Continuous

Improvement:
Proposed Revisions
to DPAS-II for
Teachers,
Specialists &
Administrators
~June
2014
June 2014

Overview

The Departments History of Collaboration with Educators

2013-2014: Continued Track Record of Engagement

Stakeholder Engagement Process:

Data Review (Summer/Fall)
Original broad scope of proposed changes (Winter)
Refined Proposed Regulations, 108A
Refined Proposed Regulations 106A, 107A

Impact of Changes to 106A:

Ratings for Teachers
Impact on Students
Comparison to Proposed Regulation for Administrators

Examples From the Field: Impact of Strong Evaluation

Systems
| 2

DOE History of Collaboration with

Educators
We fundamentally believe in the power of educators
informing state policy decisions. Nowhere has this
been more evident than in the realm of educator
evaluation.
In addition to the many ways the DDOE has supported
and improved the efforts focused on Components 1-4,
the following are TWENTY significant examples
of where the Department has listened to the
feedback of DSEA and educators and been
responsive regarding Component 5:

| 3

Collaboration and Responsiveness to

1. Originally (2010),Examples
the Department intended to begin the implementation
Educators:

of Component V with English & Mathematics only, seeking an incremental

implementation for all other educators. DSEA advocated for the inclusion
of all educators from the beginning of full implementation. The
Department changed course and included all educators.

2. By responding to the feedback of including all educators, and the

feedback that everyone should have multiple measures available, the
Department (2011-2012) allocated resources to have the states
educators build hundreds of assessments and growth goals. The
state secured contractual help to aid in this process.

3. The entire DPAS-II system with multiple measures needed to be

implemented in the 2011-2012 school year as the state had promised in
its grant. DSEA and educators involved in building assessments cited
implementation delays (multiple measures for everyone not ready) as a
reason to not implement as promised in 2011-2012. The Department
responded by delaying implementation for a full year via federal
amendment.

4. The Department listened to feedback and brought together over 600

educators (2011-2012) to build the assessments in every grade and
subject area. The result: Nearly 300 assessments built for
educators, by educators.

| 4

Collaboration and Responsiveness: Contd

(2)
6. The Department received feedback that additional supports were needed
during initial implementation (2012). The Department created hotlines so
that educators could call DDOE during the week, built online platforms to
support implementation, created focus groups around the state,
hosted Mid-Year feedback sessions with Secretary Murphy, and
launched a revised annual evaluation that surveys every
educator and asks for their feedback and opinion (over 4,000 educators
responded).

7. Initially the inclusion of a school-wide measure was the path

chosen as part of Component V (2011-2012). Initial input and
feedback from educators and the states technical advisory group
requested the inclusion of a school-wide measure to help foster
collaboration within buildings. Several months later, opinion shifted
around the benefits of the school-wide measure. The Department
listened and removed the school-wide measure despite many educators
still believing it was important.

8. After this, DDOE considered allowing schools/districts to use a school-wide

measure. But DSEA stated that no school could ever use the total student
body of a school because not every teacher had control of how all
students perform. We listened and acted immediately, stripping
the policy of the school-wide measure. (2012)

| 5

Collaboration and Responsiveness: Contd

(3)
10. As a result, educators and administrators now have the authority
to determine for which students theyre held accountable. The
Department listened when allowing for such full autonomy in educators
choosing which students would count. DDOE was criticized for not
providing more guidance on how to verify student attendance. The
Department, in response, has provided manuals with guidance. (2013)
The Department has also been asked to not provide specific guidance on
educator attendance.

11. In the summer of 2012 an important decision needed to be made about

what percentage of students needed to meet their individualized student
growth targets in order to be considered Exceeds or Satisfactory. The
Department listened when setting the target at just 50% for
Satisfactory, and further responded to concerns by creating a
policy allowing for administrator discretion when between
35%-49% of students met targets. (2012)

12. Even with discretion provided within one measure (DCAS), the
Department listened to feedback and went a step further to account for
any perceptions of unfairness. Based upon DSEA feedback, a rating
model was created whereby an educator can be rated
Unsatisfactory in one measure and Satisfactory in the other
and still be Satisfactory overall. (2012)

| 6

Collaboration and Responsiveness: Contd

(4)
13. After year one of full implementation, there was feedback received by the
Department that targets for special education students were too high.
The result: The Department allocated resources in the Summer of 2013 to
build a new model for special education students, resulting in a
new set of targets for 2013-2014 (2013)

14. Based upon similar feedback over two years, the Department created
separate targets for English Language Learners as well. The
Department also implemented a set of targets for students who were
classified as both ELL & SPED. (2013)

15. The Department received feedback that assessment schedules should be

extended as late as possible in the school year. We responded by
extending the assessment opportunity and creating a technology
solution to immediately provide data regarding student growth to
teachers and administrators so they could engage in the summative
conference at the end of the school year (2012-2013).

