Applying the Danielson Framework for Teaching to Specialists and Licensed Professionals

1. Applying the Danielson Framework for Teaching to Specialists and Licensed Professionals A Guided Review and Discussion for Supervisors of Educational Specialists & Licensed Professionals

2. Project Goal • To develop educator effectiveness models that will reform the way we evaluate school professionals as well as the critical components of training and professional growth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDlaf7-JJ14&feature=related The term “educator” includes teachers, education specialists, and principals.

3. Educator Effectiveness Pagewww.education.state.pa.usBottom Right of Screen Click on Educator Effectiveness 3

4. Background • National Movement – PA has been piloting for 3yrs. • A multi-phase project that began with $800,000 Gates Foundation grant to facilitate the development of statewide policy, tools and processes to evaluate teachers and principals in which student achievement is a significant factor affecting performance ratings • PDE is closely following the work of the Pittsburgh Public Schools, recipients of a $40 million Gates Foundation grant that is more comprehensive in scope but similar in redesigning evaluation policy, tools and processes

5. Background • A University of Pittsburgh researcher is conducting a qualitative analysis regarding the effectiveness of principal training and the comprehensiveness, validity, transparency, practicality, and quality of the teacher evaluation system • A third party researcher is conducting a quantitative analysis evaluating the relationships between professional practices as measured by classroom observation scores and teacher contributions to student achievement

6. 2012-2013 Phase III Sites 293 Local Education Agencies, including School Districts, CTCs, Charter Schools and IUs 1,255 Schools 1,972 Supervisors 20,360 Teachers in PSSA tested subjects 3,771 Teachers in non-PSSA tested subjects

8. Non Teaching Professional Employee Effectiveness System in Act 82 of 2012 Effective 2014-2015 SY • Observation/Evidence • Danielson Framework Domains • Planning and Preparation • Educational Environment • Delivery of Service • Professional Development Student Performance of All Students in the School Building in which the Nonteaching Professional Employee is Employed District Designed Measures and Examinations Nationally Recognized Standardized Tests Industry Certification Examinations Student Projects Pursuant to Local Requirements Student Portfolios Pursuant to Local Requirements

9. Who are Educational Specialists? • Educational Specialists are defined in Pennsylvania School Code with the scope of their certificates and assignments described in Certification and Staffing Polices and Guidelines (CSPGs). • Currently CSPG 75 through 81 list the following specialist certifications: • Dental Hygienist • Elementary School Counselor • Home and School Visitor • Instructional Technology Specialist • Secondary School Counselor • School Nurse • School Psychologist

10. What about other Licensed Professionals hired under Teacher Contracts? • Given that many LEAs hire licensed professionals under teacher contracts who are not certificated as specialists under Pennsylvania School Code, PDE has made a decision to develop revised Danielson Framework for Teaching rubrics for the following roles, but their use is optional: • Occupational Therapist • Physical Therapist • Social Workers • Behavior Specialists

11. Framework Development for Specialists and Licensed Professionals • PDE recruited practitioners from across the Commonwealth and formed stakeholder workgroups to revise the Danielson Framework for Teaching to reflect their specific roles and functions. • These workgroups consisted of: • Practitioners- specialists and licensed professionals working in their respective fields in LEA’s • Representatives from State-wide professional organizations • Higher Education • PSEA representatives • IU representatives

12. The Stakeholder Workgroups utilized the following guiding principles • Each of the specialist (modified) rubrics must reflect and preserve the fundamental tenets of the Danielson Framework For Teaching (the official language of instruction for ALL educators across PA). • The stakeholder groups were trained by the Danielson Group in the Framework for Teaching and constructivist learning theory. • Must closely align with best-practices and national standards for the respective specialists/licensed professionals.

13. Next Steps: • Small Scale Pilot was held – Spring 2013 • Review of feedback and adjustments to the rubrics • Large Scale pilot (Fall, 2013 and Spring 2014) • Complete one observation and ratings no later than December 16th • Both evaluator and educator are to complete Surveys to be submitted to the American Institute for Research (AIR) by December 16th • Full-scale implementation per Act 82 (Fall, 2014)

14. Requirements of the Pilot • This is a pilot • Evidence gathered could be used in a specialist’s overall evaluation • This is no different than a principal identifying a strength or weakness of an employee when walking the halls. • However, the performance ratings that are reported in the pilot should not be used to make any high-stakes decisions. • Should not become part of the employee’s personnel file, etc.)

