Title 22—EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [ 22 PA. CODE CH. 19 ] Educator Effectiveness Rating Tool; Principals; Nonteaching Professional Employees [44 Pa.B. 3497]
[Saturday, June 14, 2014]The Department of Education (Department) adopts §§ 19.2 and 19.3 and Appendix A (relating to principal/school leader effectiveness rating tool; nonteaching professional employee effectiveness rating tool; and percentage weights for data components/indicators of the building level score for the educator effectiveness rating tool) to read as set forth in Annex A.
Omission of Proposed Rulemaking
Under section 1123 of the Public School Code of 1949 (act) (24 P. S. § 11-1123), regarding rating systems, amended by the act of June 30, 2012 (P. L. 684, No. 82) (Act 82), the Department is required to develop three rating tools. A rating tool to measure the effectiveness of classroom teachers was published at 43 Pa.B. 3337 (June 22, 2013). This final-omitted rulemaking adopts a rating tool for principals and a rating tool for nonteaching professional employees. Section 1123(c)(3)(i) and (d)(2)(i) of the act requires the Department to publish these two rating tools in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by June 30, 2014.
Under section 1123(j) of the act, the publication of a rating tool by the Department is expressly exempt from sections 201—205 the act of July 31, 1968 (P. L. 769, No. 240) (45 P. S. §§ 1201—1205), known as the Commonwealth Documents Law (CDL), section 204(b) of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act (71 P. S. § 732-204(b)) and the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. §§ 745.1—745.12). Therefore, the Department is not required to publish a proposed rulemaking as prescribed by the CDL. The rating tool is exempt from the statutory provisions requiring review by the Office of Attorney General. The publication of the rating tool is not subject to review and approval by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission.
Statutory Authority
This final-omitted rulemaking is published under the authority of section 1123(a), (c)(3), (d)(2), (e) and (j) of the act as amended by Act 82 and sections 201 and 506 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. §§ 61 and 186).
Purpose
This final-omitted rulemaking fulfills the directive of section 1123(c)(3)(i) and (d)(2)(i) of the act that the Department ''shall develop, issue and publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin a rating tool'' for principals and another for nonteaching professional employees. As required under Act 82, the rating tools contain measures based on professional practice and measures of student performance. The rating tools each encompass a form and instructions. The final-omitted rulemaking also includes a process whereby the governing board of a local education agency (LEA) may submit plans for alternative rating tools to the Department for review and approval.
Background and Public Input
Under section 1123(a) of the act, the Department developed the rating tool ''in consultation with education experts, parents of school-age children enrolled in a public school, teachers and administrators. . . .'' To formally implement this provision, the Department convened a Stakeholders Group. Members of the Stakeholders Group included parents, teachers, administrators, chief executive officers of charter schools, representatives from higher education and others from across this Commonwealth. The Stakeholders Group met and reviewed key elements of the rating tool and provided the Department with feedback.
Provisions of Final-Omitted Rulemaking
Sections 19.2 and 19.3 state that the rating tools function as a framework for the evaluation and summative process for professional educators. In each section, the rating tool consists of the one-page rating form used by LEAs to record the results of the data collection process which provides for a potential overall rating of Failing, Needs Improvement, Proficient or Distinguished. The rating form sets numeric values for these four rating levels on a zero to three point scale.
In Act 82, ''principal'' is defined as ''a building principal, an assistant principal, a vice principal or a director of vocational education.'' Section 19.2 defines ''principal/school leader'' as including all four positions. A ''nonteaching professional employee'' is identified as ''NTPE'' in § 19.3. This position includes education specialists, supervisors in positions not identified as principals/school leaders and instructional staff who are not categorized as ''classroom teachers'' as defined in § 19.1(I) (relating to classroom teacher effectiveness rating tool).
Sections 19.2 and 19.3 set forth descriptions of the four areas or domains for professional practice. The rating tool provides descriptions of educator performance or behavior at the four different rating levels in the four areas or domains.
For both sets of professional employees, the rating tool contains ''Instructions for Rating Tool—Standards of Use'' that are divided into six areas or main paragraphs. The first area includes the definitions for the rating tool. The second area, ''General Provisions,'' contains directions for the evaluation and rating process as well as basic instructions for completing the rating form.
The third area contains procedures for rating professional practice. For principals/school leaders, it accounts for 50% of an employee's total rating. Under Act 82, it is 80% of the total rating for nonteaching professional employees. This area addresses the evaluation of the four domains of professional observation and practice in the form. This area sets forth descriptions of how to develop, combine and calculate the domains into one performance level. LEAs are allowed to use a variety of evidence gathering techniques.
The fourth area includes measures for student performance. For principals/school leaders, this area represents the other 50% of the total rating. It is divided into three categories each assigned a percentage factor by Act 82.
The first category is ''Building Level Data'' and it covers eight different measurements including exam results, graduation and promotion rates, and attendance data. It is 15% of an employee's total rating.
The second category, ''Correlation Data,'' also comprises 15% of the final rating. It consists of a review of teacher-level measures and teacher observation and practice ratings.
The final area in the rating of principals/school leaders is the ''Elective Data'' measure which may include various options for measures of student performance. LEAs shall select and develop measures using a Student Learning Objective process. This area is 20% of a principal/school leader's total rating.
For nonteaching professional employees, the ''student performance of all students in the school building in which the NTPE is employed'' is 20% of the final rating. The ''building level score'' will be utilized to determine the rating based on student performance of students in the school building. The building level score is consistent with the measures used in the ''building level data'' provision of both the principal/school leader rating tool and the classroom teacher rating tool. See § 19.1(IV)(a).
Sections 19.2 and 19.3 also include provisions addressing recordkeeping and creation of alternative rating tools.
Affected Parties
Based on data for the 2011-2012 school year, the number of individuals and entities that may be directly affected by the final-omitted rulemaking includes approximately 148,520 professional staff, 1,758,000 students, school districts, area vocational-technical schools, career technology centers and intermediate units.
Benefits
The rating tools will provide for a more effective evaluation of professional employee performance in schools in this Commonwealth. The potential benefits of the rating tool are significant. It will enable LEAs and the Department to document possible trends in principal and professional employee effectiveness. Thereby, local administrators, the Department and State lawmakers will be able to identify principal and professional employee improvement programs that are successful and produce solid results in student learning, achievement and growth.
Cost, Paperwork Estimates and Fiscal Impact
The paperwork costs should be minimal. The Department will provide assistance to LEAs in using electronic formats that will reduce paperwork costs and reduce staff time allotted to tracking and filing evaluations.
Additional costs imposed by this final-omitted rulemaking will be minimal. Annual evaluations of professional employees and semiannual evaluations of untenured employees are already a standard function of LEAs across this Commonwealth.
The Department budget for educator effectiveness programs was approximately $3.7 million in the current fiscal year. This total is projected to be $1.6 million in 3 years. Therefore, costs will go down as the project proceeds.
Effective Date
This final-omitted rulemaking shall take effect on July 1, 2014. The phase-in for the principal rating tool will begin in 2014-2015 school year.
Regulatory Review
Under section 1123(j) of the act, this final-omitted rulemaking is exempt from the Regulatory Review Act.
Contact Person and Information
For further information, individuals may contact Carolyn C. Dumaresq, Ed.D., Acting Secretary of Education, Department of Education, 333 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333, (717) 783-9780, Ra-educationsecretary@pa.gov. Persons with disabilities may use fax (717) 787-7222 or TTY at (717) 783-8445.
Order
The Department, acting under the authorizing statutes, orders that:
(a) The regulations of the Department, 22 Pa. Code Chapter 19, are amended by adding §§ 19.2 and 19.3 and Appendix A to read as set forth in Annex A.
(b) The Acting Secretary of Education shall submit this order and Annex A to the Office of General Counsel for review and approval as to legality and form as required by law.
(c) The Acting Secretary of Education shall certify this order and Annex A and deposit them with the Legislative Reference Bureau as required by law.
(d) This final-omitted rulemaking shall take effect on July 1, 2014.
CAROLYN C. DUMARESQ, Ed.D.
