evidence of the use of data and/or student choice in selecting the different patterns of instructional groups.

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 

Standard 1: Planning and Preparation

Component 1.4: Designing Student Assessment

 

Educators design on-going formative assessments that measure student progress. Educators use multiple measures to demonstrate student growth over time. (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Element

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

1.4

Designing Student Assessment

 

RIPTS 4, 5, 9

 

 

Educator’s plan for student assessment is not aligned with the instructional outcomes.

Educator’s plan for student assessment is aligned with the instructional outcomes, but is limited to either formative or summative assessments, and/or lacks clear criteria and expectations. Educator identifies a plan to use assessment results to plan for future instruction for the class as a whole.

 

Educator’s plan for student assessment is aligned with the instructional outcomes, has been adapted for groups of students, and includes both formative and summative assessments with clear criteria and expectations. Educator identifies plan to use assessment results to plan for future instruction for groups of students.

Educator’s plan for student assessment is aligned with the instructional outcomes, has been adapted for individual students, as needed, and includes both formative and summative assessments with clear criteria and expectations. Educator identifies plan to use assessment results to plan future instruction for individual students.

 

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 

 

Standard 2: The Classroom Environment

Component 2.1: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport

 

Education depends, fundamentally, on the quality of relationships among individuals. When educators strive to engage students in a discussion or an activity, their interactions with them speak volumes about the extent to which they value students as people.  (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Elements

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

2.1a

Educator Interaction with Students

 

RIPTS 5, 6

Educator-student interactions with at least some students are negative or inappropriate.

Educator-student interactions are generally appropriate, positive and respectful, but may reflect occasional inconsistencies.  

Educator-student interactions are appropriate, positive and respectful.

Educator-student interactions are appropriate, positive and respectful to groups of students as well as individuals.

2.1b

Student Interactions with One Another

 

RIPTS 5, 6

Educator does not model nor encourage appropriate interactions particularly when student interactions are impolite or disrespectful.

Educator is inconsistent in modeling and/or encouraging appropriate interactions, particularly when students’ interactions are impolite or disrespectful.

OR

Student interactions are generally polite and respectful.

Educator models and/or encourages appropriate interactions, particularly when students’ interactions are impolite or disrespectful.

OR

Student interactions are polite and respectful whether directly monitored by an educator or not.

Educator models and/or encourages student interactions that demonstrate respect for one another. Students monitor each other’s treatment of peers, correcting classmates respectfully when needed.

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 

Standard 2: The Classroom Environment

Component 2.2: Establishing a Culture for Learning

 

“A culture for learning” refers to the atmosphere that reflects the importance of the work undertaken by both students and educator. It describes the norms that govern the interactions among individuals about the activities and assignments, and the general “tone”. A culture for learning implies high expectations for all students and schools are cognitively busy places. Both students and educator see the content as important.   (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Elements

 

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

 2.2a

Importance of the Content

RIPTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9

Educator does not communicate the importance of the content and/or conveys a negative attitude toward the content

Educator communicates importance of the content.

Educator communicates importance of the content using real-world connections.

Educator AND students communicate importance of the content using real-world connections.

2.2b

Expectations for Learning and Achievement

 

RIPTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9

Educator conveys low expectations for student learning and achievement for at least some students.

Educator conveys modest expectations for student learning and achievement.

Educator conveys high expectations for student learning and achievement.

Educator conveys high expectations for student learning and achievement. Students verbalize and/or demonstrate their understanding of the expectations.

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 

Standard 2: The Classroom Environment

Component 2.3: Managing Classroom Procedures

 

One of the marks of highly effective educators is that they can take the time required to establish their routines and procedures at the outset of the school year. A hallmark of a well-managed classroom is one in which students are able to work independently and where differentiated instruction occurs. Another important aspect of classroom management relates to how an educator handles transitions between activities. (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Elements

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

2.3a

Management of Instructional Groups

RIPTS 6

Educator’s management of instructional groups does not promote active student participation.

Educator’s management of instructional groups ensures that some students actively participate.

Educator’s management of instructional groups ensures that all students actively participate.

Educator’s management of instructional groups ensures that all students actively participate and support each other in achieving the outcomes of the lesson.

2.3b

Management of Transitions

RIPTS 6

Transitions are chaotic with significant loss of instructional time.

Transitions are uneven resulting in some loss of instructional time.

Transitions are efficient, with minimal loss of instructional time.

Transitions are seamless, with students assuming some responsibility in ensuring their efficient operation.

2.3c

Management of Materials And Supplies

RIPTS 6

Management of materials and supplies is inefficient, resulting in significant loss of instructional time.

Management of materials and supplies is uneven resulting in some loss of instructional time.

Management of materials and supplies is efficient with little loss of instructional time.

Management of materials and supplies is efficient with little loss of instructional time with students assuming some responsibility.

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 


Standard 2: The Classroom Environment

Component 2.4: Managing Student Behavior

 

A key to efficient and respectful management of student behavior lies in agreed upon standards of conduct and clear consequences for overstepping bounds. Expert educators successfully enlist students in both setting and maintaining standards of conduct. Active participation in setting the rules of the classroom contributes to students’ feelings of safety in class. (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Elements

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

2.4a

Behavioral Expectations

RIPTS 6

No evidence that standards of conduct and consequences have been established or communicated to students.

 

Standards of conduct have been established and communicated and appear to be clear to students.

Standards of conduct and consequences have been established and communicated and appear to be clear to students.

Standards of conduct and consequences have been established and communicated to students. Students have participated in their development.

