CTESS ebook

July 2024

Table of Contents

Introduction

3-4

CTESS Requirements & Timeline:

5

• • •

Growth Cycle

6

Educators with Special Circumstances

6-7 7-8

Remediation

CTESS Domains and Standards At-A-Glance

9

CTESS Standards 1 – 12 and Benchmark Criteria

10-24

CTESS Element 1: Instructional Quality

25

• Self-Assessment/Professional Learning Goal • Student Growth Goal Setting and Reflections • Lines of Evidence (Teacher Responsibility) • Lines of Evidence (Administrator Responsibility)

26/27 27-31 32-34 35-38

CTESS Element 2: Student Growth

39

CTESS Element 3: Stakeholder Input

40-43

CTESS Summative Overall Rating

44

Teacher Resources and Support

45

Appendices

46

• • • •

A – Canyons MTSS Framework

47

B – Glossary of Terms

48-53 54-70 71-75 76-78 79-82 83-94

C – IPOP Coding Manual

D – Stakeholder Input Surveys

• E – CTESS Learning and Teaching Evidence Checklist • F – Review Request of CTESS Summative Overall Rating (SOR) • G – Alignment of CTESS with MTSS Framework and State Indicators

•

H – Supporting Research and Rationale

95-101

References

102-104

2

Introduction

Effective Teaching Matters What a teacher does - or does not do - in the classroom has a substantial impact on student achievement (Hattie, 2009; Slavin, Cheung, Groff, & Lake, 2008; Slavin, Lake, & Groff, 2009). In fact, instructional delivery is one of the most important variables that bring about academic excellence in students. Teaching based on strong instructional practices is powerful and Canyons District is dedicated to helping every teacher improve her or his pedagogical skills.

How Teaching Improves Providing teachers with explicit feedback improves instructional practices and leads to better student outcomes. Improving instruction through performance feedback is a highly researched, evidence-based practice with which to assist teachers in implementing effective teaching practices (e.g., Burns, Peters, & Noell 2008; Jones, Wickstrom, & Friman, 1997; Noell, Gresham, & Gansel, 2002; Noell et al., 2000; Noell et al., 2005; Wickstrom, Jones, LaFleur, & Witt, 1998). Teachers deserve accurate and actionable feedback. In order to be most effective, performance feedback should focus on the proven components that research, especially meta-analyses, indicate have the biggest impact on achievement. The Canyons Teacher Effectiveness Support System, commonly referred to as CTESS, aims to provide actionable feedback on evidence-based strategies that are most likely to positively impact student achievement and the supports teachers need to implement them. The Purpose of CTESS CTESS is designed to ensure that every student in Canyons School District receives high-quality instruction every day, prioritize professional growth and support for all educators, improve feedback to educators about effective instruction, measure implementation of Canyons District’s Multi -Tiered Systems of Support framework, increase collaboration through professional learning communities, and recognize and support effective teachers. How CTESS Standards were Developed Initial development began when an updated version of the Utah Effective Teaching Standards was adopted by the Utah State Board of Education in 2012. These standards were then aligned with the CSD MTSS Framework, which brings together the components, beliefs, and critical elements of effective schools. The framework includes key elements of instructional practice, data use, and effective decision-making processes. The CTESS standards are designed specifically to measure implementation of the CSD framework. Along with the CTESS development team, many groups have contributed to the development of CTESS. They include the CSD Joint Educator Evaluation Committee, which is made up of parents, teachers, and administrators; District Leadership Teams; administrators representing elementary, middle, and high school levels; teachers from elementary, middle and high schools; the Canyons Education Association; and the Canyons Board of Education.

CTESS Elements There are three elements of CTESS: • Instructional Quality • Student Growth • Stakeholder Input

3

In 2015, the Utah State Board of Education determ ined that the educator’s Summative Overall R ating (SOR) be based on 70% from the Instructional Quality Rating (IQR), 20% from the Student Growth Rating (SGR), and 10% from the Stakeholder Input Rating (SIR). This formula was adopted by Canyons School District.

Effectiveness Rating Educator performance results in an effectiveness rating for each of the three elements as well as a Summative Overall Rating.

These are the ratings that can be achieved through the CTESS process:

The expectation in Canyons School District is that all teachers earn at least an “ Effective ” rating. Teachers who achieve such a rating are accomplished teachers who provide their students with valued instruction every day. Students with teachers who have earned “Effective” or “Highly Effective” ratings make great strides in acquiring knowledge and skills to progress through curriculum.

4

Teacher CTESS Requirements & Timeline

Provisional 1, 2, and 3 Educators

Career 1 and 2 Educators

Career 3 Educators

Due Dates

Provisional 1: Fall CTSA CTESS Monthly Training

IPOPs not bound by 30-school day maximum for C1,C2 teachers Self-Assessment: Professional Learning Goal due

Self-Assessment: Professional Learning Goal due

Self-Assessment: Professional Learning Goal due

August 30

September 30

Student Growth Goal due

Student Growth Goal due

Student Growth Goal due

Student Stakeholder Survey window open Parent Stakeholder Survey window open

Student Stakeholder Survey window open Parent Stakeholder Survey window open

October 10 – 30

November 10 – 30

Provisional 1: Cycle 1 - Two formal IPOPs; administrator feedback

By November 30

Analysis/response to Stakeholder Input due

Analysis/response to Stakeholder Input due

December 15

Mid-year reflection on Student Growth due Provisional 2 and 3: Two formal IPOPs; IQR and administrator feedback