16. Along the way, school leaders have also noted that more training and
coaching may be necessary. Originally the Development Coach initiative
was slated for two-years. After listening to feedback, the
Department has extended and funded the Development Coach
initiative for a third and fourth year (2011-2015). We also
integrated feedback from school leaders that the states training should

| 7

Collaboration and Responsiveness: Contd

(5)
17. Along the way, DSEA and other educators expressed that certain schools
were not implementing appropriately. The result: DDOE listened and
launched an ambitious DPAS-II Monitoring process (2012)
monitoring 75 schools and district offices over the past eighteen months
and providing feedback and directives. If a districts rating is low, DDOE
returns within six weeks.

18. In the early part of the 2012-2013 school year, many educators began to
cite assessment quality (those built by teachers, namely) as a problem
with the system. DDOE listened, and over the past year has
allowed districts/schools/teachers to work collaboratively and
submit their own assessments. (2013)

19. Educators provided feedback to the Department that they were struggling
with goal-setting. The Department, based upon educator feedback,
had granted all goal-setting prerogatives to schools and
educators (2013). The Department responded by providing training
focused on goal setting on an ongoing basis.

20. In the latter part of the 2012-2013 school year, some educators began to
say that there must be a better way to construct the educator evaluation
system. The Department listened, has supported legislation
based upon this feedback, and has opened an application that
allows for districts and charters to submit different evaluation

| 8

Continuous Improvement: Engagement

With Educators, 2013-2014
July
Delaware Association of School Administrators - TLEU Meeting
August
Delaware State Education Association - TLEU Meeting
September
Chiefs Meeting
Delaware Principals Advisory Group
Delaware State Education Association - TLEU Meeting
October
Chief's Meeting
Delaware State Education Association - TLEU Meeting
Delaware Teachers of the Year Statewide Advisory Board to the Secretary of
Education
DPAS-II Review Committee - Teachers and Specialists
Teaching and Learning Cadre Meeting
November
Delaware Principals Advisory Group
Delaware Association of School Personnel Administrators
| 9

Engagement 2013-2014 contd (2)

December
Delaware Association of School Personnel Administrators
Delaware Principals Academy
Delaware Principals Advisory Group
Delaware State Education Association - TLEU Meeting
Delaware Technical Advisory Group (DE-TAG)
DPAS-II Review Committee - Administrators
DPAS-II Review Committee - Teachers and Specialists
January
Delaware Principals Advisory Group
Delaware State Education Association - TLEU Meeting
Delaware Teachers of the Year Statewide Advisory Board to the Secretary of
Education
DPAS-II Review Committee - Teachers and Specialists
DPAS-II Review Committee - Administrators
Mid-Year Conversations with Secretary Murphy

| 10

Engagement 2013-2014 contd (3)

February
Chiefs Meeting
Community of Practice: Administrators
Delaware Association of School Personnel Administrators
Delaware Principals Advisory Group
Delaware State Education Association - TLEU Meeting
DPAS-II Review Committee - Administrators
DPAS-II Review Committee - Teachers and Specialists
Mid-Year Conversations with Secretary Murphy
Teaching and Learning Cadre Meeting
March
Community of Practice: Administrators
DACTE Summit on Teacher Education
Delaware Association of School Personnel Administrators
Delaware Principals Advisory Group
Delaware State Education Association - TLEU Meeting
Delaware Teachers of the Year Statewide Advisory Board to the Secretary of
Education
DPAS-II Review Committee - Administrators
DPAS-II Review Committee - Teachers and Specialists
DPAS-II Review Committee - Teachers and Specialists
| 11

Engagement 2013-2014 contd (4)