2.4b

Responding to Student Misbehavior

RIPTS 6

Educator’s response to student misbehavior is inappropriate.

OR

Educator does not respond to student misbehavior.

Educator’s response to student misbehavior is inconsistent.

Educator’s response to student misbehavior is appropriate, consistent and timely.

 

Educator’s response to student misbehavior is appropriate, consistent, timely and successful.

OR

No student misbehavior is observed.

 

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 


 

Standard 3: Instruction

Component 3.1: Communicating With Students

 

The presentation of a lesson potentially impacts the outcome of the lesson.  In order to successfully engage students in the lesson, educators need to clearly frame the purpose of the lesson including presenting the context.  Educators will be assessed on their ability to create reasonable and appropriate expectations for learning, provide directions and describe procedures with clarity, and to correctly explain content. (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Elements

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

3.1a

Expectations for Learning

RIPTS 8

Educator does not explain the instructional purpose.

 

Educator explains the instructional purpose of the lesson or unit, attempting to communicate where it is situated within broader learning.

Educator explains the instructional purpose of the lesson or unit, linking to broader authentic learning, appropriate standards or 21st century skills’ expectations. Educator explains how students will demonstrate their learning.

Educator clearly explains the instructional purpose of the lesson or unit, linking to broader authentic learning, appropriate standards and 21st century skills’ expectations. Educator explains how students will demonstrate their learning with exemplars to guide student achievement.

 

3.1b

Directions and Procedures

RIPTS 8

Educator directions and procedures are confusing.

Educator directions and procedures are clarified after initial confusion.

Educator directions and procedures are clear.

Educator directions and procedures are clear, complete, and anticipate possible misunderstanding.


3.1c

Explanation of Content

RIPTS 2,8

Educator’s explanation of the content is incorrect.

 Educator’s explanation of content is clear and correct but does not make a connection with students’ knowledge, experience, appropriate standards or 21st century skills’ expectations.

Educator’s explanation of content is clear and correct and connects with students’ knowledge, experience, appropriate standards or 21st century skills’ expectations.

Educator’s explanation of content is clear and correct and connects with students’ knowledge, experience, appropriate standards or 21st century skills’ expectations. Students contribute to explaining content to their peers.

 

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard 3: Instruction

Component 3.2: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques

 

Skillful educators use questions and discussion to promote student participation and learning.  (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Elements

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

3.2a

Quality of Questions

RIPTS 5, 8

 

Educator’s questions require only low cognitive challenge and single or limited responses.

Educator’s questions are appropriate to the content although they cover only a limited range of skills and knowledge. 

Educator’s questions are appropriate to the content and cover a range of skills and knowledge.  Questions are constructed to include higher order thinking and engage students in further discussion.

Educator’s questions are appropriate to the content and cover a range of skills and knowledge.  Questions are constructed to include higher order thinking and engage students in further discussion.  Students formulate their own questions to advance understanding.

3.2b

Delivery Techniques

RIPTS 5, 8

Educator does not deliver questions using techniques that require students to engage cognitively and prepare to respond to the question.  Questions may be asked in rapid succession without appropriate wait time.

Educator does not consistently deliver questions using techniques that require students to engage cognitively and prepare to respond to the question. Some questions may be asked in rapid succession and/or without appropriate wait time.

Educator delivers questions using techniques that require students to engage cognitively and prepare to respond to the question while providing sufficient wait time.

Educator delivers questions using techniques that require students to engage cognitively and prepare to respond to the question while providing sufficient wait time. Students respond to questions with evidence of their understanding.

3.2c

Discussion Techniques

RIPTS 5, 8

Educator makes little attempt to engage students in an authentic discussion and/or the educator and a few students dominate the discussion.

Educator makes some attempt to engage students in an authentic discussion with uneven results.

Educator creates an authentic discussion among students, using instructional and questioning techniques that successfully engage students in the discussion, stepping aside when appropriate.

 Educator creates an authentic discussion among students, using instructional and questioning techniques that successfully engage students in the discussion, stepping aside when appropriate. Students ensure that all voices and ideas are heard in the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 

Standard 3: Instruction

Component 3.3: Engaging Student in Learning

 

Educators engage students in active construction of understanding by creating intellectual challenges that result in new knowledge.  The ownership of learning transfers from the educator to the students. Educators’ effective use of activities and assignments, grouping of students, instructional materials, technologies and resources, and structure and pacing, all contribute to a classroom where students are deeply engaged in learning.  (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Elements

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

3.3a

Projects, Activities and Assignments

RIPTS 5,6

Projects, activities and assignments lack challenge, are inappropriate, or do not cognitively engage students.

Projects, activities and assignments are inconsistent in challenging and cognitively engaging students.

Projects, activities and assignments are appropriately challenging for all students, require 21st century skills, and cognitively engage students. 

Projects, activities, and assignments are appropriately challenging for all students, require 21st century skills, and cognitively engage student in complex learning.

3.3b

Instructional Materials, and Technologies

RIPTS 5,6,8

Instructional materials and technologies are inappropriate for the instructional purpose.

Instructional materials and technologies are partially appropriate for the instructional purpose.

Instructional materials and technologies are appropriate to the instructional purpose, and are differentiated as appropriate.

Instructional materials and technologies are appropriate to the instructional purpose, and are differentiated as appropriate. Students initiate the choice, adaptation, or creation of materials to enhance their learning and build understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard 3: Instruction

Component 3.4: Using Assessment in Instruction

 

Assessment is an integral part of the instructional process. The design of instruction must account for a range of assessment strategies:  formative and summative.  High-quality assessment practice makes students fully aware of criteria, informs educator’s instructional decisions, and leverages both educator and student feedback. (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Elements

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

3.4a

Assessment Criteria

 

RIPTS 5, 6, 9

Educator does not convey the criteria by which students’ work will be evaluated.