Mid-year reflection on Student Growth due

Mid-year reflection on Student Growth due

January 30

January 30

Provisional 1: Cycle 2 - Two formal IPOPs; IQR and administrator feedback Stakeholder Input Plan Reflection/Evidence of Progress due

Two formal IPOPs; IQR and administrator feedback

March 30

Stakeholder Input Plan Reflection/Evidence of Progress due

April 30

Two formal IPOPs; administrator feedback

April 30

End-of-year reflection on Student Growth due

End-of-year reflection on Student Growth due

End-of-year reflection on Student Growth due

May 15

SOR and administrator feedback on Professional Learning Goal and reflections/responses

Administrator feedback on Professional Learning Goal and reflections/responses

SOR and administrator feedback on Professional Learning Goal and reflections/responses

By the last day of school

Five (5) school days after each formal IPOP Summary

IPOP and Professional Learning Goal reflection due

IPOP and Professional Learning Goal reflection due

IPOP and Professional Learning Goal reflection due

Anytime; No later than January 10 or March 10

Learning and Teaching Evidence – Provisional 2, 3 due by January 10; Provisional 1 due by March 10

Learning and Teaching Evidence due by March 10

5

CTESS GROWTH CYCLE

As outlined in CSD Board Policy 410.08, licensed employees entering or returning to Canyons School District are placed on provisional status for a period of three (3) years and, as required by Utah State law, are summative-evaluated annually using CTESS. Career Educators, educators who have successfully completed provisional status, are evaluated annually as required by Utah State law. Career 1 and 2 educators will complete a formative evaluation while Career 3 educators will complete a summative evaluation. CTESS consists of observations (IPOPs), learning and teaching evidence, student growth, and stakeholder feedback. CTESS has four ratings: Highly Effective, Effective, Emerging/Minimally Effective , and Not Effective . All Canyons educators are expected to be rated as Effective or Highly Effective . However, Emerging is considered satisfactory for Provisional 1 and 2 Educators. Provisional 3 Educators should be rated Effective or Highly Effective by the end of year P3. Those who are not rated Effective or Highly Effective at the end of the Provisional 3 evaluation may not advance to Career status. Career Educators rated as Minimally Effective or Not Effective will be placed on a Plan of Assistance. A Career educator may be placed on a summative evaluation year (Career 3) at the request of the administrator at any time for reasons including, but not limited to: concerns identified through observations, feedback, student performance, etc. CTESS for Hourly Educators (below .5 FTE) • All hourly educators will complete the same CTESS procedures as Career 1 and Career 2 educators: • Self-Assessment and Professional Learning Goal • Student Growth Goal and reflections • Two (2) formal IPOPs and reflections Note: Hourly educators will not complete the full CTESS cycle. CTESS for Part-time Educators (.5 FTE and above) • All part-time educators complete all CTESS requirements based on their corresponding status (Provisional or Career) and phase (1, 2, or 3). CTESS for Educators hired from start of school through October 31 • Educators will complete the Provisional 1 CTESS requirements (full summative evaluation) using the following deadlines: • Self-Assessment – Professional Learning Goal – November 15 • Student Stakeholder Survey Window – December 1-15 • Student Growth Goal – December 15 • IPOP Cycle completed within first ten weeks of hire (from start date) • Remainder of deadlines as outlined in CTESS Timeline. CTESS REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATORS WITH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

CTESS for Educators hired November 1-December 31 •

The following components of CTESS are required by April 30: • Self-Assessment – Professional Learning Goal

• Student Growth Goal • Two (2) formal IPOPs Note: Educators hired after November 1 will be placed in Provisional 1 status the following school year.

6

CTESS for Educators hired after January 1 •

The following component of the Provisional 1 CTESS is required by April 30: • One (1) formal IPOP Goal Setting – Professional Learning & Student Growth – are optional Note: Educators hired after January 1 will be placed in Provisional 1 status the following school year. CTESS for Retiring Educators Retiring educators must complete all CTESS requirements unless the administrator receives a signed resignation form and formal acknowledgment that an evaluation is not desired from the retiring educator. In that case, retiring educators complete the following: • Self-Assessment and Professional Learning Goal • Student Growth Goal and reflections CTESS for Resigning Educators Resigning educators must complete all CTESS requirements unless the administrator receives a signed resignation form and formal acknowledgment that a full evaluation is not desired from the resigning educator. In that case, resigning educators complete the following: • Self-Assessment and Professional Learning Goal • Student Growth Goal and reflections

REMEDIATION PROCESS

As outlined in CSD Board Policy 400.31, the Board authorizes the District Administration to implement an evaluation process that is reasonable, fair, valid, and reliable in measuring educator effectiveness, compliant with state statues, state regulations, and Canyons School District policy while measuring implementation of the Utah Effective Teaching Standards and the Canyons MTSS Framework.

All educators have Tier 1 Supports available to them:

CTESS Orientation CTSA CTESS Training CTESS Online Resources School Administrators

• • • • • • •

Instructional Coaches District Specialists

Professional Development

Provisional 1, 2, and 3 Educators

Instructional Quality Rating Result:

If the IQR rating for P1 and P2 educators is Emerging , Effective , or Highly Effective , the educator is advanced to the next CTESS cycle.