April
Community of Practice: Administrators
Delaware Principals Academy--Retreat
Delaware Association of School Administrators - TLEU Meeting
Delaware Principals Advisory Group
Delaware State Education Association - TLEU Meeting
DPAS-II Review Committee - Administrators
DPAS-II Review Committee - Teachers and Specialists
May
Delaware Principals Advisory Group
Delaware Technical Advisory Group (DE-TAG)
DPAS-II Advisory Committee
DPAS-II Review Committee - Administrators
June
Delaware Principals Advisory Group (ScheduledJune 16th)
DPAS-II Review Committee (ScheduledJune 24th)

| 12

Overview: Process To Reach Proposed

Regulations

The Departments original proposal to stakeholders

encompassed a broad range of possible revisions to
Regulations 106A, 107A and 108A. These changes
were discussed in the DPAS-II Review Committees
for Teachers & Specialists and Administrators.
After many discussions and collaborative work group
sessions, and based upon years of feedback from
the field, the Department proposed significant
revisions to regulation 108A, making broad changes
in evaluation of administrators.
After many discussions and work group sessions, the
Department significantly reduced proposed
revisions to regulations 106A and 107A, focusing on
| 13
a few smaller changes.

Review and Feedback Process for 108A

108A Final Proposed Revisions

| 15

1.0 Effective Date

The proposed amended regulation will be in effect
beginning with the 2014-15 school year
References 1270(f) of Delaware code regarding
alternative evaluation systems

2.0 Definitions
Student Achievement
- Modified to clarify the use of data from new state
assessments in administrator evaluations
DPAS II for Administrators Revised Guides
- Modified to allow for creation of up to four guides
tailored to different roles: (1) principals, (2) assistant
principals, (3) central office administrators, and (4)
superintendents are envisioned
Goal-Setting and Mid-Year Conferences
- Modified terms to update language and clarify the
purpose of these required steps in the appraisal
process
|

3.0 Appraisal Process

Annual evaluation for all administrators
- No more automatic differentiation based on
administrator experience
- Communicates the importance of continuous
improvement for all administrators
Simplification of appraisal process
- Elimination of formative assessment as a
discrete step; modified milestones within system
- Three requirements: (1) goal-setting, (2) mid-year
conference, (3) summative appraisal

4.0 DPAS II for Administrator Guides

Broader set of administrators to be included in
process of revising the Guides
Names required content of the Guides
- Details about appraisal criteria (under each of the
major components for evaluation)
- Details about required and recommended steps in
the appraisal process
- Guidance related to evidence collection (to be
further discussed in trainings)

5.0 Appraisal Components and Appraisal Criteria

Appraisal Criteria moved to the guides, not

detailed in regulation
Titles and descriptions modified to allow for usage
across multiple types of administrators:
- Vision and Goals
- Teaching and Learning
- People, Systems, and Operations
- Professional Responsibilities

6.0 Summative Evaluation Ratings

Increased rigor for achieving Highly-Effective
rating
Four levels for overall ratings : Highly Effective,
Effective, Needs Improvement, and Ineffective
- Mirrors the Appraisal Component and Criteria
rating system (unlike Teacher/Specialist System)
- Replaces the current binary system: Satisfactory &
Unsatisfactory (at the Component-Level)

8.0 Improvement Plan

9.0 Challenge Process

Description of improvement plan process and

challenge process simplified
Improvement Plan process now mirrors the
Improvement Plan process for 106A/107A

DOEs Original Scope of Proposed

Revisions
to
106A/107A
Allow Observation Form to be utilized upon request
Specify how C-IV performance data can be collected, e.g. at
any time based on observation
Create LEA flexibility for substitute C-IV (i.e. surveys)
Address/revise language in Component I
Address/revise language in Component III
Allow walk-through data to be included in process
Needs Improvement = Unsatisfactory Year
Highly Effective = 5/5, including Exceeds
Effective = 4/5, including Satisfactory/Exceeds
Proficient ratings required on rubric to earn Satisfactory
DDOE has attached the document originally utilized for
this discussion.
| 23

Review/Feedback Process for 106A/107A

106 and 107: Final Proposed Revisions

After Feedback

| 25

1.0 Effective Date

The proposed amended regulation will be in effect
beginning with the 2014-15 school year
References 1270(f) of Delaware code regarding
alternative evaluation systems