Educator inconsistently conveys the criteria by which student’s work will be evaluated.

Educator clearly conveys the criteria by which students’ work will be evaluated including providing exemplars to guide student achievement.

 

Educator clearly conveys the criteria   by which students’ work will be evaluated and students have contributed to the development of the criteria and/or creation of exemplars to guide student achievement.

 

 

3.4b

Monitoring Student Learning

 

RIPTS 5, 6, 9

 

Educator does not monitor student learning.

 

Educator uses formative assessment strategies to monitor student learning for the class as a whole.

Educator uses formative assessment strategies to monitor student learning and uncover misunderstandings for groups of students within the class.

Educator uses formative assessment strategies, including self and/or peer-assessments to monitor student learning and uncover misunderstandings for individual students.

 

 

3.4.c

Providing Feedback to Students

 

RIPTS 5, 6, 9

 

Educator’s feedback to students is limited, infrequent and/or irrelevant, resulting in no advancement in learning.

Educator’s feedback to students is general and/or infrequent resulting in minimal advancement in learning.

 

 

Educator’s feedback to students is, timely, frequent, and specific, providing individual students with specific direction and information to help advance learning.

Educator’s feedback to students is timely, frequent, and specific, providing individual students with direction and information to help advance learning. Students make use of the feedback in revising and improving their work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 


 

Standard 4: Professional Growth & Responsibilities

4.1: Reflecting on Practice

 

Every educator should demonstrate professional growth over time through professional development, reflective practice, lifelong learning and adaptation of practice in response to research and data to improve student learning. (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Element

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

4.1

Reflecting on

Practice

 

RIPTS 10

Educator does not reflect on their strength and areas for growth.

 

OR

 

Educator reflects on their strength and areas for growth, but does not identify any practices that they would address differently in the future.

Educator reflects on their strengths and areas for growth, identifying general practices that they may address differently in the future.

Educator reflects on their strengths and areas for growth, identifying specific practices that they would address differently in the future.

Educator reflects on their strengths and areas for growth, identifying specific practices that they would address differently in the future complete with the probable success of different courses of action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP July 2013

 

 

 

 

Standard 4: Professional Growth & Responsibilities

Component 4.2:  Communicating with Families

 

Although parents and guardians vary enormously in how active a part they take in their children’s learning, most parents care deeply about the progress of their children and appreciate meaningful participation. Families should not be surprised by information such as rules, how work is assessed and long and shortterm goals for their child.   Ideally, moving beyond simple dissemination of information to foster twoway communication can greatly benefit families, students and educators.  (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

 

Element

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

4.2

Communicating
with Families

 

 

RIPTS 7,11

Educator’s professional communications with families are limited, infrequent and/or irrelevant.

Educator’s professional communications with families are general and/or infrequent.

 

Educator’s professional communications with families are timely, frequent, and specific, providing individual student progress with specific direction and information to help advance learning. Educator attempts to engage families in two-way communication.

Educator’s professional communications with families are timely, frequent, and specific, providing individual student progress with specific direction and information to help advance learning. Educator attempts to engage families in two-way communication and involve families in the school community.

 

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 


 

Standard 4: Professional Growth & Responsibilities

Component 4.3:  Showing Professionalism

 

Educators recognize that the purpose of schools is to educate students and embrace a responsibility to ensure, that to the best of their ability, every student will succeed.  Educators are keenly alert to and advocate for the needs of their students.  Educators demonstrate a commitment to professional standards.  Professional educators comply with school, district, state and federal regulations and procedures.  (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

Elements

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

4.3a

Maintaining Accurate Records

 

 

RIPTS  9

Educator does not maintain information on student completion of assignments, student progress in learning, and non-instructional records.

Educator is inconsistent in maintaining information on student completion of assignments, student progress in learning, and non-instructional records.

Educator maintains information on student completion of assignments, student progress in learning, and non-instructional records in a timely manner.

Educator maintains information on student completion of assignments, student progress in learning, and non-instructional records in a timely manner. Educator regularly shares data with students as appropriate.

4.3b

Commitment to Professional Standards

 

RIPTS 7, 11

Educator does not comply with school and district regulations, policies, and contractual language.  Educator does not comply with State and Federal Law and Regulations including but not limited to IEP, 504 plans, AIS services, RTI, FERPA, and HIPPA.

Educator complies minimally with school and district regulations, policies, and contractual language. Educator complies minimally with school State and Federal Law and Regulations including but not limited to IEP, 504 plans, AIS services, RTI, FERPA, and HIPPA.

 

Educator complies fully with school and district regulations, policies, and contractual language. Educator complies with State and Federal Law and Regulations including, but not limited to, IEP, 504 plans, AIS services, RTI, FERPA, and HIPPA.

 

 

Educator complies fully with school and district regulations, policies, and contractual language, taking a leadership role with colleagues. Educator complies fully with State and Federal Law and Regulations including but not limited to IEP, 504 plans, AIS services, RTI, FERPA, and HIPPA. Educator stays current on the standards of their profession beyond their LEA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  July 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard 4 Professional Growth & Responsibilities

4.4: Growing and Developing Professionally

 

In a world of rapidly expanding access to information, opportunity, and technology, educators have a responsibility to continually prepare themselves to align instruction with transforming student needs. Continued professional growth and development is essential to creating dynamic learning environments. Educators use information from a variety of sources to inform their professional development and practice.  (Danielson’s FfT, 2007)

Elements

Ineffective

Developing

Effective

Highly Effective

4.4a

Growing and Developing in a Professional Learning Community

 

RIPTS 7, 10

Educator does not engage in a professional learning community.