If the IQR rating for P1 and P2 educators is Not Effective , the following remediation will take place:

Implementation of Tier 2 Supports o Tier 1 Supports o Informal IPOPs o

•

Targeted Professional Development

7

Master Teacher Observations Instructional Support Resources

o

o

• Memo of Concern with specific directives for improvement • Notification that employment is in question The educator will complete the next year’s evaluation cycle under their remediation guidelines.

If the subsequent IQR rating is Emerging , Effective , or Highly Effective , remediation is complete and the educator is advanced to the next CTESS cycle.

NOTE: If the IQR rating for P3 educators is Emerging or Not Effective , the following may occur:

• Provisional 3 status is extended for an additional year, or • Notification of contract non-renewal

Career 3 Educators

Instructional Quality Rating Result:

If the IQR rating is Effective or Highly Effective , the educator is advanced to the next CTESS cycle.

If the IQR rating is Minimally Effective or Not Effective , the following remediation will take place:

Implementation of Tier 2 Supports o Tier 1 Supports o Informal IPOPs o

•

Targeted Professional Development Master Teacher Observations Instructional Support Resources

o

o

• Plan of Assistance (not to exceed 120 school days) • Notification that employment is in question The educator will complete the next evaluation cycle under their remediation guidelines.

If the subsequent IQR rating is Effective or Highly Effective , remediation is complete and the educator advances to the next CTESS cycle.

If the subsequent IQR rating is Minimally Effective or Not Effective, the following second remediation will take place:

Implementation of Tier 3 Supports o Tier 1 & 2 Supports o Informal IPOPs o

•

Targeted Professional Development Master Teacher Observations Instructional Support Resources

o

o

• Formal IPOPs (completed by a team of three: Administrator, HR Representative, Educator-selected Administrator) • Plan of Assistance (continued) • Notification of probation If the subsequent IQR rating is Effective or Highly Effective , the second remediation is complete and the educator is removed from probation and advanced to the next CTESS cycle.

If the subsequent IQR rating is Minimally Effective or Not Effective, termination of employment will take place.

8

CTESS Domains and Standards At A Glance

The CTESS Standards are based upon the Utah Effective Teaching Standards and Canyons School District's MTSS Framework. The District's twelve teaching standards have been divided into four domains: Planning, Instructing, Adjusting, and Reflecting.

Standard 1: Classroom PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports) Implements rules and procedures to effectively maintain a positive learning environment. Standard 2: State Core Standards Uses the Utah State Core Standards or approved state curriculum when planning lessons Standard 3: Collaboration Actively problem solves as a collaborative team member by problem solving with data; giving and receiving feedback; building a productive shared culture of learning; and enhancing the knowledge and skills of self and others Standard 4: Connections and Relevance Makes connections to purposefully engage learners in learning tasks relevant to the learner Standard 5: Student Engagement Uses a variety of evidence-based instructional techniques to promote student engagement, learning, and communication skills through various questioning strategies (CSD instructional priorities) Standard 6: Feedback Uses effective feedback practices in the instructional setting to provide timely and descriptive feedback that will promote high quality student work Standard 7: Cognitive Rigor Provides students with meaningful opportunities to engage in higher level thinking to solve applied problems using academic skills such as analyzing, synthesizing and decision making Standard 8: Data Use Independently and collaboratively uses assessment data to document student progress to promote student growth of all Standard 9: Scaffolding Designs, adapts and delivers appropriate and challenging learning experiences based on students’ diverse strengths and needs Standard 10: Professional Learning Engaging in and valuing constructive feedback, reflective practices, professional learning, and collaborative activities that support professional, instructional, and schoolwide improvement. Standard 11: Advocacy Advocates for learners, the school, the community and the profession Standard 12: Ethical Behavior Demonstrates the highest standards of legal, moral and ethical conduct as specified in Utah State Board Rule R277-515-10 and CSD policies

Planning Domain

Instructing Domain

Adjusting Domain

Reflecting Domain

9

Standard 1: Classroom PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports) Implements rules and procedures to effectively maintain a positive learning environment

Lines of Evidence The administrator codes the teacher’s academic and behavior feedback to students as well as implementation of classroom management during the IPOP.

IPOP •

Behavior Coding (Positive, Corrective, Harsh, and Other) • Classroom Management (C1) (C2) (C3) (C4) (C5)

Benchmark Criteria

Highly Effective:

All of the following on two formal IPOPs: •

Classroom Management (C1) rating is “Highly Evident/Evident” • Classroom Management (C2 and C3 ) ratings are “Meets Expectations” • Classroom Management (C4 and C5 ) ratings are “Highly Evident” • Instructional Priorities Observation Protocol (IPOP): • Teacher’s r atio of positive to corrective feedback is at least 4:1 • Teacher delivers positive feedback at a rate of 20 in a 20-minute observation (60 per hour) • Teacher has no instances of harsh feedback All of the following: • Classroom Management (C1 ) rating is “Highly Evident/Evident” on two formal IPOPs • Classroom Management (C2 and C3 ) ratings are “Meets Expectations” on two formal IPOPs • Classroom Management (C4 and C5 ) ratings are at least “Evident” on two formal IPOPs • Instructional Priorities Observation Protocol (IPOP): • Teacher’s ratio of positive to corrective feedback is at least 2:1 on two formal IPOPs OR Teacher delivers positive feedback at a rate of 20 in a 20-minuteobservation (60 per hour) on two formal IPOPs • Teacher delivers positive feedback at a minimum rate of 13 in a 20-minute observation (40 per hour) on at least one formal IPOP • Teacher has no instances of harsh feedback on two formal IPOPs Classroom Management (C1) rating is “Partially Evident” on at least one formal IPOP • Classroom Management (C2 and C3) ratings include one or more “Does Not Meet Expectations” on at least one formal IPOP • Classroom Management (C4 and C5) ratings include one or more “Partially Evident” on at least one formal IPOP • Instructional Priorities Observation Protocol (IPOP): • Teacher delivers positive feedback at a rate of at least 4 in a 20-minute observation (at least 12 per hour) on at least one formal IPOP • Teacher has no more than 1 instance (total) of harsh feedback across two formal IPOPs

Effective:

Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective: •

10

Not Effective: •

Classroom Management (C1 ) rating is “Not Evident” on two formal IPOPs OR • Classroom Management (C4 ) rating is “Not Evident” on two formal IPOPs OR • Instructional Priorities Observation Protocol (IPOP): • Teacher delivers positive feedback at a rate of less than 4 in a 20- minute observation (less than 12 per hour) on two formal IPOPs OR • Teacher has more than 1 instance (total) of harsh feedback across two formal IPOPs

11

Standard 2: State Core Standards Uses the Utah State Core Standards or approved state curriculum when planning lessons

Lines of Evidence The administrator codes general instructional information and curriculum alignment including Utah grade-level standards, CSD scope and sequence, learning intentions, and learning tasks during the IPOP.

IPOP •

General Information (Instructional Goals) Curriculum Alignment (A1) (A2) (A3) (A4)

•

Benchmark Criteria

Highly Effective: All of the following on two formal IPOPs: •

Utah Grade-Level Standards (A1 ) rating is “Highly Evident” • CSD’s Curriculum Scope and Sequence (A2 ) is marked “Within a 10 -school day timeframe” • Learning Objective/Intention (A3 ) rating is “Highly Evident” • Observed Learning Task(s) (A4) rating is “Highly Evident/Evident”

Effective:

All of the following: •

Utah Grade Level Standards (A1 ) rating is “Evident” on two formal IPOPs • CSD’s Curriculum Scope and Sequence (A2 ) is marked “Within a 10 - school day timeframe” on two formal IPOPs • Learning Objective/Intention (A3 ) rating is at least “Evident” on two formal IPOPs • Observed Learning Task(s) (A4 ) rating is “Highly Evident/Evident” on at least one formal IPOP Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective: • Utah Grade Level Standards (A1) rating is “Partially Evident” on one formal IPOP • CSD’s Curriculum Scope and Sequence (A2 ) is marked “Within a 10 -school day timeframe” on one formal IPOP • Learning Objective/Intention (A3) rating is “Partially Evident” on one or more formal IPOPs • Observed Learning Task(s) (A4) rating is “Partially Evident” on at least one formal IPOP Not Effective: • Utah Grade Level Standards (A1 ) rating is “Not Evident” on one formal IPOP OR • CSD’s Curriculum Scope and Sequence (A2 ) is marked “Not within a 10 -school day timeframe” on two formal IPOPs OR • Learning Objective/Intention (A3 ) rating is “Not Evident” on two formal IPOPs OR • Observed Learning Task(s) (A4 ) rating is “Not Evident” on two formal IPOPs

12

Standard 3: Collaboration Actively problem solves as a collaborative team member by problem solving with data; giving and receiving feedback; building a productive shared culture of learning; and enhancing the knowledge and skills of self and others

Lines of Evidence The administrator completes the Meeting Participation Checklist (MPC) through administrator knowledge of the teacher’s meeting participation and observation of the teacher during required meetings (e.g., BLT, IEPs, PLCs).

Checklist •

Meeting Participation Checklist (MPC)

Benchmark Criteria

Highly Effective: • All of the Meeting Participation Checklist items (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) for the teacher are rated “Meets Expectations” AND • Teacher consistently attends required meetings Effective: • Meeting Participation Checklist items 1 and 2 for the teacher are rated “Meets Expectations” AND • No more than one of the remaining Meeting Participation Checklist items (3, 4, and 5) for the teacher is rated “Improvement Needed” AND • None of the remaining Meeting Participation Checklist items (3, 4, and 5) for the teacher are rated “Does not meet Expectations” AND • Teacher consistently attends required meetings Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective: • Two or more of the Meeting Participation Checklist items (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) for the teacher are rated “Improvement Needed” OR • One of the Meeting Participation Checklist items (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) for the teacher is rated “Does not meet Expectations” OR • Teacher does not consistently attend required meetings Not Effective: • More than one of the Meeting Participation Checklist items (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) for the teacher are rated “Does not meet Expectations” OR • Teacher does not attend a majority of required meetings OR • Teacher exhibits a pattern of derailing or undermining meetings

13

Standard 4: Connections and Relevance Makes connections to purposefully engage learners in learning tasks relevant to the learner

Lines of Evidence The teacher provides evidence of learning tasks that connect to students’ background and interests through relevant learning opportunities and allow student agency and choice in accessing learning and demonstrating competency. Learning and Teaching Evidence shows connections or relevance of content and student agency.