Acting SecretaryFiscal Note: 6-331. (1) General Fund; (2) Implementing Year 2013-14 is $1,963,000; (3) 1st Succeeding Year 2014-15 is $1,875,000; 2nd Succeeding Year 2015-16 is $1,760,000; 3rd Succeeding Year 2016-17 is $1,760,000; 4th Succeeding Year 2017-18 is $1,760,000; 5th Succeeding Year 2018-19 is $1,760,000; (4) 2012-13 Program—$0; 2011-12 Program—$0; 2010-11 Program—$0; (7) various appropriations; (8) recommends adoption. Funds have been included in the current fiscal year budget to cover this increase, and are built into the 2014-15 Executive Budget proposal.
Annex A TITLE 22. EDUCATION PART I. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Subpart A. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS CHAPTER 19. EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS RATING TOOL § 19.2. Principal/school leader effectiveness rating tool.
The rating tool functions as a framework for the evaluation and summative process for principals, assistant principals, vice principals and directors of vocational education, and is designed for local education agencies providing early childhood, elementary or secondary education across this Commonwealth. The tool is comprised of the form and instructions. The following rating form shall be used to record the results of the data collection process.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION333 Market St., Harrisburg, PA
17126-0333PRINCIPAL/SCHOOL LEADER RATING FORM PDE 82-2 (4/14) Last Name First Middle District/LEA School Rating Date: Evaluation: (Check one) [ ] Semi-annual [ ] Annual (A) Leadership Observation and Practice
Domain Title *Rating*
(A)Factor
(B)Earned
Points
(A x B)Max
PointsI. Strategic/Cultural Leadership 25% 0.75 II. Systems Leadership 25% 0.75 III. Leadership for Learning 25% 0.75 IV. Professional and
Community Leadership25% 0.75 (1) Leadership Observation & Practice Rating 3.00 *Domain Rating Assignment*
0 to 3 Point Scale (A)
Rating Value Failing
0 Needs Improvement
1 Proficient
2 Distinguished 3 (B) Student Performance—Building Level Data, Correlation Data, and Elective Data
Building Level Score (0—107) (2) Building Level Score Converted to 3 Point Rating (3) Correlation Rating (4) Elective Rating
(C) Final Principal/School Leader Effectiveness Rating—All Measures
Measure Rating
(C)Factor
(D)Earned
Points
(C x D)Max
Points(1) Leadership Observation & Practice Rating 50% 1.50 (2) Building Level Rating* 15% 0.45 (3) Correlation Rating* 15% 0.45 (4) Elective Rating* 20% 0.60 Total Earned Points
3.00 Conversion to Performance Rating Total Earned Points Rating 0.00-0.49 Failing 0.50-1.49 Needs
Improvement1.50-2.49 Proficient 2.50-3.00 Distinguished Performance Rating * Substitutions permissible pursuant to Paragraphs (IV)(a)(6), (b)(4), (c)(3), or (d).
[ ] Rating: Professional Employee, OR [ ] Rating: Temporary Professional Employee
I certify that the above-named employee for the period beginning ______ and ending ______ has received a performance rating of:(month/day/year) (month/day/year)
[ ] DISTINGUISHED
[ ] PROFICIENT
[ ] NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
[ ] FAILINGresulting in a FINAL rating of:
[ ] SATISFACTORY[ ] UNSATISFACTORY
A performance rating of Distinguished, Proficient or Needs Improvement shall be considered satisfactory, except that the second Needs Improvement rating issued by the same employer within 10 years of the first final rating of Needs Improvement where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered unsatisfactory. A rating of Failing shall be considered unsatisfactory.
______
_________________
Date
Designated Rater/Position: ______
_________________
Date
Chief School AdministratorI acknowledge that I have read the report and that I have been given an opportunity to discuss it with the rater. My signature does not necessarily mean that I agree with the performance evaluation.
______
_________________
Date
Signature of EmployeeThe four domains for Leadership Observation and Practice in the rating form give due consideration to and incorporate the professional practice areas of planning and preparation, school environment, delivery of service, and professional development, as set forth in sections 1123(c)(1)(i)—(iv) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. §§ 11-1123(c)(1)(i)—(iv)). Descriptions of the four domains in Part (A) Leadership Observation and Practice are summarized in Table A.
Table A: Descriptions of Four Domains Domain Description I. Strategic/Cultural
Leadership*
25%
Principals/School Leaders systematically and collaboratively develop a positive culture to promote continuous student growth and staff development. They articulate and model a clear vision of the school's culture that involves students, families, and staff. II. Systems Leadership*
25%
Principals/School Leaders ensure that there are processes and systems in place for budgeting, staffing, problem solving, communicating expectations and scheduling that result in organizing the work routines in the building. They must manage efficiently, effectively and safely to foster student achievement. III. Leadership for Learning*
25%
Principals/School Leaders ensure that a Standards Aligned System is in place to address the linkage of curriculum, instruction, assessment, data on student learning and teacher effectiveness based on research and best practices. IV. Professional and Community Leadership*
25%
Principals/School Leaders promote the success of all students, the positive interactions among building stakeholders and the professional growth of staff by acting with integrity, fairness and ethics. * Crosswalks pertaining to the four domains in Leadership Observation and Practice in the rating form and the professional practice areas of planning and preparation, school environment, delivery of service, and professional development, as set forth in sections 1123(c)(1)(i)—(iv) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. §§ 11-1123(c)(1)(i)—(iv)) will be available at the Department's website.
Table B summarizes leadership performance levels for each of the Domain Rating Assignments and for the ratings to be assigned for each domain in the ''Rating (A)'' column.
Table B: Four Levels of Performance in Four Domains Domain
Failing
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Distinguished
I. Strategic/Cultural
Leadership
25%
The Principal/School Leader provides little or no strategic direction with most work being done by staff in isolation. Decisions are not student-focused and reflect opinion with little use of data. Despite the need for change, ineffective practices continue. The Principal/School Leader provides some strategic direction with a few collaborative processes in place. Data is used sparingly to make decisions with some focus on improvement. The culture is moderately student-centered. Change occurs when required by external forces. The Principal/School Leader utilizes a data-based vision that is student-centered. The culture is collaborative with a focus on continuous improvement. The staff is held accountable for student success. Change is evidence based. The Principal/School Leader establishes a future-focused, data-based vision around individual student success. The culture is highly collaborative with staff accepting responsibility for the achievement of each student. Change for continuous improvement is embraced. II. Systems
Leadership
25%
The Principal/School Leader establishes an educational environment that is characterized by chaos and conflict with no plan evident for school safety. Resources are allocated with little or no focus on the needs of students. Staff is low performing with no system designed to improve instruction. The Principal/School Leader establishes an educational environment that is moderately orderly with rules and regulations that partially support school safety. Teacher evaluations are completed as an administrative process. Resources are allocated solely on individual teacher requests. The Principal/School Leader establishes and communicates a clear plan for the safety of all students and staff. An effective teacher evaluation system is used to improve instruction. Time schedules, student scheduling and other resources are structured to meet the needs of all students. The Principal/School Leader clearly involves all staff in the development and implementation of a safe school plan. Peer observations, coaching and cooperative lesson planning are mainstays of a plan for improvement of instruction. All staff and students are highly respectful of each other and resources are allocated based upon student need and are aligned with a clearly stated vision. III. Leadership for
Learning
25%
The Principal/School Leader establishes an educational environment that is characterized by low expectations for both students and staff with curriculum, instruction and assessment viewed as independent entities. No plan for improvement exists. Significant interruptions disrupt instruction. The Principal/School Leader establishes an educational environment that is characterized by varying and inconsistent expectations. Some effort is being made to align curriculum, instruction and assessment. School improvement efforts are sporadic and unclear while the quality of instruction is inconsistent. A moderate number of interruptions disrupt instruction. The Principal/School Leader regularly and consistently communicates high expectations to staff, students and families. All curriculum, instruction and assessment are aligned. The Principal/School Leader is at the forefront of all improvement efforts and assures high quality instruction is delivered to all students. Instructional time is maximized with few or no interruptions. The Principal/School Leader ensures students and staff support and maintain high expectations. The Principal/School Leader and staff meet on a consistent basis to align curriculum, instruction and assessment. School improvement efforts are jointly developed by the Principal/School Leader and staff. Instructional time is highly valued and maximized. Interruptions occur only when absolutely necessary. IV. Professional and
Community
Leadership
25%
The Principal/School Leader establishes little or no communication among school, families and the community. Staff members exhibit low ethical standards and levels of professionalism. Little or no professional development exists. The Principal/School Leader establishes moderate levels of communication among school, families and the community. Staff members exhibit moderate levels of ethical standards and professionalism. Isolated professional development activities exist. The Principal/School Leader ensures all staff members communicate regularly with families about their children's progress. Family and community members are partners in the educational program. All staff members exhibit high ethical standards and levels of professionalism. Professional development is based upon identified needs and is aligned with instructional priorities. The Principal/School Leader ensures high levels of two-way communication exist between staff, families and the community. Staff members are involved in student participation opportunities outside the school day that support students' academic needs. Staff is highly involved in developing and implementing staff development aligned with instructional priorities. INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING TOOL—STANDARDS OF USE The rating form and related documents are available at the Department's website in electronic versions and Excel worksheet format for scoring and rating tabulation.
I. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Assessment—The term shall mean the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment test, the Keystone Exam, an equivalent local assessment or another test established by the State Board of Education to meet the requirements of section 2603-B(d)(10)(i) (24 P. S. § 26-2603-B(d)(10)(i)) and required under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425) or its successor statute or required to achieve other standards established by the Department for the school or school district under 22 Pa. Code § 403.3 (relating to single accountability system).
Chief School Administrator—An individual who is employed as a school district superintendent, an executive director of an intermediate unit or a chief school administrator of an area vocational-technical school or career technology center.
Classroom Teacher—A professional or temporary professional employee who provides direct instruction to students related to a specific subject or grade level and usually holds one of the following:
Instructional I Certificate (see § 49.82),
Instructional II Certificate (see § 49.83),
Vocational Instructional I Certificate (see § 49.142), and
Vocational Instructional II Certificate (see § 49.143).
Department—The Department of Education of the Commonwealth.
Distinguished—The employee's performance consistently reflects the employee's professional position and placement at the highest level of practice.
District-designed measures and examinations, and locally developed school district rubrics—A measure of student performance created or selected by an LEA. The development or design of the measure shall be documented via a Student Learning Objective.
Education Specialist—A person who holds an educational specialist certificate issued by the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, a certificate endorsed in the area of elementary school counselor, secondary school counselor, school counselor K-12, school nurse, home and school visitor, school psychologist, dental hygienist, or instructional technology specialist.
Employee—A person who is a professional employee or temporary professional employee.
Failing—The employee does not meet performance expectations required for the position.
Keystone Exam—An assessment developed or caused to be developed by the Department pursuant to 22 Pa. Code § 4.51 (relating to state assessment system).
LEA—A local education agency, including a public school district, area vocational-technical school, career technology center and intermediate unit, which is required to use a rating tool established pursuant to section 1123 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 11-1123).
Needs Improvement—The employee is functioning below proficient for performance expectations required for continued employment.
Nonteaching Professional Employee—A person who is an education specialist or a professional employee or temporary professional employee who provides services other than classroom instruction.
Performance Improvement Plan—A plan, designed by an LEA with input of the employee, that may include mentoring, coaching, recommendations for professional development and intensive supervision based on the results of the rating provided for under this chapter.
Principal/School Leader—A building principal, an assistant principal, a vice principal or a director of vocational education.
Professional Employee—An individual who is certificated as a teacher, supervisor, principal, assistant principal, vice-principal, director of vocational education, dental hygienist, visiting teacher, home and school visitor, school counselor, child nutrition program specialist, school nurse, or school librarian.
Proficient—The employee's performance consistently reflects practice at a professional level.
PSSA—The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment established in 22 Pa. Code § 4.51 (relating to state assessment system).
PVAAS—The Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System established in compliance with 22 Pa. Code § 403.3 (relating to single accountability system) and its data made available by the Department under Section 221 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 2-221).
SLO—The Student Learning Objective is a record of the development and application of student performance measures selected by an LEA. It documents the process used to determine a student performance measure and validate its assigned weight. This record will provide for quality assurance in rating a student performance measure on the zero-to-three-point rating scale.
Student Performance—A compilation of performance measures including building level, correlation and elective data as set forth in Paragraph (IV) relating to standards of use for multiple measures of student performance.
Temporary Professional Employee—An individual who has been employed to perform for a limited time the duties of a newly created position or of a regular professional employee whose service has been terminated by death, resignation, suspension or removal.
II. General Provisions.
1. The rating of a Principal/School Leader shall be performed by or under the supervision of the chief school administrator, or, if so directed by the chief school administrator, by an assistant administrator, a supervisor or a principal, who has supervision over the work of the professional employee or temporary professional employee being rated, provided that no unsatisfactory rating shall be valid unless approved by the chief school administrator. (24 P. S. § 11-1123(h)(3))
2. The rating form shall be marked to indicate whether the Principal/School Leader is a professional employee or temporary professional employee.
3. A temporary professional employee must be notified as to the quality of service at least twice a year. (24 P. S. § 11-1108)
4. The rating form includes four measures or rated areas: Leadership Observation and Practice, Building Level, Correlation, and Elective. Application of each measure is dependent on the availability of data. A rating in the range of zero to three based on the ''0 to 3 Point Scale'' must be given to each of the four rating areas.
5. Leadership Observation and Practice is divided into four domains: I. Strategic/Cultural Leadership; II. Systems Leadership; III. Leadership for Learning; and IV. Professional and Community Leadership. The four domains for Leadership Observation and Practice in the rating form give due consideration to and incorporate the professional practice areas of planning and preparation, school environment, delivery of service, and professional development, as set forth in sections 1123(c)(1)(i)—(iv) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. §§ 11-1123(c)(1)(i)—(iv)). For each domain, an employee must be given a rating of zero, one, two or three which is based on observation, practice models, evidence or documented artifacts.
6. The Building Level Score will be provided by the Department or its designee, and published annually on the Department's website.
7. The Correlation Rating shall include a review of correlation data based on teacher-level measures facilitated through the Correlation Data Performance Level Descriptors and guidance provided by the Department.
8. Data, ratings and weights assigned to measures for the Elective Rating must be recorded by a process provided by the Department.
9. Each of the four measures in Final Principal/School Leader Effectiveness Rating shall be rated on the zero-to-three-point scale. Each number in Rating (C) shall be multiplied by the Factor (D) and the sum of the Earned Points or Total Earned Points shall be converted into a Performance Rating using the table marked Conversion to Performance Rating.
10. An overall performance rating of Distinguished or Proficient shall be considered satisfactory.
11. An initial overall performance rating of Needs Improvement shall be considered satisfactory.
12. The second overall performance rating of Needs Improvement issued by the same employer within 10 years of the first rating of Needs Improvement where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered unsatisfactory.
13. For professional employees, two consecutive overall unsatisfactory ratings, which include observations, and are not less than four months apart, shall be considered grounds for dismissal.
14. No temporary professional employee shall be dismissed unless rated unsatisfactory, and notification, in writing, of such unsatisfactory rating shall have been furnished the employee within 10 days following the date of such rating.
15. An employee who receives an overall performance rating of Needs Improvement or Failing must participate in a performance improvement plan. No employee will be rated Needs Improvement or Failing based solely on student test scores.
16. The rating form shall be marked to indicate the appropriate performance rating and whether the overall final rating is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
17. The rating form must be signed by the chief school administrator or by a designated rater, who is an assistant administrator, supervisor or principal, has supervision over the work of the professional employee or temporary professional employee being rated, and is directed by the chief school administrator to perform the rating.
18. A final rating of unsatisfactory will not be valid unless approved and signed by the chief school administrator.
19. A signed copy of the rating form shall be provided to the employee.
20. The rating tool is not intended to establish mandates or requirements for the formative process of supervising professional employees.
21. This rating form, section or chapter may not be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator of an LEA to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of a Principal/School Leader, based on information and data available at the time of the action.
III. Standards of Use for Leadership Observation and Practice.
Part (A) ''Leadership Observation and Practice'' in the rating form shall be completed using the following standards, calculations and procedures.