 

Educator minimally engages in a professional learning community by seeking out current, targeted professional development opportunities.

Educator actively engages in a professional learning community by using feedback to identify areas of growth, seeking out current, targeted professional development opportunities that are aligned to school/district initiatives.

 

Educator actively engages in a professional learning community by using feedback to identify areas of growth, seeking out current, targeted professional development opportunities that are aligned to school/district initiatives. Educator takes a leadership role in promoting professional development opportunities for their colleagues.


4.4b

Evidence for Approval of Professional Growth Goal

 

RIPTS 7, 9,10,11

The Professional Growth Goal is not submitted OR is missing any of the following pieces:

 

S – Specific:

The educator clearly identifies the skill or knowledge to be enhanced

 

M – Measureable:

There is a clear source of evidence for measuring the completion of action steps/plans

 

A – Attainable:

Action steps/plan describe the steps and strategies to be completed

 

R – Relevant:

Connection to the Professional Practice rubric and/or district initiatives is stated

 

T – Time Bound

The length of time for attaining the goal is identified

 

The Professional Growth Goal does not fully address the following pieces:

 

S – Specific:

The educator clearly identifies the skill or knowledge to be enhanced

 

M – Measureable:

There is a clear source of evidence for measuring the completion of action steps/plans

 

A – Attainable:

Action steps/plan describe the steps and strategies to be completed

 

R – Relevant:

Connection to the Professional Practice rubric and/or district initiatives is stated

 

T – Time Bound

The length of time for attaining the goal is identified

 

The Professional Growth Goal fully addresses the following pieces:

 

S – Specific:

The educator clearly identifies the skill or knowledge to be enhanced

 

M – Measureable:

There is a clear source of evidence for measuring the completion of action steps/plans

 

A – Attainable:

Action steps/plan describe the steps and strategies to be completed

 

R – Relevant:

Connection to the Professional Practice rubric and/or district initiatives is stated

 

T – Time Bound

The length of time for attaining the goal is identified

 

The Professional Growth Goal fully addresses the following pieces:

 

S – Specific:

The educator clearly identifies the skill or knowledge to be enhanced

 

M – Measureable:

There is a clear source of evidence for measuring the completion of action steps/plans

 

A – Attainable:

Action steps/plan describe the steps and strategies to be completed

 

R – Relevant:

Connection to the Professional Practice rubric and/or district initiatives is stated

 

T – Time Bound

The length of time for attaining the goal is identified

PLUS

Benchmarks for gauging progress partway through the year are included

4.4c

Evidence of Attainment of Professional Growth Goal

 RIPTS  10

Evidence provided indicates little/no progress of the PGG Action Plan.

Evidence provided indicates some progress with the PGG Action Plan.

Evidence provided indicates sufficient progress of the PGG Action Plan.

 

 

 

 

 RIFTHP  7-2013

 

Evidence provided indicates completion of the PGG Action Plan.

 

 

Appendix B

 

Sample Evidence for each component of the Cranston Public Schools Professional Practice Rubric

 

For evidence of practice, use the language of the Cranston Public Schools Professional Practice Rubric.  Sample evidence is provided below, however, this is only a suggested list for reference. 

 

Standard 1: Planning and Preparation

Component 1.1: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content & Students

  • Lesson and unit plans that reflect important concepts in the discipline
  • Lesson and unit plans that accommodate prerequisite relationships among concepts and skills
  • Clear and accurate classroom explanations
  • Accurate answers to student questions
  • Feedback to students that furthers learning
  • Inter-disciplinary connections in plans and practice
  • Educator gathers formal and informal information about students for use in planning instruction
  • Educator learns student interests and needs for use in planning
  • Database of students with special needs

 

Standard 1: Planning and Preparation

Component 1.2: Establishing Instructional Outcomes

  • Outcomes of a challenging cognitive level
  • Statements of student learning, not student activity
  • Outcomes central to the discipline and related to those in other disciplines
  • Differentiated activities and assessment for students of varied ability

 

Standard 1: Planning and Preparation

Component 1.3: Designing Coherent Instruction

  • Outcomes of a challenging cognitive level
  • Statements of student learning not student activity
  • Outcomes central to the discipline and related to those in other disciplines
  • Differentiated activities and assessment for students of varied ability

 

Standard 1: Planning and Preparation

Component 1.4: Designing Student Assessment

  • Lesson plans indicate correspondence between assessments and instructional outcomes
  • Assessment types are suitable to the style of outcome
  • Variety of performance opportunities for students
  • Modified assessments are available for individual students as needed
  • Expectations clearly written with descriptors for each level of performance
  • Formative assessments are designed to inform minute-to-minute decision-making by the educator during instruction

 

Standard 2: The Classroom Environment

Component 2.1: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport

  • Respectful turn taking
  • Respect for students’ background and lives outside of the classroom
  • Educator and student body language
  • Physical proximity
  • Politeness
  • Encouragement
  • Active listening
  • Fairness

 

Standard 2: The Classroom Environment

Component 2.2: Establishing a Culture for Learning

  • Belief in the value of the work
  • Expectations are high and supported through both verbal and nonverbal behaviors
  • Quality is expected and recognized
  • Effort and persistence are expected and recognized
  • Confidence in ability is evidenced by educator and students language and behaviors
  • Expectation for all students to participate