Learning and Teaching Evidence • Canvas Course Screenshots • Lesson Planning Evidence • Presentation Slides •

Culminating Student Project that includes both: • Assignment description • Example of student work (completed project)

Benchmark Criteria

Highly Effective:

All of the following: • Learning and Teaching Evidence that demonstrates how and why a particular lesson reflects relevancy based on the background knowledge and interests of current students. • Learning and Teaching Evidence that provides students with multiple means of accessing instructional conten t based on the student’s learning preference (e.g., video, print, audio). • Culminating Student Project that allows students to demonstrate content mastery through submission of a choice of artifacts (e.g., essay, multimedia, oral report). Effective: • Learning and Teaching Evidence that demonstrates how and why a particular lesson reflects relevancy based on the background knowledge and interests of current students. AND one of the following: • Learning and Teaching Evidence that provides students with multiple means of accessing instructional content based on the student’s learning preference (e.g., video, print, audio). • Culminating Student Project that allows students to demonstrate content mastery through submission of a choice of artifacts (e.g., essay, multimedia, oral report). Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective: One of the following: • Learning and Teaching Evidence that demonstrates how and why a particular lesson reflects relevancy based on the background knowledge and interests of current students.

• Learning and Teaching Evidence that provides students with multiple means of accessing instructional content based on the student’s learning preference (e.g., video, print, audio). • Culminating Student Project that allows students to demonstra te content mastery through submission of a choice of artifacts (e.g., essay, multimedia, oral report).

Not Effective: •

No evidence of relevance and connections submitted.

14

Standard 5: Student Engagement Uses a variety of evidence-based instructional techniques to promote student engagement, learning, and communication skills through various questioning strategies (CSD instructional priorities) Lines of Evidence The administrator codes the teacher’s student engagement and Opportunities to Respond (OTRs) during the IPOP.

IPOP •

Behavior Coding (Active Engagement and Passive Engagement) • Behavior Coding (Group and Individual OTRs) • Quality of Engagement (B1) (B2)

Benchmark Criteria

Highly Effective: All of the following on two formal IPOPs: •

Teacher’s students are engaged (actively and passively) at least 90% of the time with a minimum of 30% active engagement • Teacher delivers OTRs at a rate of a minimum of 23 in a 20-minute observation (70 per hour) • Opportunities to Respond (B1 ) rating is “Highly Evident” • Universal Engagement (B2 ) rating is “Highly Evident” All of the following: • Teacher’s students are engaged (actively and passively) at least 80% of the time with a minimum of 20% active engagement (on two formal IPOPs) • Teacher delivers OTRs at a rate of a minimum of 13 in a 20-minute observation (40 per hour) on at least one formal IPOP • Opportunities to Respond (B1 ) rating is “Evident” on two formal IPOPs • Universal Engagement (B2 ) rating is “Evident” on two formal IPOPs Teacher’s students are engaged (actively and passively) at least 70% of the time with a minimum of 10% active engagement (on at least one formal IPOP) • Teacher delivers OTRs at a rate of a minimum of 7 in a 20-minute observation (20 per hour) on at least one formal IPOP • Opportunities to Respond (B1) rating is “Partially Evident” on at least one formal IPOP • Universal Engagement (B2) rating is “Partially Evident” on at least one formal IPOP Any of the following: • Teacher’s students are engaged (actively and passively) less than 70% of the time on two formal IPOPs • Teacher delivers OTRs at a rate of less than 7 in a 20-minute observation (less than 20 per hour) on two formal IPOPs

Effective:

Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective: •

Not Effective:

• Opportunities to Respond (B1 ) rating is “Not Evident” on two formal IPOPs • Universal Engagement (B2 ) rating is “Not Evident” on two formal IPOPs

15

Standard 6 : Feedback Uses effective feedback practices in the instructional setting to provide timely and descriptive feedback that will promote quality student work

Lines of Evidence The administrator codes teacher feedback to students and feedback sequences during the IPOP; the teacher provides evidence of using effective feedback practices that are purposeful and specific.

IPOP

• Behavior Coding (Positive, Corrective, Harsh, and Other; Feedback Sequences) • Feedback(D1) (D2)

Learning and Teaching Evidence •

Completed student assignment(s) with specific feedback that show progress toward meeting standards or learning objectives/intentions

Benchmark Criteria

Highly Effective: All of the following on two formal IPOPs: •

Teacher demonstrates a minimum of 2 full feedback sequences • Teacher’s rate of feedback (positive, corrective, and other) is at least 27 in a 20-minute observation (at least 80 per hour) • Teacher is rated “Highly Evident” for providing specific feedback and elaborating for bett er student understanding (D1) to more than one student. • Teacher provides corrective feedback effectively (D2 ) rating is “Highly Evident” AND • Teacher provides three or more different work samples from students, with specific feedback on how to progress toward meeting standards or learning objectives/intentions (e.g., rubrics, task completion checklists) All of the following: • Teacher demonstrates a minimum of 2 full feedback sequences on at least one formal IPOP • Teacher’s rate of feedback (positive, corrective, and other) is at least 20 in a 20-minute observation (at least 60 per hour) on two formal IPOPs • Teacher is rated “Evident” on at least one formal IPOP for providing specific feedback (D1) to more than one student • Teacher provides corrective feedback effectively (D2) rating is at least “Evident” on two formal IPOPs AND • Teacher provides two different work samples from students, with specific feedback on how to progress toward meeting standards or learning objectives/intentions (e.g., rubrics, task completion checklists)