(a) Leadership observation and practice domains. The rating of a Principal/School Leader for effectiveness in leadership practice shall be based on observation or other supervisory methods. Leadership practice shall comprise 50% of the Final Principal/School Leader Effectiveness Rating of the employee. The percentage factor for each domain is listed in Table C:
Table C: Four Domains
Domains % of 50% allotment I. Strategic/Cultural Leadership 25.0 II. Systems Leadership 25.0 III. Leadership for Learning 25.0 IV. Professional and Community Leadership 25.0 (b) Summative process of evaluation. LEAs shall utilize leadership practice models (e.g., Department, Framework for Leadership) that address the areas related to professional leadership observation and practice contained in the four domains in Table C which give due consideration to and incorporate the professional practice areas of planning and preparation, school environment, delivery of service, and professional development, as set forth in sections 1123(c)(1)(i)—(iv) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. §§ 11-1123(c)(1)(i)—(iv)) and are approved by the Department. The Department shall publish a list of approved practice models for assessing the four domains annually on the Department's website. A Principal/School Leader must be given a rating in each of the four domains. In determining a rating for a Principal/School Leader, an LEA may use any portion or combination of the practice models related to the domains. The four domains and professional practice models establish a framework for the summative process of evaluating Principal/School Leaders. The form and standards do not impose mandates on the supervisory and formative processes utilized by an LEA.
(c) Evidentiary sources. Leadership observation and practice evaluation results and ratings shall be based on evidence. Information, including dates and times, if applicable, on the source of the evidence shall be noted in the employee's record. As appropriate for the employee and the employee's placement in a leadership position, records may include, but not be limited to, any combination of the following items:
(1) Notations of professional observations, employee/rater conferences or interviews, or informal observations or visits, including dates for observations, interviews and conferences.
(2) Communication logs (emails, letters, notes regarding phone conversations, etc.) to parents, staff, students, and/or community members.
(3) Utilization of formative and summative assessments that impact instruction and critiques of lesson plans.
(4) Agendas and minutes of meetings, programs, courses, or planning sessions.
(5) Family, parent, school and community feedback.
(6) Development and implementation of school improvement plans, professional growth programs, in-service programs, student assemblies, safety programs, and other events or programs that promote educational efficacy, health and safety.
(7) School budget and expenditure reports.
(8) Act 45 documentation.
(9) Examination of sources of evidence provided by the employee.
The documentation, evidence and findings of the rater shall provide a basis for the rating of the employee in the domains of observation and practice.
(d) Scoring. An LEA must provide a rating score in each domain. The four leadership observation and practice domains shall be rated and scored on a zero-to-three-point scale. The ratings of Failing, Needs Improvement, Proficient and Distinguished are given numeric values as shown in Table D.
Table D: Domain Rating Assignment—0-3 Scale Performance Rating Value Failing 0 Needs Improvement 1 Proficient 2 Distinguished 3 (e) Ratings and weighted scoring. The four domains of leadership observation and practice in Part (A) of the form are each assigned a percentage factor. Each domain shall be scored on the ''0-to-3-point scale.'' The individual score or rating for each domain is adjusted by the percentage factor attributed to that domain. The score of zero, one, two or three for each domain is calculated into points based on its percentage factor. The sum of the points for all domains will be the total Leadership Observation and Practice Rating. The calculation for each domain is set forth in Table E.
Table E: Leadership Observation and Practice Rating Domain Title Rating (A) Factor (B) Earned Points (A x B) Max Points I. Strategic/Cultural Leadership 25% 0.75 II. Systems Leadership 25% 0.75 III. Leadership for Learning 25% 0.75 IV. Professional and Community Leadership 25% 0.75 Leadership Observation & Practice Points/Rating 3.00
(f) Administrative action based on available data. Nothing in these standards of use for leadership observation and practice, this section or this chapter shall be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator of an LEA to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of a Principal/School Leader, based on information and data available at the time of the action.
(IV) Standards of Use for Multiple Measures of Student Performance.
Student Performance is comprised of building level, correlation and elective data. In total, these three measures are 50% of the Final Principal/School Leader Effectiveness Rating. Each area has a prescribed percentage factor of the performance rating as described in Table F.
Table F: Multiple Measure Rating Areas and
Percentage Factors of Performance Rating
Multiple Measure Rating Area Factor Building Level Rating 15% Correlation Rating 15% Elective Rating 20% (a) Building level data.
(1) For the purposes of Paragraph (IV) relating to Standards of Use for Multiple Measures of Student Performance, the term ''building'' shall mean a school or configuration of grades that is assigned a unique four-digit identification number by the Department unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(2) Building level data comprises 15% of the Final Principal/School Leader Effectiveness Rating. Building level data shall include, but is not limited to, the following when data is available and applicable to a building where the Principal/School Leader provides service:
(i) Student performance on assessments.
(ii) Value-added assessment system data made available by the Department under section 221 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 2-221).
(iii) Graduation rate as reported to the Department under section 222 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 2-222).
(iv) Promotion rate.
(v) Attendance rate as reported to the Department under section 2512 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 25-2512).
(vi) Industry certification examinations data.
(vii) Advanced placement course participation.
(viii) Scholastic aptitude test and preliminary scholastic aptitude test data.
(3) As with 22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(a), the Building Level Rating shall be determined through conversion of the Building Level Score. The percentage weight given to each measure component contained in Appendix A will be utilized in Building Level Score computations using available data. The Department or its designee will provide the Building Level Score for each building within an LEA based on available data. Building Level Scores will be published annually on the Department's website.
(4) Each LEA shall utilize the conversions in Table G below to calculate the Building Level Rating for each building with eligible building level data.
Table G: Conversion from 100 Point Scale to 0-3
Scale for Building Level Rating
Building Level Score 0-3 Rating Scale* 90.0 to 107 2.50-3.00 70.0 to 89.9 1.50-2.49 60.0 to 69.9 0.50-1.49 00.0 to 59.9 0.00-0.49 *The Department will publish the full conversion formula on its website.
LEAs shall add the Building Level Rating to Parts (B)(2) and (C)(2) of the Rating Form.
(5) If a Principal/School Leader is assigned to two or more buildings, the LEA will use building level data from each building based on the percentage of the employee's work performed in each building in calculating the whole 15% for this portion of the final rating.
(6) For Principal/School Leaders in positions for which there is no Building Level Score reported on the Department website, the LEA shall utilize the rating from the leadership observation and practice portion of the rating form in Part (A)(1) in place of the Building Level Rating.
(b) Correlation data.
(1) Correlation data will comprise 15% of the Final Principal/School Leader Effectiveness Rating and features correlation data based on teacher-level measures. For the purpose of Paragraph (IV)(b), the term ''teacher-level measures'' shall include, but not be limited to, any combination of one or more of the following data for classroom teachers who are evaluated by the Principal/School Leader:
(i) Building level data (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(a)).
(ii) Teacher specific data (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(b)).
(iii) Elective data (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(c)).
(2) The Correlation Data Performance Level Descriptors in Table H below are provided for the rater to use as a basis for developing a rating of 0, 1, 2 or 3 for the Correlation Rating in Parts (B)(3) and (C)(3) of the Principal/School Leader Rating Form. The descriptors are designed to be used in evaluating the Principal/School Leader's knowledge, understanding and intended application of evidence presented regarding the relationship between teacher-level measures and observation and practice ratings (22 Pa. Code § 19.1(III)) for classroom teachers who are evaluated by the Principal/School Leader. The rater shall provide the Principal/School Leader with the opportunity to present evidence and sources.
Table H: Correlation Data Performance Level Descriptors Correlation Rating (15%) 0—Failing 1—Needs Improvement 2—Proficient 3—Distinguished Degree of understanding of evidence presented regarding the relationship between teacher-level measures and teacher observation and practice ratings. Responses demonstrate no understanding of:
• The presented teacher-level measures.
Responses demonstrate a limited understanding of:
• The presented teacher-level measures.
Responses demonstrate a solid understanding of:
• The presented teacher-level measures.