 

Standard 2: The Classroom Environment

Component 2.3: Managing Classroom Procedures

  • Smooth functioning of all routines
  • Little or no loss of instructional time
  • Students playing an important role in carrying out the routines
  • Students know what to do and where to move

 

Standard 2: The Classroom Environment

Component 2.4:  Managing Student Behaviors

  • Clear standards of conduct, possibly posted, and possibly referred to during a lesson
  • Educator awareness of student conduct
  • Preventive action when needed by the educator
  • Fairness
  • Absence of misbehavior
  • Reinforcement of positive behavior

 

Standard 3: Instruction

Component 3.1:  Communicating With Students

  • Clarity of lesson purpose
  • Clear directions and procedures specific to the lesson activities
  • Absence of content errors and clear explanations of concepts
  • Students understand the content

 

Standard 3: Instruction

Component 3.2:  Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques

  • Questions of high cognitive challenge formulated by both students and educator
  • Questions with multiple correct answers, or multiple approaches even when there is a single correct response
  • Effective use of student responses and ideas
  • Educator facilitated discussion; educator stepping out of the central, mediating role, when appropriate
  • High levels of student participation in discussion

 

Standard 3: Instruction

Component 3.3: Engaging Students in Learning

  • Activities aligned with the goals of the lesson
  • Student enthusiasm, interest, thinking, problem solving, etc.
  • Learning tasks that require high-level student thinking and are aligned with lesson objectives
  • Students are highly motivated to work on all tasks and are persistent even when the tasks are challenging
  • Students actively “working,” rather than watching while their educator “works”
  • Suitable pacing of the lesson

 

 

Standard 3: Instruction

Component 3.4:  Using Assessment in Instruction

  • Students assess their own work against an established criteria
  • Educator adjust instruction in response to evidence of student understanding
  • Educator poses specifically created questions to elicit evidence of student understanding
  • Educator circulates to monitor student learning and to offer feedback

 

Standard 4: Professional Growth & Responsibilities

Component 4.1:  Reflecting on Practice

  • Accurate reflections on a lesson

 

Standard 4: Professional Growth & Responsibilities

Component 4.2:  Communicating with Families

  • Frequent and culturally appropriate information sent home regarding the instructional program and student progress
  • Two-way communication between the educator and families
  • Frequent opportunities for families to engage in the learning process

 

Standard 4: Professional Growth & Responsibilities

Component 4.3:  Showing Professionalism

  • Educator consistently fulfills school and district mandates regarding policies and procedures and contractual obligations
  • Educator maintains accurate records
  • Educator maintains honesty, integrity and confidentiality in all interactions
  • Educator will ensure that all students have a fair opportunity to succeed

 

Standard 4: Professional Growth & Responsibilities

Component 4.4:  Growing and Developing Professionally

  • Educator required to fulfill their obligation for professional development
  • Participation in learning networks with colleagues; feedback freely shared
  • Participation in professional organizations supporting academic inquiry
  • Educator participates in school events and school/district projects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix C

 

Non-Classroom/Related Service Providers

Evaluation Rubric

 

 

See current rubric for all support professionals online at:

 

http://cranstonpace.weebly.com/rubric.html

 

Appendix D

 

RSP Considerations for Standard 1 by Position

 

Thank you to the following Program Supervisors for their input in developing these considerations: Leslie Conley, Gina Armstrong, Barbara Ferraro, Kim Perry, and MJ Reidy.

 

GUIDANCE K-12                                                                                       

 

 

Evaluation Rubric Elements

Evidence That Could Be Collected for Standard 1:  Planning and Preparation

1.1a

Knowledge of Content

  • Class lessons
  • College application process knowledge
  • Graduation requirements knowledge and understanding
  • Parent conferences
  • Communication/presentation to parents
  • Use of Common App, College Board for college planning
  • Curriculum writing
  • ILP rollout and activities
  • Transcript review
  • Student schedule (relative to status and future plans)

1.1b

Knowledge of Students

  • Counselor notes
  • Attendance reports
  • Participation in IEP, 504, RTI meetings
  • Consultation with ESL team
  • Review of academic plans
  • Knowledge of state testing (NECAP) results
  • Knowledge of student profile-GPA and rank
  • Course selection appropriate for grade, level, post-secondary plans
  • College advisement
  • Credit audit
  • Knowledge of academic levels
  • Knowledge of Health plans

1.2

Establishing Instructional Outcomes

  • Attendance at MS Team meetings
  • Review of Progress Reports and Report Cards
  • One on one sessions
  • Communication with teachers
  • Clarify course placements
  • Coordination with case manager, 504 administrator, etc.
  • Coordination regarding requirements for CACTC program requirements
  • Pre and post tests regarding PBGR
  • Power point presentation on PBGR

1.3a

Learning Activities, Lesson Structure & Content Related Pedagogy

  • Presentations-grade specific, level specific, topic specific (post-secondary, transition, PBGR)
  • ILP activities
  • Grade 9 advisement re choices for Charter School or CACTC
  • Small and large instructional groups as appropriate

1.3b

Instructional Materials and Resources

  • School newsletters, blogs, tweeting
  • Power point presentations including transition, ILP, college planning, vocational
  • ASPEN pages
  • Guidance page on CHSW website
  • Technology (in general)
  • Report Card and Progress Report
  • Email
  • List serv-student and parent

1.3c

Instructional Groups

  • Interventions in Advisory
  • Scheduling based on needs and future plans
  • Small and large groups when appropriate
  • Grade specific
  • Thematic small groups based on needs
  • Program specific
  • Presentations coordinating college visits