2.0 Definitions
Student Achievement
- Modified to clarify the use of data from state assessments in
educator evaluations (notably during the first year of
implementation of Smarter)
DCAS Teacher becomes Group 1 Teacher
Announced/Unannounced Observation
- Changes the name of the form that can be utilized
- Additional work needed in Guide to explain change
Short Observation (added)
Summative Evaluation can include Short Observation
Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory Evaluation
- Needs Improvement no longer Satisfactory rating for licensure
|

5.0 Appraisal Components and Appraisal Criteria

Appraisal criteria modified to allow for

substitutions to the Professional Responsibilities
Component (5.1.4)
A school district or charter school may substitute a
locally determined alternative Appraisal
Component, which must be approved by the
Department no later than the last day of July of
each year.

Proposed Revisions to 106A Impact on Ratings for Licensure

In the proposed revisions to 106A,

Needs Improvement is no longer a
Satisfactory rating for the purpose of
receiving a continuing license.

This revision is in alignment with the

current Pattern of Ineffective Teaching for
an Experienced teacher.
It will mean a teacher must have a
Satisfactory summative rating in two out
of three of their first years to be eligible
for a continuing license.
How do these revisions align with current
expectations and expectations moving
forward?
|

106A Revisions: Alignment

In the future, as proposed, a Novice must receive Effective Summative
ratings in 2 out of 3 years to receive a continuing license.
The minimum performance required to meet an Effective rating is
Satisfactory on 2 out of 4 in Component I-IV and Satisfactory on
Component-V .
Component V: To not make Satisfactory in Component V (and therefore
not Effective), means that BOTH Measures of student growth were
Unsatisfactory, or at least one was Unsatisfactory but the administrator
did not feel it appropriate to use their discretion to raise the rating to
Satisfactory in Component-V.

In the current state:

rows 2, 3 and 5
would all allow a
novice teacher to
receive a continuing
license
In the future, these
will not allow a
teacher to receive a
continuing license.
|

The Impact of C-V Unsatisfactory On

Our
Students
On average,
students on
rosters of a math
teacher rated
Exceeds or
HighlyEffective grew
by nearly 30
more points than
those in classes
with a teacher
rated
Unsatisfactory
between fall
2012 and Spring

Student's average DCAS Math Fall 2012 to Spring 2013 scale score growth
by Teacher of Record's Measure A Rating
74.3
55.4
44.6

Unsatisfactory

Satisfactory

Exceeds

| 31

DPAS-II: COMPONENT RATING ROLLUP

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactor
y

Exceeds

Satisfactory

Unsatisfact
ory
|

COMPONENT V: GROUPS, MEASURES &

DISCRETION
Group 1
Growth targets are based on DCAS instructional
Instructors of >9
students teaching
reading or math in
grades 3-10

50%

50%

Group 2
Instructors of >9
students in grades
and subjects other
than DCAS
reading/math for
whom a Measure B
is available

50%

50%
Group 3

Any educator who

does not meet the
criteria for Group 1
or Group 2

100%

MEASURE A
Exceeds
65% or
more of a
teachers
DCAS
student
growth
targets are
met.
MEASURE B

MEASURE C

scale scores and student growth targets, which

are provided by the DDOE.
Satisfactory
50-64% of a
teachers DCAS
student growth
targets are
met.

Unsatisfactory
(discretion)

Unsatisfacto
ry

35-49% of a teachers
DCAS student growth
targets are met.
Administrator could
upgrade to a
Satisfactory rating.

Less than
35% of a
teachers
DCAS student
growth
targets are
met.
Growth targets are based on internal
assessments developed by educators or external
measures approved by DDOE. Targets are set at
a conference with the administrator in the fall.

Growth goals are educator-developed and DDOEapproved; specific to content areas and job
assignments.

Exceeds

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactor
y

The agreed upon

exceeds target is
met or surpassed.

The agreed upon

satisfactory target is met or
surpassed, but the exceeds
target is not met.

The agreed
upon
satisfactory
target is not |

Summative Ratings Chart

Overall Summative Ratings: Highly Effective, Effective, Needs
Improvement, Ineffective

Pattern of Ineffective Teaching:

Current State

Proposed Revisions to 108A An Improved Process

In contrast to 106A, proposed revisions to

108A create alignment of rigor and
terminology for all levels of
administrators and their evaluations.
In proposed changes to 108A, there are
four ratings at every level (criterion,
component, summative): Highly Effective,
Effective, Needs Improvement,
Ineffective. The ratings are the same for
Novice and Experienced Administrators.