Effective:

16

Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective Any of the following: •

Teacher demonstrates a minimum of one full feedback sequence on one formal IPOP • Teacher’s rate of feedback (positive, corrective, and other) is at least 13 in a 20-minute observation (at least 40 per hour) on one or more formal IPOPs • Teacher is rated “Partially Evident” for providing specific feedback (D1) to at least one student on one or more formal IPOPs • Teacher provides corrective feedback effectively (D2) rating is “Partially Evident” on one or more formal IPOPs • Teacher provides one work sample from a student, with specific feedback on how to progress toward meeting standards or learning objectives/intentions (e.g., rubrics, task completion checklists) Any of the following: • Teacher does not demonstrate a full feedback sequence on either of the two formal IPOPs • Teacher’s rate of feedback (positive, corrective, and other) is less than 13 in a 20-minute observation (less than 40 per hour) on two formal IPOPs • Teacher is rated “Not Evident” for not providing any specific feedback (D1) on two formal IPOPs • Teacher provides corrective feedback effectively (D2 ) rating is “Not Evident” on two formal IPOPs • Teacher does not provide a sample from a student with specific feedback on how to progress toward meeting standards or learning objectives/intentions

Not Effective

17

Standard 7 : Cognitive Rigor Provides students with meaningful opportunities to engage in higher level thinking to solve applied problems using academic skills such as analyzing, synthesizing, and decision making Lines of Evidence The teacher provides evidence of student assignments/projects that show engagement in higher level thinking skills during the learning process. Learning and Teaching Evidence • Evidence of Rigor (e.g., PLC Notes, Lesson Planning Evidence, Cognitive Rigor Rubric) • Student Assignments/Projects All of the following: • One piece of Evidence of Rigor that documents or demonstrates higher level student learning tasks • Samples of two different completed student assignments/projects that reflect higher level learning All of the following: • One piece of Evidence of Rigor that documents or demonstrates higher level student learning tasks • Sample of one completed student assignment/project that reflects higher level learning Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective : • One piece of Evidence of Rigor that documents or demonstrates higher level student learning tasks OR • Sample of one completed student assignment/project that reflects higher level learning Effective: Benchmark Criteria Highly Effective:

Not Effective:

• No evidence documenting higher level student learning

18

Standard 8 : Data Use Independently and collaboratively uses assessment data to document student progress to promote student growth of all Lines of Evidence The teacher provides student data that show improved performance, as a direct result of specific instructional adjustments made for a group of students. Learning and Teaching Evidence • PLC Notes/Products • Student Assessment Data (e.g., DWSBAs, CFAs, RTI, data wall, graphs, starters, exit tickets)

Benchmark Criteria

Highly Effective: •

Meets the criteria for Effective

AND •

Teacher provides student assessment data shared in an PLC meeting that shows improved performance as a direct result of specific instructional adjustments the teacher made for a group of students who were struggling to master a content standard

Effective : •

Teacher provides PLC Notes/Products that show consistent use of student assessment data to guide instruction (e.g., DWSBAs, team or school-wide assessments).

Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective: •

Teacher provides PLC Notes/Products that show occasional but inconsistent use of student assessment data to guide instruction (e.g., DWSBAs, team or school-wide assessments).

Not Effective: •

Teacher does not provide PLC Notes/Products that show use of student assessment data to guide instruction (e.g., DWSBAs, team or school-wide assessments).

19

Standard 9 : Scaffolding Designs, adapts and delivers appropriate and challenging learning experiences based on students’ diverse strengths and needs

Lines of Evidence The administrator codes how the teacher effectively uses scaffolding strategies during the IPOP; the teacher provides evidence of how scaffolds were successfully used for a range of diverse learners.

IPOP •

Quality of Engagement (B4)

Learning and Teaching Evidence •

Student Assessments or Work Samples

Benchmark Criteria

Highly Effective: •

Effective Scaffolds (B4 ) rating is “Highly Evident” on two formal IPOPs • Teacher provides two or more different pieces of evidence (e.g. student work samples) that show how scaffolds from the list of Common High YieldingScaffolds were used successfully in a recent lesson to provide supports for a range of diverse learners (e.g. IEP, 504, ELL) that aided in student mastery of a specific learning task

Effective: •

Effective Scaffolds (B4) rating is “Evident” on two formal IPOPs • Teacher provides one piece of evidence (e.g. student work samples) that shows how scaffolds from the list of Common High Yielding Scaffolds were used successfully in a recent lesson to provide supports for a range of diverse learners (e.g. IEP, 504, ELL) that aided in student mastery of a specific learning task

Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective: • Effective Scaffolds (B4 ) rating is “Somewhat Evident” on one or more formal IPOPs

Not Effective: •

Effective Scaffolds (B4 ) rating is “Not Evident” on one or more formal IPOPs

20

Standard 10: Professional Learning Engaging in and valuing constructive feedback, reflective practices, professional learning, and collaborative activities that support professional, instructional, and schoolwide improvement

Lines of Evidence The teacher provides evidence of purposeful selection of professional learning, goal setting, and professional feedback.