1.4

Designing Sudent Assessment

  • Guidance surveys regarding PBGR knowledge and understanding
  • Counselors meet with students relative to standardized testing outcomes (NECAP)
  • SAT-use for placement in certain courses
  • Pre and post assessments (relative to lessons and/or topics)
  • Knowledge (demonstrated in pre-tests) tied to modifications of presentations

 

 

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS                                                                                       

 

 

Evaluation Rubric Elements

Evidence That Could Be Collected:

1.1a

Knowledge of Content

Evidenced-based/research-based instruction chosen

Solid understanding of the role of an Occupational Therapist in the school setting

Encourages students’ 21st century skills

Reports, goals and recommendations display knowledge of OT framework performance components

1.1b

Knowledge of Students

Completes record review on student during assessment process

Considers medical needs of child, contra-indications of therapy are understood

Conducts consistent progress monitoring with fidelity

Completes comprehensive progress reports on students- including measureable data & narrative

Follows up with students/teachers to ensure growth & functional access

1.2

Establishing Instructional Outcomes

Recommendations are concrete, distinct and are aligned to CCSS

Measurable & rigorous expectations are set

Incorporate various methodology into treatment

Prioritizes students’ independence & success accessing the educational curriculum

Integrate with other related service providers

1.3a

Learning Activities, Lesson Structure & Content Related Pedagogy

Functional daily living/life skills incorporated into school-related tasks

Cognitive challenges of students considered, activities are differentiated

Modifies/grades tasks as needed, the just-right challenge is designed

Functional relevance explained by therapist

Equipment appropriately incorporated into treatment- assistive technology, adapted paper/supplies, positioning, etc

1.3b

Instructional Materials and Resources

Materials/technology help to engage students during individualized or group sessions

All materials support functional OT outcome(s)

Modifies/adapts/designs materials as needed

Resources given to staff/families when requested/applicable

1.3c

Instructional Groups

Individualized and group sessions are varied to meet the needs of the students

In-class/pull-out services provided to support least restrictive environment

Collaborates with other related service providers to encourage consistent carry-over

1.4

Designing Student Assessment

Goals & treatment aligned with CCSS

Uses formative and summative assessments

Uses data from student evaluations & observations for program planning, IEP & progress report writing

Clear criteria & expectations defined

 

 

 

            SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

                                                 

 

Evaluation Rubric Elements

Evidence That Could Be Collected:

1.1a

Knowledge of Content

Reports and recommendations, IEP goals, participation in TQP teams

1.1b

Knowledge of Students

Reports, explanation of instructional groupings; personal work papers / organizational documents relative to caseload; IEP quarterly progress reporting; IEP Present Level of Performance statements; documented file reviews

1.2

Establishing Instructional Outcomes

IEP Goals, Ten Sigma Rubrics and recommendations on evaluation reports drive expected outcomes and target areas of need.    NOTE: Instructional outcomes should be based upon research, appropriate developmental expectations and consideration of student disability, as well as student’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses.

1.3a

Learning Activities, Lesson Structure & Content Related Pedagogy

Activities are based on knowledge of the referral concern, area of need, developmental stage and IEP goal.  Activities and lesson structure are based on research and utilize appropriate materials available in within the district and/or through other resource libraries.

1.3b

Instructional Materials and Resources

Use of District provided library of therapeutic resources, personal inventory of therapeutic resources and/or material accessed through other resource libraries, such as NASP, APA, Intervention Central, etc.  Materials and resources used for instruction and direct service should research based and appropriate for the developmental level.

1.3c

Instructional Groups

May be developed based on areas of needs, developmental level, grade level and/or disability.  Students are referred based upon Universal Screening, 504 Plan Accomodation, IEP Goals, RTI, Teacher / Parent / Administrator request and/or Observation of need by School Psychologist.  When possible, Instructional Groups often benefit from the inclusion of peer-based models; however, parent permission must be granted prior to including such models within a therapeutic based grouping.

1.4

Designing Student Assessment

Assessment tools are chosen based on referral concerns from parent, teacher and evolve during the actual assessment.  Assessment is also designed to rule out other possible contributing factors that may explain reported difficulties as opposed  to seeking out to confirm reported concerns (e.g., Confirmatory Bias).

 

 

 

 

SOCIAL WORKERS                                                                                                                     

 

 

Evaluation Rubric Elements

Evidence That Could Be Collected:

1.1a

Knowledge of Content

Social Workers demonstrate knowledge and practice of core Social Work values including: enhancement of students’/families’ well-beings, helping students/families to meet their basic needs, and fostering the empowerment of schools’ most vulnerable, oppressed populations as exemplified by advocacy and efforts to secure needs such as food, clothing, and housing (ex: participation in food/clothing drives), assisting families to obtain services such as outpatient counseling services, food/heat assistance, and health insurance. 

 

The social worker demonstrates a solid knowledge of clinical social work theory and practice as demonstrated by assessment and interpretation of students’ clinical presentations, as well as follow-up activity stemming from that interpretation (ex. Referral for evaluations or clinical services outside of the school setting, phone calls to parents/physicians/other members of a student’s care team, calls to DCYF in cases of suspected or known abuse and/or neglect, etc.).

 

The social worker demonstrates a sincere effort to promote social justice for all students/families.  This includes deliberate efforts by the social worker to address issues of poverty, discrimination due to socioeconomic, cultural, gender differences, and the like.  Evidence of such may be indicated by the Social Worker conducting referrals to outside agencies that specialize in a particular area of clinical work (ex: Day One – Sexual Assault issues). They may advocate for them in such arenas as Truancy Court. Social Workers may write letters to community service providers, court, DCYF, etc. in an effort to advocate for students/families in need.