Responses demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of:
• The presented teacher-level measures.Quality of explanation provided for observed relationship between teacher-level measures and teacher observation and practice ratings. • The nature and plausible cause of the observed relationship between teacher-level measures and teacher observation and practice ratings. • The nature and plausible cause of the observed relationship between teacher-level measures and teacher observation and practice ratings. • The nature and plausible cause of the observed relationship between teacher-level measures and teacher observation and practice ratings. • The nature and plausible cause of the observed relationship between teacher-level measures and teacher observation and practice ratings. Table H: Correlation Data Performance Level Descriptors Correlation Rating (15%) 0—Failing 1—Needs Improvement 2—Proficient 3—Distinguished Plans for how the data will be used to support school and LEA goals. • How to use this data to support the attainment of school and LEA goals. • How to use this data to support the attainment of school and LEA goals. • How to use this data to support the attainment of school and LEA goals. • How to use this data to support the attainment of school and LEA goals.
(3) The Department will provide guidance for LEAs to use in applying the Correlation Data Performance Level Descriptors in Table H and validating the Correlation Rating for a Principal/School Leader.
(4) For Principals/School Leaders in positions where their duties and responsibilities do not include evaluating and/or signing rating forms for classroom teachers, the LEA shall utilize the Elective Rating in Parts (B)(4) and (C)(4), pursuant to Paragraph (IV)(c), in place of the Correlation Rating.
(c) Elective data.
(1) This third area will comprise 20% of the Final Principal/School Leader Effectiveness Rating. Elective Data shall consist of measures of student achievement that are locally developed and selected by the LEA from a list approved by the Department and published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by June 30 of each year, including, but not limited to, the following:
(i) District-designed measures and examinations.
(ii) Nationally recognized standardized tests.
(iii) Industry certification examinations.
(iv) Student projects pursuant to local requirements.
(v) Student portfolios pursuant to local requirements.
(2) LEAs shall use an SLO to document the process to determine and validate the weight assigned to Elective Data measures that establish the Elective Rating. An SLO shall be used to record and verify quality assurance in validating measures of Elective Data on the zero-to-three-point scale and the assigned weight of a measure in the overall performance rating of a Principal/School Leader. The Department will provide guidance and templates for LEAs to use SLOs in selecting, developing and applying Elective Data measures.
(3) All LEAs shall have SLOs in place for collecting Elective Data and ratings for school year 2015-2016 and for school years thereafter. If Elective Data is unavailable in school year 2014-2015, an LEA shall use the rating in Part (A)(1) total Principal/School Leader Observation and Practice Rating of the form for a Principal/School Leader. The rating from Part (A)(1) in the form shall be used in Parts (B)(4) and (C)(4) for the 20% of the Principal/School Leader's overall performance rating.
(4) If multiple Elective Data measures are used for one Principal/School Leader, the LEA shall determine the percentage weight given to each Elective Data measure.
(d) Transfer option. A Principal/School Leader who transfers from one building, as defined for building level data (Paragraph (IV)(a)(1)), to another within an LEA, shall have the option of using the Correlation Rating, as set forth in Paragraph (IV)(b) in place of the Building Level Rating for the employee's evaluation in the new placement for two school years starting on the date when the Principal/School Leader begins the assignment in the new location. A Principal/School Leader who elects this option shall sign a statement of agreement giving the LEA permission to calculate the final rating using this method.
(e) Administrative action based on available data. Nothing in these standards of use for multiple measures of student performance, this section or this chapter shall be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator of an LEA to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of a Principal/School Leader, based on information and data available at the time of the action.
(V) Recordkeeping: Maintenance of Rating Tool Data, Records and Forms.
(a) Records to be maintained. It shall be the duty of the LEA to establish a permanent record system containing ratings for each employee within the LEA and copies of all her or his ratings for the year shall be transmitted to the employee upon her or his request; or if any rating during the year is unsatisfactory copy of same shall be transmitted to the employee concerned. No employee shall be dismissed for incompetency or unsatisfactory performance unless such rating records have been kept on file by the LEA.
(b) Reporting of data restricted to aggregate results. Pursuant to Section 1123(i) of the Public School Code 11-1123(i), LEAs shall provide to the Department the aggregate results of all Principal/School Leader evaluations.
(c) Confidentiality. Each LEA shall maintain records in accordance with Section 708(b)(7) of the act of February 14, 2008 (P. L. 6, No. 3), known as the ''Right-to-Know Law,'' (65 P. S. § 67.708(b)(7)), and Sections 221(a)(1) and 1123(p) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. §§ 2-221(a)(1) and 11-1123(p)).
(VI) LEA Alternative Rating Tool.
The Department will review at the request of an LEA an alternative rating tool that has been approved by the LEA governing board. The Department may approve for a maximum period of not more than five years any alternative rating tool that meets or exceeds the measures of effectiveness established under 24 P. S. § 11-1123.
§ 19.3. Nonteaching professional employee effectiveness rating tool.
The rating tool functions as a framework for the evaluation and summative process for nonteaching professional employees, and is designed for local education agencies providing early childhood, elementary or secondary education across this Commonwealth. The tool is comprised of the form and instructions. The following rating form shall be used to record the results of the data collection process.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION333 Market St., Harrisburg, PA
17126-0333NONTEACHING PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE (NTPE) RATING FORM PDE 82-3 (4/14) Last Name First Middle District/LEA School Rating Date: Evaluation: (Check one) [ ] Semi-annual [ ] Annual (A) NTPE Observation and Practice
Domain Title *Rating*
(A)Factor
(B)Earned
Points
(A x B)Max
PointsI. Planning & Preparation 25% 0.75 II. Educational Environment 25% 0.75 III. Delivery of Service 25% 0.75 IV. Professional Development 25% 0.75 (1) NTPE Observation and Practice Rating 3.00 *Domain Rating Assignment*
0 to 3 Point Scale (A)
Rating
Value Failing
0 Needs Improvement 1 Proficient
2 Distinguished 3 (B) Student Performance
Building Level Score (0—107) (2) Building Level Score Converted to 3 Point Rating (C) Final NTPE Effectiveness Rating—All Measures
Measure Rating
(C)Factor
(D)Earned
Points
(C x D)Max
Points(1) NTPE Observation and Practice Rating 80% 2.40 (2) Student Performance Rating* 20% 0.60 Total Earned Points
3.00 Conversion to Performance Rating Total Earned Points Rating 0.00-0.49 Failing 0.50-1.49 Needs
Improvement1.50-2.49 Proficient 2.50-3.00 Distinguished Performance Rating * Substitutions permissible pursuant to Paragraph (IV)(g).
[ ] Rating: Professional Employee, OR [ ] Rating: Temporary Professional Employee
I certify that the above-named employee for the period beginning ______ and ending ______ has received a performance rating of:(month/day/year) (month/day/year)
[ ] DISTINGUISHED
[ ] PROFICIENT
[ ] NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
[ ] FAILINGresulting in a FINAL rating of:
[ ] SATISFACTORY[ ] UNSATISFACTORY
A performance rating of Distinguished, Proficient or Needs Improvement shall be considered satisfactory, except that the second Needs Improvement rating issued by the same employer within 10 years of the first final rating of Needs Improvement where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered unsatisfactory. A rating of Failing shall be considered unsatisfactory.
______
_________________
Date
Designated Rater/Position: ______
_________________
Date
Chief School AdministratorI acknowledge that I have read the report and that I have been given an opportunity to discuss it with the rater. My signature does not necessarily mean that I agree with the performance evaluation.
______
_________________
Date
Signature of Employee[Continued on next Web Page]
[Continued from previous Web Page] Descriptions of the four domains in Part (A) NTPE Observation and Practice are summarized in Table A.
Table A: Descriptions of Four Domains Domain Description
I. Planning & Preparation*
25%
Effective nonteaching professional employees (NTPEs) plan and prepare to deliver high-quality services based upon extensive knowledge of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and/or systems-level needs and within the context of interdisciplinary collaboration. Service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. II. Educational Environment*
25%
Effective NTPEs assess and enhance the quality of the environment along multiple dimensions toward improved academic, behavioral and social-emotional outcomes. Environmental dimensions include adult-student relationships, staff interactions, security and maintenance, administration, student academic orientation, student behavioral values, student-peer relationships, parent and community-school relationships, instructional and intervention management and student activities. III. Delivery
of Service*
25%
Effective NTPE service delivery and practice emanates from a problem-solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to: (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. IV. Professional
Development*
25%
Effective NTPEs have high ethical standards and a deep sense of professionalism, focused on improving their own service delivery and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record keeping systems are efficient and effective. NTPEs communicate with all parties clearly, frequently and with cultural sensitivity. These professionals assume leadership roles within the system and engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen their practice. Reflection on their practice results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and contribute to improving the practice of others. Adapted by the Pennsylvania Department of Education with permission from copyrighted material of Charlotte Danielson.