Learning and Teaching Evidence •

Teacher Statement of professional learning implementation • Goal Setting and Reflections (i.e., Professional Learning and Student Growth) • Professional growth activity (e.g., statement, reflection, transcript, certificate, MIDAS report)

Benchmark Criteria

Highly Effective : • Teacher provides evidence of participation in all required school and District professional learning (e.g., District Day, MS/HS Early Out, school-wide professional learning based on TSSP goals) and evidence of implementation of learned techniques and/or programs based on this professional learning AND • Teacher provides evidence of participation in one or more optional District professional learning offerings as a learner within the current school year (e.g., DTL Summit) and evidence of implementation of learned techniques and/or programs based on this professional learning AND • Teacher completes Professional Learning Goal by September 30 deadline (or by the extension deadline granted by the school administrator) and Professional Learning Goal reflections after at least two formal IPOP summaries AND • Teacher completes the Student Growth Goal by October 30 deadline (or by the extension deadline granted by the school administrator) and the mid-year Student Growth reflection by January 30 deadline AND ONE of the following: • Teacher provides documentation of Lesson Study led by an instructional coach that follows the CSD Lesson Study Protocol for two or more lessons • Teacher provides evidence of state or district approved endorsement earned within the last 5 years (e.g., reading, math, ESL, Ed. Tech, gifted, coaching, STEM) since initial licensure • Teacher provides evidence of certifications earned within the last 5 years (e.g. National Board) • Teacher provides evidence of an additional degree earned in field of education or content field within the last 5 years (masters, doctorate) and since initial licensure Effective : • Teacher provides evidence of participation in most required school and District professional learning (e.g., District Day, MS/HS Early Out, school-wide professional learning based on TSSP goals) and evidence of implementation of learned techniques and programs based on this professional learning

21

AND • Teacher completes Professional Learning Goal by Sept. 30 deadline (or by the extension deadline granted by the school administrator) and Professional Learning Goal reflections after at least two formal IPOP summaries AND • Teacher completes the Student Growth Goal by October 30 deadline (or by the extension deadline granted by the school administrator) and the mid-year Student Growth reflection by Jan. 30 deadline AND ONE of the following: • Teacher provides documentation of Lesson Study led by an instructional coach that follows the CSD Lesson Study Protocol for one lesson • Teacher provides evidence of participating in at least one optional (not required) District professional learning offerings as a learner within the current school year (e.g., DTL Summit) along with evidence of implementation of learned techniques and/or programs based on this professional learning • Teacher provides evidence of participating (as a learner or presenter) in a national or state conference that is tied to the teacher’s content area of teaching (and has Principal approval) • Teacher participates on school or district committees (e.g., BLT, SCC) • Teacher provides evidence of completing (or being actively enrolled in) any education-related course/training within the current school year (e.g., CACTUS course, USBE Microcredential, graduate-level college course) • Teacher provides evidence of engaging in Public Practice (e.g., documentation of at least three-20 minute Peer Observations/Debriefings with peer/coach) within the current school year • Teacher submits a Video Teaching Observation (e.g., written reflection/debrief with coach, of at least two full videoed lessons) Teacher provides evidence of attending some required school and District professional learning (e.g., District Day, MS/HS Early Out, school-wide professional learning based on TSSP goals) OR • Teacher completes Professional Learning Goal late, not by Sept. 30 deadline (or by the extension deadline that was granted by the school administrator) OR • Teacher completes Student Growth Goal late, not by Oct. 30 deadline (or by the extension deadline that was granted by the school administrator) OR • Teacher completes Student Growth Goal by Oct. 30 deadline, but not mid-year Student Growth Reflection by Jan. 30 deadline Not Effective • Teacher attends no required school and District professional learning (e.g., District Day, MS/HS Early Out, school-wide professional learning based on TSSP goals) OR • Teacher’s b ehavior has resulted in removal or exclusion from one or more curriculum-based professional learning opportunities Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective: •

OR • Teacher does not submit Professional Learning Goal or Student Growth Goal

22

Standard 11 : Advocacy Advocates for learners, the school, the community and the profession

Lines of Evidence The administrator completes the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist through observation of the teacher’s ethical conduct and advocacy efforts on behalf of students and families.

Checklist •

Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist ; items 1 to 3

NOTE : Any item marked “Does not meet Expectations ” requires written documentation approved through SAT (i.e., written reprimand or probation)

Benchmark Criteria

Effective: •

Ratings of “Meets Expectations” on all of the following three items: 1, 2, and 3, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist OR • Rating of “Improvement Needed” on one of the following three items: 1, 2, or 3, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist AND ratings of “Meets Expectations” on the remaining two items Rating of “Does not meet Expectations” on any one of the following three items: 1, 2, or 3, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist OR • Ratings of “Improvement Needed” on two of the following three items: 1, 2, and/or 3, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist AND rating of “Meets Expectations" on the remaining item Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective: •

Not Effective: •

Ratings of “Does not meet Expectations” on two or more of the following three items: 1, 2, and/or 3, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist OR • Ratings of “Improvement Needed” on all of the following three items: 1, 2, and 3, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist

23

Standard 12: Ethical Behavior Demonstrates the highest standards of legal, moral and ethical conduct as specified in Utah State Board Rule R277-515-10 and CSD policies

Lines of Evidence The administrator completes the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist through observation of the teacher’s ethical conduct and advocacy efforts on behalf of students and families.