15. Requirements Cont… • If possible, it is strongly recommended that 2 different evaluators are assigned to each employee. • Each evaluator will have a pre-conference with the employee (2 separate pre-conferences).  • Each evaluator will conduct an observation utilizing the respective employee’s modified DRAFT rubric (observation). • Each evaluator and employee will review the evidence collected (post-conference).

16. Requirements Cont… • All evaluators and employees will complete a survey that will ask various questions about the instrument within the context of role and function, services and the evaluation process in general. • Evaluators will submit ratings for individual specialists and licensed professionals via an online data collection form. • This form will be completed by December 16th

17. Clarifying Questions and Feedback • Will Specialists professionals utilize the same evaluation process as the Danielson Framework for Teaching? • Pre-conference (evidence collection) • Observation (evidence collection) • Post-conference (evidence collection) YES! • Who should evaluate specialists professionals? This is a local decision, typically, Principals, IU Supervisors, Directors of Pupil Personnel, Directors of Special Education evaluate non-teaching professional employees 3. What about Licensed Professionals – Local Decision

18. Danielson’s Framework for Teaching • A research-based definition of good teaching • A roadmap to, and for navigating through, the complex territory of teaching • A framework for novice-level practitioners, through accomplished teaching The Framework for Teaching Charlotte Danielson

19. The Framework for Teaching The Framework for Teaching Charlotte Danielson 19

20. Let’s Do a Comparison Activity • Identifying the Domains in Daily Practice…. • Compare your Framework to the Framework for Teaching • Where are the obvious connections? • What evidence might you be able to collect to demonstrate proficiency in a particular Domain or Component?

21. What did you notice? • Let’s share out… • Observations? • Challenges? • Questions? • What it the Evidence that is to be Collected? • How do you know it is evidence?

22. Evidence vs. Opinion • This is Key! • Keeping the process transparent • Let’s look at some examples.

23. Reading the Rubric

24. A Peek at Customized Danielson Rubrics for… Educational Specialists and Licensed Professionals 17

25. Deeper Dive Into the Rubrics • Using the scenario cards at your tables • Identify the Domain • Identify the Component • Identify the Proficiency Level • Work independently • One card per specialist • Share at a table • Come to Consensus

26. Is It Always Clear? • What were your challenges with coming to consensus? • Deciding the proficiency level: • Challenges? • Concerns?

27. Working With Expanded Rubrics Activity: Let’s take some time to look at your specific rubric… • Expanded version • Includes Examples and Evidence • Read the entire rubric – pay special attention to Proficient and Distinguished

28. Working With Your Own Rubric • Develop a realistic example of the Distinguished Performance in each of the four Domains. • You may choose any component • OT’s and PT’s – choose two components from one of your Domains (you only have 3 Domains) • Share • Your examples • The difference between Proficient and Distinguished

30. Requirements of the Pilot • This is a pilot • Evidence gathered could be used in a specialist’s overall evaluation • This is no different than a principal identifying a strength or weakness of an employee when walking the halls. • However, the performance ratings that are reported in the pilot should not be used to make any high-stakes decisions. • Should not become part of the employee’s personnel file, etc.)

31. Requirements Cont… • If possible, it is strongly recommended that 2 different evaluators are assigned to each employee. • Each evaluator will have a pre-conference with the employee (2 separate pre-conferences).  • Each evaluator will conduct an observation utilizing the respective employee’s modified DRAFT rubric (observation). • Each evaluator and employee will review the evidence collected (post-conference).

32. Requirements Cont… • All evaluators and employees will complete a survey that will ask various questions about the instrument within the context of role and function, services and the evaluation process in general. • Evaluators will submit ratings for individual specialists and licensed professionals via an online data collection form. • This form will be available by the end of March or the Beginning of April

33. The Cycle Agreed Upon Areas of Focus Domains 1, 2 and 3 Domains 1, 2, 3, and 4 Domains 1, 2, 3, and 4

34. Ticket Out the Door One Strength/Positive One Challenge

35. Dr. Patricia DiRienzo AIU #3 patricia.dirienzo@aiu3.net Cristine Wagner-Deitch BVIU #27 clw@bviu.org Contact Information www.pattan.net Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Tom Corbett, Governor Pennsylvania Department of Education Ronald J. Tomalis, Secretary Carolyn C. Dumaresq, Ed. D., Deputy Secretary Office of Elementary and Secondary Education John J. Tommasini, Director Bureau of Special Education Patricia Hozella, Assistant Director Bureau of Special Education