* Crosswalks pertaining to the four domains for NTPE Observation and Practice in the rating form, as set forth in sections 1123(d)(1)(i)—(iv) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. §§ 11-1123(d)(1)(i)—(iv)), and to professional practice areas attributable to the certifications held by NTPEs will be available at the Department's website.
Table B summarizes NTPE performance levels for each of the Domain Rating Assignments and for the ratings to be assigned for each domain in the ''Rating (A)'' column.
Table B: Four Levels of Performance in Four Domains Domain Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Distinguished I. Planning & Preparation
25%
NTPE's planning and preparation reflects little understanding of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and/or systems-level needs. Service delivery outcomes, as a function of planning and preparation, are not clear, not measurable and do not represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. NTPE's planning and preparation reflects moderate understanding of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and/or systems-level needs. Some service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. NTPE's planning and preparation reflects solid understanding of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and/or systems-level needs. Most service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. NTPE's planning and preparation reflects extensive understanding of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and/or systems-level needs. All service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. II. Educational Environment
25%
Environment is characterized by chaos and conflict, with low expectations for improved academic, behavioral and social-emotional outcomes. There are no clear standards for interactions, student behavior, use of physical space, instruction and intervention with students, maintaining confidentiality, etc. Adults communicate modest expectations for improved academic, behavioral and social-emotional outcomes. There are some clearly defined standards for interactions, student behavior, use of physical space, instruction and intervention with students, maintaining confidentiality, etc. Environment functions smoothly, with little or no loss of service delivery time. Expectations for interactions, student behavior, use of physical space, instruction and intervention with students, and maintaining confidentiality are high. Standards for student conduct are clear and the environment supports academic, behavioral and social-emotional growth. Recipients of services make a substantive contribution to various dimensions of the environment and contribute to improved academic, behavioral and social-emotional outcomes. III. Delivery of Service
25%
Effective service delivery and practice does not emanate from a problem-solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to: (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. Effective service delivery and practice partially emanates from a problem-solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. Effective service delivery and practice emanates from a problem-solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to: (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. Effective service delivery and practice emanates from a problem-solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to: (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. As a function of interdisciplinary collaboration and problem-solving, student and systems-level outcomes improve over time. IV. Professional Development
25%
NTPE does not adhere to ethical standards or convey a deep sense of professionalism. There is an absence of focus on improving their own service delivery and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record keeping systems are inefficient and ineffective. NTPEs communicate ineffectively with all parties as evidenced by lack of clarity, limited frequency and absence of cultural sensitivity. NTPEs do not assume leadership roles within the system and do not engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that would serve to strengthen their practice. Reflection on their practice does not result in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others. NTPE partially adheres to ethical standards and conveys an emerging sense of professionalism. There is some focus on improving their own service delivery and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record keeping systems are approaching efficiency and effectiveness. NTPEs communicate effectively, albeit inconsistently, with all parties through clarity, frequency and cultural sensitivity. NTPEs inconsistently assume leadership roles within the system and engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen their practice. Reflection on their practice is beginning to result in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others. NTPE fully adheres to ethical standards and conveys an emerging sense of professionalism. There is a solid focus on improving their own service delivery and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record keeping systems are efficient and effective. NTPEs communicate effectively with all parties through clarity, frequency and cultural sensitivity. NTPEs consistently assume leadership roles within the system and engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen their practice. Reflection on their practice results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others. NTPE has exceptional adherence to ethical standards and professionalism. There is always evidence of improvement of practice and support to the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record keeping systems are exceptionally efficient and effective. NTPEs always communicate effectively with all parties through clarity, frequency and cultural sensitivity. NTPEs always assume leadership roles within the system and engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen their practice. Reflection on their practice always results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others. From Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teacher, 2nd Edition (pp 41-42), by Charlotte Danielson, Alexandria, VA ASCD © 2007. Adapted and reproduced with permission.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING TOOL—STANDARDS OF USE The rating form and related documents are available at the Department's website in electronic versions and Excel worksheet format for scoring and rating tabulation.
I. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Assessment—The term shall mean the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment test, the Keystone Exam, an equivalent local assessment or another test established by the State Board of Education to meet the requirements of section 2603-B(d)(10)(i) (24 P. S. § 26-2603-B(d)(10)(i)) and required under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425) or its successor statute or required to achieve other standards established by the Department for the school or school district under 22 Pa. Code § 403.3 (relating to single accountability system).
Chief School Administrator—An individual who is employed as a school district superintendent, an executive director of an intermediate unit or a chief school administrator of an area vocational-technical school or career technology center.
Classroom Teacher—A professional or temporary professional employee who provides direct instruction to students related to a specific subject or grade level and usually holds one of the following:
Instructional I Certificate (see § 49.82),
Instructional II Certificate (see § 49.83),
Vocational Instructional I Certificate (see § 49.142), and
Vocational Instructional II Certificate (see § 49.143).
Department—The Department of Education of the Commonwealth.
Distinguished—The employee's performance consistently reflects the employee's professional position and placement at the highest level of practice.
Education Specialist—A person who holds an educational specialist certificate issued by the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, a certificate endorsed in the area of elementary school counselor, secondary school counselor, school counselor K-12, school nurse, home and school visitor, school psychologist, dental hygienist, or instructional technology specialist.
Employee—A person who is a professional employee or temporary professional employee.
Failing—The employee does not meet performance expectations required for the position.
Keystone Exam—An assessment developed or caused to be developed by the Department pursuant to 22 Pa. Code § 4.51 (relating to state assessment system).
LEA—A local education agency, including a public school district, area vocational-technical school, career technology center and intermediate unit, which is required to use a rating tool established pursuant to section 1123 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 11-1123).
Needs Improvement—The employee is functioning below proficient for performance expectations required for continued employment.
NTPE—A nonteaching professional employee or a person who is an education specialist or a professional employee or temporary professional employee who provides services other than classroom instruction, and includes supervisors and employees with instructional certification who are not categorized as ''classroom teachers'' by the LEA.
Performance Improvement Plan—A plan, designed by an LEA with input of the employee, that may include mentoring, coaching, recommendations for professional development and intensive supervision based on the results of the rating provided for under this chapter.
Principal—A building principal, an assistant principal, a vice principal or a director of vocational education.
Professional Employee—An individual who is certificated as a teacher, supervisor, principal, assistant principal, vice-principal, director of vocational education, dental hygienist, visiting teacher, home and school visitor, school counselor, child nutrition program specialist, school nurse, or school librarian.
Proficient—The employee's performance consistently reflects practice at a professional level.
PSSA—The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment established in 22 Pa. Code § 4.51 (relating to state assessment system).
PVAAS—The Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System established in compliance with 22 Pa. Code § 403.3 (relating to single accountability system) and its data made available by the Department under Section 221 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 2-221).
Student Performance—A compilation of performance measures of all students in the school building in which the NTPE is employed as set forth in Paragraph (IV) relating to standards of use for student performance measures.
Temporary Professional Employee—An individual who has been employed to perform for a limited time the duties of a newly created position or of a regular professional employee whose service has been terminated by death, resignation, suspension or removal.
II. General Provisions.
1. The rating of an employee shall be performed by or under the supervision of the chief school administrator, or, if so directed by the chief school administrator, by an assistant administrator, a supervisor or a principal, who has supervision over the work of the professional employee or temporary professional employee being rated, provided that no unsatisfactory rating shall be valid unless approved by the chief school administrator. (24 P. S. § 11-1123(h)(3))
2. The rating form shall be marked to indicate whether the employee is a professional employee or temporary professional employee.
3. A temporary professional employee must be notified as to the quality of service at least twice a year. (24 P. S. § 11-1108)
4. The rating form includes two measures or rated areas: NTPE Observation and Practice, and Student Performance of all students in the school building. Application of each measure is dependent on the availability of data. A rating in the range of zero to three based on the ''0 to 3 Point Scale'' must be given to each of the two rating areas.