Checklist •

Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist ; items 4 to 9

NOTE : Any item marked “Does not meet Expectations” requires written documentation approved through SAT (i.e., written reprimand, probation, or UPPAC referral)

Benchmark Criteria

Effective: •

Ratings of “Meets Expectations” on all of the following six items: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist OR • Rating of “Improvement Needed” on one of the following six items: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist AND ratings of “Meets Expectations” on the remaining five items Rating of “Does not meet Expectations” on any one of the following six items: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist OR • Ratings of “Improvement Needed” on two of the following six items: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and/or 9, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist AND ratings of “Meets Expectations” on the remaining four items Ratings of “Does not meet Expectations” on two or more of the following six items: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and/or 9, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist OR • Ratings of “Improvement Needed” on three or more of the following six items: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and/or 9, on the Advocacy for Learners and Ethical Conduct Checklist

Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective: •

Not Effective: •

24

CTESS Element 1: Instructional Quality

The Instructional Quality element of CTESS consists of: • Self-Assessment and Goal Setting, Learning and Teaching Evidence (submitted by teacher), and • IPOPs, checklists, and administrator knowledge (completed by administrator). The Instructional Quality Rating (IQR) is 70% of the Summative Overall Rating (SOR) and is the cumulative rating of a teacher’s performance (Highly Effective, Effective, Emerging Effective/Minimally Effective, or Not Effective) on each of the 12 CTESS standards.

The following table summarizes the decision rules used for determining an IQR:

Steps

If…

Then IQR is…

Standards 1, 2, and 5 are Highly Effective AND remaining standards Effective… 7 or more standards are Highly Effective AND remaining standards are Effective… All standards are either Effective or Highly Effective… 3 or more standards are Emerging Effective or Minimally Effective…

1

Highly Effective

2

Highly Effective

3

Effective

Emerging Effective or Minimally Effective Emerging Effective or Minimally Effective

4

5

1 Standard is Not Effective…

6

2 or more standards are Not Effective…

Not Effective

7

Standard 1, 2, 5 or 12 is Not Effective

Not Effective

8

Otherwise…

Effective

Classroom PBIS (Standard 1), State Core Standards (Standard 2), and Student Engagement (Standard 5) have the greatest impact on student achievement; therefore, these standards have a stronger emphasis in determining an IQR. Ethical Behavior (Standard 12), while not directly related to student achievement, is a foundational requirement for all Utah educators. If the teacher does not agree with any portion of the Instructional Quality Rating (IQR), the teacher has the right to submit a written response expressing his/her views. This written response must be submitted to the evaluator and to the Director of Human Resources within fifteen (15) calendar days and will be retained in the teacher’s personnel file.

25

Self-Assessment: Professional Learning Goal (Teacher Responsibility)

The annual Self-Assessment is a required component of the USBE evaluation model to link instructional practices to student achievement. The process for completing the Self-Assessment Template involves developing a Professional Learning Goal, then implementing the plan, and then reflecting on progress toward that goal. • Administrators may grant an extension to the due dates for special circumstances such as illness, extended leave, or family emergency. Part 1: Self-Assessment and Goal Setting Teachers will review their most recent IPOP data and feedback from their school administrator in order to target which instructional practice to work toward improving in the coming school year. • Teachers who are new to CSD and do not yet have IPOP data, should base their Professional Learning Goal on an instructional strategy from one of the following CTESS Standards: Classroom PBIS (Standard 1), Utah Core Standards (Standard 2), Student Engagement (Standard 5), or Feedback (Standard 6). • By August 30, teachers must submit a Professional Learning Goal based on their most recent formal IPOP data and administrator feedback, if available. Teachers who do not submit their Professional Learning Goal by the due date will receive a reminder e-mail. If teachers still do not submit their Professional Learning Goal after receiving the reminder e-mail, they will then receive a Memo of Concern from their school administrator. • Administrators may provide feedback regarding individual Professional Learning Goals and request revisions as needed. A Professional Learning Goal is a statement about the instructional practices that a teacher intends to implement to increase the likelihood that students will master the content . • Yearly Professional Learning Goals focus on individual educators’ professional growth and are linked to projected student outcomes. • Teachers determine the instructional adjustments that are most likely to lead to students acquiring growth toward targeted skills (this is the Professional Learning Goal). • Teachers identify what evidence will demonstrate progress toward the Professional Learning Goal and how frequently this evidence will be collected to monitor progress. • Teachers consider their most recent IPOP data, administrator’s feedback, and possibly a schoolwide or team goal. • Teachers who are new to CSD and do not yet have IPOP data, should base their Professional Learning Goal on an instructional strategy from Standard 1, 2, 5, or 6. Teachers will complete the following sentence starters in order to generate the Professional Learning Goal: • My professional learning goal is to adjust my instruction in the following way(s)… • I will collect the following data to demonstrate my progress in implementing these instructional adjustments (include when and how t he data are collected)… The steps below detail how teachers develop an annual Professional Learning Goal: Step 1: Teachers develop the Professional Learning Goal using the SMART goal framework using recent IPOP data and administrator feedback. • Professional Learning Goal: •

26