How do these revisions align expectations

with administrator ratings?
|

Four-level System
Components I-IV:
Leadership Practice

Student
Improvement

E or HE on all four

Exceeds

Effective

E or HE on three
+
No Is

Satisfactory
(or higher)

Needs
Improvement

E or HE on one or
two
+
Fewer than 3 Is

Satisfactory
(or higher)

Needs
Improvement

E or HE on three

Unsatisfactory

Ineffective

E or HE on zero, one
or two

Unsatisfactory

Ineffective

E or HE on zero

Satisfactory
(or higher)

Ineffective

3 or more Is

Any rating

Highly Effective

Examples
Example of Effective
Administrator

Example of Administrator Who

Needs Improvement

Athird-yearprincipalofastrugglingelementary
schoolisHighlyEffectiveinherTeachingand
Learningpractice,showingstrengthacrosstheboard
inthisareaofherpracticeandeffectivelybuilding
thecapacityofothers.SheisalsoEffectiveinVision
andGoalsandinProfessionalResponsibilities,but
sheNeedsImprovementinherManagementof
PeopleandOperations.

Athird-yearprincipalofanotherstruggling
elementaryschoolisEffectiveinhisManagementof
PeopleandOperations,withasmooth-runningand
orderlybuilding.However,heNeedsImprovement
inhisTeachingandLearningpractice,and
ProfessionalResponsibilities.Further,helacksa
clearvisionforimprovingtheschool,soheis
IneffectiveonVisionandGoals.

Thisprincipalsschoolimprovedenoughtogiveher
aratingofSatisfactoryonStudentImprovement.

Thisprincipalsschoolimprovedenoughtogivehim
aratingofSatisfactoryonStudentImprovement.

Her overall rating is

Effective.

His overall rating is Needs

Improvement.

ShewillbeHighlyEffectivenextyearif
1. ShemaintainsallofhercurrentlyEffectiveand
HighlyEffectiveRatings;AND
2. ShemovesherManagementofPeopleand
OperationsuptoEffective;AND
3. SheExceedsherStudentImprovementtargets

HewillbedeemedIneffectivenextyearif
1. HehasUnsatisfactoryStudentImprovement;OR
2. HisManagementdropstoNeedsImprovement;
OR
3. HisTeachingandLearningandProfessional
ResponsibilitiesdroptoIneffective.

Why Strong Evaluation Matters

| 39

From Monitoring: Improved Process =

Bayard MiddleProgress
School serves a high-needs population in
Improved

Wilmington. In 2012-2013, only 38% of children were proficient in ELA.

After a bumpy Year 1 of DPAS-II implementation, Bayard started
Year 2 with a renewed focus on using the DPAS-II process to
focus on student success. As one teacher told DDOE in its visit:
We knew the administrators would be grading with
a more detailed rubric, so we really focused on
what the rubric said was good practice

Coming into this year, process is streamlined so we

could make our implementation more advanced, can add
more reflection, go more in depth with data, and we
understand exactly what we have to do
We met as a team and looked each persons
student data to see what kids are doing and
why, and we saw trends across our classes on
areas where kids needed help learning.

We could focus our

goals on what the
kids needed

Because of the DPAS-II process, teachers are working

together more closely and children at Bayard are getting
special focus on targeted areas of reading. In preliminary

| 40

A Strong Evaluation System, Implemented

Well, Matters: A Tale of Two High-Need
School B
School A
Schools
School leadership did not
articulate goals set for educators in
Group 1, 2, and 3. Teacher stated
that she did not know what her
targets were for the 2012-2013 school
year.
Administrator choices on teacher
ratings did not appear to be
grounded in specific or credible
rationale.
Building leader stated that they really
didnt know what they were
doing.
It was unclear how PLCs drive
improvement.
Student Achievement Data:
Reading targets met 43%, Math

School leadership clearly

articulates rigorous goals and it is
clear that student achievement is at
the forefront of goal-setting.
Comments within evaluations
consistently drive student
achievement and give specific
examples
School leadership stated repeatedly
that the focus is always whats best
for kids. Rigor is the highest
priority for the building.
It was clear that student
achievement and prof.
development are the focus of
PLCs.
Student Achievement Data:

| 41