5. NTPE Observation and Practice is divided into four domains: I. Planning and Preparation; II. Educational Environment; III. Delivery of Service; and IV. Professional Development. For each domain, an employee must be given a rating of zero, one, two or three which is based on observation, practice models, evidence or documented artifacts.
6. The Student Performance score shall be comprised of the Building Level Score which will be provided by the Department or its designee, and published annually on the Department's website.
7. Each of the two measures in Final NTPE Effectiveness Rating shall be rated on the zero-to-three-point scale. Each number in Rating (C) shall be multiplied by the Factor (D) and the sum of the Earned Points or Total Earned Points shall be converted into a Performance Rating using the table marked Conversion to Performance Rating.
8. An overall performance rating of Distinguished or Proficient shall be considered satisfactory.
9. An initial overall performance rating of Needs Improvement shall be considered satisfactory.
10. The second overall performance rating of Needs Improvement issued by the same employer within 10 years of the first rating of Needs Improvement where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered unsatisfactory.
11. For professional employees, two consecutive overall unsatisfactory ratings, which include professional observations, and are not less than four months apart, shall be considered grounds for dismissal.
12. No temporary professional employee shall be dismissed unless rated unsatisfactory, and notification, in writing, of such unsatisfactory rating shall have been furnished the employee within 10 days following the date of such rating.
13. An employee who receives an overall performance rating of Needs Improvement or Failing must participate in a performance improvement plan. No employee will be rated Needs Improvement or Failing based solely on student test scores.
14. The rating form shall be marked to indicate the appropriate performance rating and whether the overall final rating is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
15. The rating form must be signed by the chief school administrator or by a designated rater, who is an assistant administrator, supervisor or principal, has supervision over the work of the professional employee or temporary professional employee being rated, and is directed by the chief school administrator to perform the rating.
16. A final rating of unsatisfactory will not be valid unless signed by the chief school administrator.
17. A signed copy of the rating form shall be provided to the employee.
18. The rating tool is not intended to establish mandates or requirements for the formative process of supervising NTPEs.
19. This rating form, section or chapter may not be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator of an LEA to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of an NTPE, based on information and data available at the time of the action.
III. Standards of Use for NTPE Observation and Practice.
Part (A) ''NTPE Observation and Practice'' in the rating form shall be completed using the following standards, calculations and procedures.
(a) NTPE observation and practice domains. The rating of an NTPE for effectiveness in professional practice shall be based on observation or other supervisory methods. Professional practice shall comprise 80% of the Final NTPE Effectiveness Rating of the employee. The percentage factor for each domain is listed in Table C:
Table C: Four Domains
Domains % of 80% allotment I. Planning and preparation. 25.0 II. Educational environment. 25.0 III. Delivery of service. 25.0 IV. Professional development. 25.0 (b) Summative process of evaluation. LEAs shall utilize professional practice models (e.g., Danielson, Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching; Department, Framework for Leadership; Department-developed frameworks/rubrics for education specialists) that address the areas related to observation and practice contained in sections 1123(d)(1)(i)—(iv) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. §§ 11-1123(d)(1)(i)—(iv)) and are approved by the Department. The Department shall publish a list of approved practice models for assessing the four domains annually on the Department's website. The list of approved practice models will include frameworks for professional observation and practice, and relevant crosswalks linking frameworks to the four domains in Table C for professional and temporary professional employees holding certificates issued by the Department who are not assigned classroom teacher or principal positions. Examples of certificates for professional and temporary employees include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Education specialist (22 Pa. Code §§ 49.101—105).
(2) Instructional (22 Pa. Code §§ 49.82—83, 49.142—143).
(3) Administrative and supervisory (22 Pa. Code §§ 49.111 and 49.121).
LEAs shall assign the appropriate practice model to each NTPE position description. LEAs shall notify NTPEs of the professional practice models assigned to the NTPEs' positions. An NTPE must be given a rating in each of the four domains. In determining a rating for an employee, an LEA may use any portion or combination of the practice models related to the domains. The four domains and practice models establish a framework for the summative process of evaluating NTPEs. The form and standards do not impose mandates on the supervisory and formative processes utilized by an LEA.
(c) Evidentiary sources. NTPE observation and practice evaluation results and ratings shall be based on evidence. Information, including dates and times, if applicable, on the source of the evidence shall be noted in the employee's record. As appropriate for the employee and the employee's placement in an LEA program, records may include, but not be limited to, any combination of the following items:
(1) Notations of professional observations, employee/rater conferences or interviews, or informal observations or visits, including dates for observations, interviews and conferences.
(2) Lesson unit plans (types, titles and numbers), materials, technology, resource documents, visual technology, utilization of space, student assignment sheets, student work, instructional resources, student records, grade book, progress reports and report cards.
(3) Development and implementation of improvement plans, professional growth programs, in-service programs, student assemblies, and other events or programs that promote educational efficacy, health or safety.
(4) Communication logs (emails, letters, notes regarding phone conversations, etc.) to parents, staff, students, and/or community members.
(5) Utilization of formative and summative assessments that impact instruction and critiques of lesson plans.
(6) Agendas and minutes of meetings, programs, courses, or planning sessions.
(7) Budget and expenditure reports.
(8) Interaction with students' family members.
(9) Family, parent, school and community feedback.
(10) Act 48 documentation or continuing education documentation directly related to the employee's position in the LEA.
(11) Use of professional reflections.
(12) Examination of sources of evidence provided by the employee.
The documentation, evidence and findings of the rater shall provide a basis for the rating of the employee in the domains of observation and practice.
(d) Scoring. An LEA must provide a rating score in each domain. The four NTPE observation and practice domains shall be rated and scored on a zero-to-three-point scale. The ratings of Failing, Needs Improvement, Proficient and Distinguished are given numeric values as shown in Table D.
Table D: Domain Rating Assignment—0-3 Scale Performance Rating Value Failing 0 Needs Improvement 1 Proficient 2 Distinguished 3 (e) Ratings and weighted scoring. The four domains of NTPE observation and practice in Part (A) of the form are each assigned a percentage factor. Each domain shall be scored on the ''0-to-3-point scale.'' The individual score or rating for each domain is adjusted by the percentage factor attributed to that domain. The score of zero, one, two or three for each domain is calculated into points based on its percentage factor. The sum of the points for all domains will be the total NTPE Observation and Practice Rating. The calculation for each domain is set forth in Table E.
Table E: NTPE Observation and Practice Rating Domain Title Rating
(A)Factor
(B)Earned
Points
(A x B)
Max Points I. Planning and preparation. 25% 0.75 II. Educational environment. 25% 0.75 III. Delivery of service. 25% 0.75 IV. Professional development. 25% 0.75 NTPE Observation & Practice Points/Rating 3.00
(f) Administrative action based on available data. Nothing in these standards of use for NTPE observation and practice, this section or this chapter shall be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator of an LEA to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of an NTPE, based on information and data available at the time of the action.
(IV) Standards of Use for Student Performance Measures.
(a) Building, school or configuration. For the purposes of Paragraph (IV) relating to Standards of Use for Student Performance Measures, the term ''building'' shall mean a school or configuration of grades that is assigned a unique four-digit identification number by the Department unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(b) Percentage. The student performance for all students in the school building in which the NTPE is employed will be derived from the Building Level Score. As set forth in 22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(a)(3), the Department will provide the Building Level Score for each building within an LEA based on available data. Building Level Scores will be published annually on the Department's website. The Student Performance Rating shall comprise 20% of the Final NTPE Effectiveness Rating.
(c) Student performance measure. The student performance measure derived from the Building Level Score shall include, but is not limited to, the following when data is available and applicable to a building where the NTPE is employed:
(1) Student performance on assessments.
(2) Value-added assessment system data made available by the Department under section 221 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 2-221).
(3) Graduation rate as reported to the Department under section 222 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 2-222).
(4) Promotion rate.
(5) Attendance rate as reported to the Department under section 2512 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 25-2512).
(6) Industry certification examinations data.
(7) Advanced placement course participation.
(8) Scholastic aptitude test and preliminary scholastic aptitude test data.