 

Social Workers make efforts to help others help themselves.  Evidence of such may include the development of an intervention plan with goals, then providing the information/education necessary for students/families to meet with success. 

 

The Social Worker should have solid knowledge of the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics and practice in accordance with that Code at all time. 

 

Social Workers should have a strong knowledge of CPS district policies, State and Federal laws, and a thorough understanding of Special Education regulations. 

1.1b

Knowledge of Students

The Social Worker demonstrates an understanding of considerations such as developmental level, socioeconomic status, cultural issues, and other factors when working with all students and families. He/she is able to identify student/family strengths and needs, has knowledge and respect for student/family differences, and helps students and families to use their strengths and differences to grow and make progress. 

 

Social Workers gain knowledge of students via multiple means.  Examples of these include file reviews, observations of students and the collection of performance data, consultation with teachers and in-school and community team members, and ongoing communication with parents.

Social Workers are trained to continually assess those with whom they work.  They have knowledge and skills necessary to identify and strengths and needs and respond to these with appropriate clinical interventions.

1.2

Establishing Instructional Outcomes

Social Workers may use Ten Sigma Rubrics, as well as other clinician-developed assessment tools, as resources to aid in the development of baseline data and projected growth for individual students.  Reference to these rubrics is continual during work with students and is used, not only to collect baseline and projected data, but also to communicate with the student his/her progress.  The student is an integral part of developing his/her goals for work and is supported by the Social Worker in making progress toward such goals. 

1.3a

Learning Activities, Lesson Structure & Content Related Pedagogy

Social Workers continually implement interventions appropriate to student/family needs.  Individual and group work with students is planful and activities are tailored to the individual goals of students. Social Workers may use worksheets from therapeutic sources to assess baseline data and use such information to inform their lessons and activities. IEP goals and objectives are continually considered in work with students so as to inform ongoing work. Social Workers may use therapeutic games/books/activities, role-playing, and scenario-based assessments/activities during individual and group work

1.3b

Instructional Materials and Resources

Social Workers use a variety of materials and resources to conduct their work.  All levels (Pre-K – 21)  have been supplied with numerous resources such as games, books, computer programs, and social skills curricula to aid in their individual and group work with students. 

Social Workers often utilize and reference Ten Sigma Rubrics to assess students’ needs as well as to track their progress. 

1.3c

Instructional Groups

Groups should be developed and implemented based upon students’ needs, and should be developed in consideration of students’ developmental levels, areas of need, emotional readiness, and the like.  Social Workers often lead and co-lead therapeutic groups of two or more students working toward similar goals.  They may be conducted during lunches or other times of day, while being mindful of the students’ classroom instructional needs.

1.4

Designing Student Assessment

Social Workers may develop their own assessments for tracking student progress.  Some therapeutic materials offer pre and post-assessments which Social Workers use in work with their students.  Social Workers also use Ten Sigma Rubrics to design rubrics specific to the needs of the students with whom they work.  The Social Worker is continually assessing the student clinically throughout ongoing service provision, and responds to such needs as appropriate. 

Social Workers are often required to complete suicide and homicide risk assessments.  A specific protocol and related forms are in place to document such assessments.  The Social Worker conducts the initial assessment of risk, and then follows the situation to its resolution, continually managing student safety.

 

 

 

 

SPEECH/LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS                                                                     

 

 

Evaluation Rubric Elements

Evidence That Could Be Collected:

1.1a

Knowledge of Content

Reports and recommendations, IEP goals objectives and participation in Evaluation Teams/RTI  teams and IEP Teams

1.1b

Knowledge of Students

Reports, explanation of instructional groupings (individual, small group, inclusion model);  organizational documents relative to caseload; IEP quarterly progress reporting; IEP Present Level of Performance statements; delivery logs, Teaching Gold Strategy data check points for preschool age students, data collection sheets, ESY determination data and documentation  and documented file reviews (IEP and re-evaluation dates).

1.2

Establishing Instructional Outcomes

IEP Goals and objectives, Ten Sigma Rubrics, Rhode Island Early Learning Standards, Common Core and recommendations on evaluation reports drive expected outcomes and target areas of need.    NOTE: Instructional outcomes should be based upon research, appropriate developmental expectations and consideration of student disability, as well as student’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses

1.3a

Learning Activities, Lesson Structure & Content Related Pedagogy

Activities are based on knowledge of the referral concern, area of need, developmental stage and IEP goal/objectives.  Activities and lesson structure are based on research/evidenced based practice and utilize appropriate materials available in within the district and/or through other resource libraries.

1.3b

Instructional Materials and Resources

Use of District provided therapeutic materials/resources (including iPads and Assistive Technology library when appropriate) , personal inventory of therapeutic resources and/or material accessed, materials obtained via grants and through other resource libraries, such as ASHA,LSHSS, speaking of speech.com and collaboration with teachers and other related service providers.  Materials and resources used for instruction and direct service should research based for speech, language and communication and appropriate for the developmental level.

Development of materials for home programs when appropriate.

1.3c

Instructional Groups

May be developed based on areas of needs, developmental level, grade level and/or disability.  Students are referred based upon Kindergarten Screening, 504 Plan Accommodation, IEP Goals and objectives and RTI.  Instructional groups are decided on students’ individual needs and may include:  individual therapy, in-class model, pull-out model in Speech Resource Room and small group instruction.