(d) Building level score. Comparable to 22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(a), the Student Performance Rating shall be determined through conversion of the Building Level Score. The percentage weight given to each measure component contained in Appendix A will be utilized in Building Level Score computations using available data. The Department or its designee will provide the Building Level Score for each building within an LEA based on available data. Building Level Scores will be published annually on the Department's website.
(e) Student performance rating. Each LEA shall utilize the conversions in Table F below to calculate the Student Performance Rating derived from the Building Level Score for each building with eligible building level data.
Table F: Conversion from 100 Point Scale to 0-3
Scale for Student Performance Rating
Building Level Score 0-3 Rating Scale* 90.0 to 107 2.50-3.00 70.0 to 89.9 1.50-2.49 60.0 to 69.9 0.50-1.49 00.0 to 59.9 0.00-0.49 *The Department will publish the full conversion formula on its website.
LEAs shall add the Student Performance Rating to Parts (B)(2) and (C)(2) of the Rating Form.
(f) Multiple building assignments. If an NTPE performs professional work in two or more buildings where the NTPE is employed, the LEA will use measures from each building based on the percentage of the employee's work performed in each building in calculating the whole 20% for this portion of the final rating.
(g) Absence of Building Level Score. For NTPEs employed in buildings for which there is no Building Level Score reported on the Department website, the LEA shall utilize the rating from the NTPE observation and practice portion of the rating form in Part (A)(1) in place of the Student Performance Rating.
(h) Administrative action based on available data. Nothing in these standards of use for student performance measures, this section or this chapter shall be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator of an LEA to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of an NTPE, based on information and data available at the time of the action.
(V) Recordkeeping: Maintenance of Rating Tool Data, Records and Forms.
(a) Records to be maintained. It shall be the duty of the LEA to establish a permanent record system containing ratings for each employee within the LEA and copies of all her or his ratings for the year shall be transmitted to the employee upon her or his request; or if any rating during the year is unsatisfactory copy of same shall be transmitted to the employee concerned. No employee shall be dismissed for incompetency or unsatisfactory performance unless such rating records have been kept on file by the LEA.
(b) Reporting of data restricted to aggregate results. Pursuant to Section 1123(i) of the Public School Code 11-1123(i), LEAs shall provide to the Department the aggregate results of all NTPEs evaluations.
(c) Confidentiality. Each LEA shall maintain records in accordance with Section 708(b)(7) of the act of February 14, 2008 (P. L. 6, No. 3), known as the ''Right-to-Know Law,'' (65 P. S. § 67.708(b)(7)), and Sections 221(a)(1) and 1123(p) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. §§ 2-221(a)(1) and 11-1123(p)).
(VI) LEA alternative rating tool.
The Department will review at the request of an LEA an alternative rating tool that has been approved by the LEA governing board. The Department may approve for a maximum period of not more than five years any alternative rating tool that meets or exceeds the measures of effectiveness established under 24 P. S. § 11-1123.
APPENDIX A Percentage Weights for Data Components/Indicators of the Building Level Score for the Educator Effectiveness Rating Tool Appendix A contains the percentage weights assigned to data components for ''building level data'' and ''student performance of all students in the school building'' pursuant to section 1123 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 11-1123). The data components or indicators comprise the ''building level score'' for the professional employee or temporary professional employee rating form. The building level score is also the School Performance Profile for a school or building. For the purposes of this appendix, the term ''building'' shall mean a school or configuration of grades that is assigned a unique four-digit identification number by the Department unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
Table 1: Building Level Score—All Building Configurations
School Years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014Components/Indicators Building Configurations
K-12
SchoolsSecondary Schools Comprehensive
CTCs1K-8 Schools with Grade 3 K-8 Schools w/out Grade 3 Academic Achievement (40%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Reading/Literature—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Science/Biology—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Writing—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments—Percent Competent or Advanced 2.50 5.00 25.00 Not Applicable Not
ApplicableGrade 3 Reading—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA 2.50 Not Applicable Not
Applicable10.00 Not
ApplicableSAT/ACT College Ready Benchmark 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Closing the Achievement Gap—
All Group (5%)
% Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Reading/Literature—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Science/Biology—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Writing—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Closing the Achievement
Gap—Historically
Underperforming Students (5%)
% Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Reading/Literature—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Science/Biology—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Writing—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Academic Achievement Factor Total 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Academic Growth (40%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Reading/Literature—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Science/Biology—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Writing—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Academic Growth Factor Total 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Other Academic Indicators (10%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Cohort Graduation Rate or Promotion Rate2 (If No Graduation Rate) 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.00 5.00 Attendance 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.00 5.00 Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) or College Credit 2.50 2.50 2.50 Not Applicable Not
ApplicablePSAT/Plan Participation 2.50 2.50 2.50 Not Applicable Not
ApplicableOther Academic Indicators Factor Total 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Overall Factor Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Extra Credit for Advanced Achievement Added Factor is 1% of each of the following except 2% for Advanced Placement: Mathematics/Algebra I—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on Mathematics/Algebra I PSSA/Keystone Exam Reading/Literature—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on Reading/Literature PSSA/Keystone Exam Science/Biology—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on Science/Biology PSSA/Keystone Exam Writing—PSSA Percent of Students Advanced on Writing PSSA Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments Percent of Students Advanced on Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments Advanced Placement Percent of Grade 12 Students Scoring 3 or higher on any one AP Exam (x2.5) Notes for Table 1:
1 Comprehensive CTCs include full-time career technology centers and full-time area vocational-technical schools. Comprehensive CTC academic achievement is weighted at 44% while Closing the Achievement Gap is weighted at 3% for each group.
2 Promotion rate is not included in 2012-2013 calculations; it will be included in subsequent years.
Table 2: Building Level Score—All Building Configurations
School Year 2014-2015 and ThereafterComponents/Indicators1 Building Configurations
K-12
Schools
Secondary
Schools
Comprehensive
CTCs2
K-8 Schools
with Grade 3
K-8 Schools
w/out Grade 3
Academic Achievement (40%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 English Language Arts/Literature—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 15.00 15.00 9.50 15.00 20.00 Science/Biology—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments—Percent Competent or Advanced 2.50 5.00 25.00 Not Applicable Not
ApplicableGrade 3 English Language Arts—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA 2.50 Not Applicable Not
Applicable10.00 Not
ApplicableSAT/ACT College Ready Benchmark 5.00 5.00 Not
ApplicableNot Applicable Not
ApplicableClosing the Achievement Gap—All Group (5%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 English Language Arts/Literature—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.50 Science/Biology—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Closing the Achievement Gap—Historically Underperforming Students (5%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 English Language Arts/Literature—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.50 Science/Biology—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Academic Achievement Factor Total 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Academic Growth (40%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 English Language Arts/Literature—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Science/Biology—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Academic Growth Factor Total 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Other Academic Indicators (10%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Cohort Graduation Rate or Promotion Rate3 (If No Graduation Rate) 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.00 5.00 Attendance 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.00 5.00 Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) or College Credit 2.50 2.50 2.50 Not Applicable Not
ApplicablePSAT/Plan4 Participation 2.50 2.50 2.50 Not Applicable Not
ApplicableOther Academic Indicators Factor Total 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Overall Factor Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Extra Credit for Advanced Achievement Added Factor is 1% of each of the following except 2% for English Language Arts/Literature and Advanced Placement: Mathematics/Algebra I—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on Mathematics/Algebra I PSSA/Keystone Exam English Language Arts/Literature—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on English Language Arts/Literature PSSA/Keystone Exam Science/Biology—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on Science/Biology PSSA/Keystone Exam Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments Percent of Students Advanced on Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments Advanced Placement Percent of Grade 12 Students Scoring 3 or higher on any one AP Exam (x2.5) Notes for Table 2:
1 Previous factor weightings assigned to Writing are included in English Language Arts/Literature factor weightings.
2 Comprehensive CTCs include full-time career technology centers and full-time area vocational-technical schools. Comprehensive CTC academic achievement is weighted at 44% while Closing the Achievement Gap is weighted at 3% for each group.
3 Promotion rate is not included in 2012-2013 calculations; it will be included in subsequent years.
4 Plan will be replaced by ACT Aspire when ACT Aspire is fully operational.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 14-1244. Filed for public inspection June 13, 2014, 9:00 a.m.]