1.4

Designing Student Assessment

Assessment tools are chosen based on referral concerns from parent, teacher and evolve during the actual assessment.  Standardized tests, student observation, delivery logs completed for each session, data collection to show student growth. Standardized and/or non-standardized measures of specific aspects of speech, spoken and non-spoken language, cognitive-communication, and swallowing function, including observations and analysis of work samples Identification of potential for effective intervention strategies and compensations Selection of standardized measures for speech, language, cognitive-communication, and/or swallowing assessment with consideration for documented ecological validity and cultural sensitivity – (from ASHA)

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

 

CPS/CTA Contract Language Regarding Evaluation

 

ARTICLE IV

RIGHTS OF THE ALLIANCE

 

L. All monitoring or observation of the work performance of a teacher will be conducted openly, and insofar as     practi­cable, with full knowledge of the teacher.  The use of eavesdropping, public address or audio systems, and similar surveillance devices shall be strictly prohibited.

 

M. Any complaints regarding a teacher, made to the Administration by any parent, student, or other person which, is considered in evaluating said teacher's performance, will be promptly called to the teacher's attention.

 

No teacher will be disciplined, reprimanded, reduced in rank or compensation, or deprived of any professional advantage without just cause.

 

ARTICLE VII

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

 

D. Following the teacher assignment process, a teacher working less than full time, who receives at least an effective rating on the Professional Practice portion of their evaluation, shall be offered full time employment prior to the appointment of anyone else from outside the district to a full time position in the same area of certification.  Changes under this article shall only occur after the teacher assignment process and prior to the start of school.

 

     In the event that the evaluation system is eliminated, replaced or modified by RIDE in such a way that it substantively impacts the utilization of this provision, the parties agree to reopen negotiations to address the impact. Substantive changes include, but are not limited to, the elimination of the domains, utilized herein, a change to the criteria of the domains, or a change in the ratings used in the evaluation model.

 

 

ARTICLE VIII

TEACHING HOURS AND TEACHING LOAD

 

U. A professional development program will be provided through a Professional Academy for Cranston Educators (PACE) developed collaboratively between the CTA and the CPS.  Teachers will be required to participate on an annual basis for eight (8) hours.  These hours shall be outside the regular school day.  Teachers attending the professional development sessions will be compensated under the terms of Appendix E of the Master Agreement.  Teachers serving as instructors will be paid an additional ten (10) dollars per hour. Commencing in the 2015-2016 school year, teachers serving as instructors will be paid an additional twenty (20) dollars per hour; however, the instructor will not be eligible for contractual professional development credit for those sessions they lead.

 

ARTICLE XVI

REASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER

 

C. 8. Any teacher who has a rating of ineffective or developing on their Professional Practice portion of the formal teacher evaluation instrument may not participate in the teacher assignment process for the purpose of obtaining a voluntary transfer without the prior approval of the Cranston School Department Superintendent or her/his designee.  Requests by a teacher who has a rating of ineffective or developing on the Professional Practice portion of the formal teacher evaluation instrument shall be submitted to the Superintendent or her/his designee at least one week prior to the scheduled Teacher assignment process date.

 

     In the event that the evaluation system is eliminated, replaced or modified by RIDE in such a way that it substantively impacts the utilization of this provision, the parties agree to reopen negotiations to address the impact. Substantive changes include, but are not limited to, the elimination of the domains utilized herein, a change to the criteria of the domains, or a change in the ratings used in the evaluation model.

 

 9. In the event that the administration fails to complete an evaluation of a teacher in any given school year at least two weeks prior to the scheduled teacher assignment process, the teacher shall be eligible to participate in the teacher assignment process; unless the administration is unable to complete an evaluation of a teacher in any given school year due to the teacher being on a leave of absence. In that instance, the teacher shall be eligible to participate in the teacher assignment process, unless the teacher’s most recent evaluation had a rating of ineffective or developing for the Professional Practice portion of the formal teacher evaluation instrument.

 

     Notwithstanding anything to the contrary above, in the event that the evaluation of a teacher has been completed, but the required summative conference has not taken place due to the teacher’s absence, then the evaluation as completed shall be utilized for all purposes of this section.

 

 

ARTICLE XVIII

TEACHER EVALUATION

 

 A. All teacher evaluations shall be conducted according to the teacher evaluation handbook, subject to the following:

  1. Any teacher who obtains or earns a rating of Highly Effective shall, subsequent to such evaluation, be evaluated every three years.  An annual summative conference shall be required for all highly effective teachers during their non-formal evaluation years.
  2. Any teacher who obtains or earns a rating of Effective shall, subsequent to such evaluation, be evaluated every two years.  An annual summative conference shall be required for all effective teachers during their non-formal evaluation years.
  3. Any teacher who obtains or earns a rating of Developing or Ineffective shall, subsequent to such evaluation, be evaluated every year until achieving an Effective or Highly Effective rating.  Any teacher in these categories will develop an action plan with their evaluator, to assist them in improving their rating.
  4. Any non-tenured teacher shall be evaluated annually.
  5. Any teacher, during his or her first year teaching under a new teaching certificate, will be evaluated.
  6. Any teacher may request an annual evaluation.
  7. Principals may observe a teacher’s classroom and classroom instruction at any time. Scripted evidence will only be required during a formal evaluation year.
  8. Any concerns about a teacher’s performance, that arise at anytime, shall be handled in accordance with district personnel policies and negotiated collective bargaining agreements.

 

     Notwithstanding the above, changes may be made to 1-8 if unanimously agreed to by the District Evaluation Committee and approved by the School Committee  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go to top