Comprehensive Professional Evaluation
Overview
A robust professional evaluation system supports teachers, student services professionals and administrators in achieving professional growth through a process that is fair and consistent across the district. In ProComp, professional evaluation is intended to recognize and reward teachers and SSPs who demonstrate proficient practice. The new Comprehensive Professional Evaluation (CPE) system was designed collaboratively by teachers, administrators, specialists and parent representatives.
Goal
“Our intention was to design an evaluation tool and process that was based on working collaboratively and highlighting personal and professional growth through shared responsibilities and meaningful dialogues,” the Professional Evaluation Work group explained in the evaluation handbook. “Our goal was to create an evaluation process that clearly articulated standards and expectations so administrators, teachers and SSPs could focus on improving student achievement within a system that would fully support their dreams and objectives.”
Purpose
Professional performance evaluations serve these purposes:
u Improve student instruction and services
u Communicate the District’s objectives and direct its work force
u Inspire professional growth and development of licensed personnel
u Determine and document satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance and
u Measure the level of performance of all personnel covered by the DPS-DCTA Master Agreement.
The ultimate goal in this evaluation process is to improve student achievement by defining quality instruction and increasing the use of effective, research-based practices in a collaborative process with all who want to make Denver Public Schools the best place to educate all children.
Types of Evaluation
There are three types of evaluation:
1. Probationary – Evaluations conducted annually during the educator’s probationary employment
2. Non-probationary – Evaluations conducted every three years for teachers and SSPs who have successfully completed their probationary period.
3. Special evaluations conducted when a supervisor determines that a teacher or SSP requires assistance in a non-evaluation year.
Special Services and Related Service Provider Appraiser Designation
|
Area |
Appraisal Conducted By |
Definitions and Other |
|
Nurses |
*Home School Principal |
*The Home School for Nurses, OT/PT, Psychologists, Social Workers and Speech Language Specialists is where the provider spends the majority of their time per week. The Home School is determined by the Manager. Managers will notify Human Resources and Principals of home school designations.
Note: Building Administrators may call on Managers and/or Team Leaders for support (e.g., a principal may ask the appropriate Manager/Team Leader for technical assistance). MANDATORY: Principal should consult with Manager/Team Leader and other assigned Principals for input if the Specialist is on probation or a remediation plan. |
|
Social Workers |
*Home School Principal | |
|
Psychologists |
*Home School Principal | |
|
Occupational/Physical Therapists |
*Home School Principal | |
|
Speech Language Specialists |
Home School Principal | |
|
Hearing Itinerants Audiologists |
Student Services Administrator that oversees the Hearing Department | |
|
Specialist/Special Education Teachers on teams (BEST, ATRT, MAST, AUTISM, VISION, Child Find, TRANSITION) |
Student Services Administrator in conjunction with input from Managers and Team Leader | |
|
Specialist/Special Education Teachers assigned to special projects, independent of other school assignments |
Appraised by the Administrator who is the immediate supervisor | |
|
Team Leaders |
Appraised by the Administrator who is the immediate supervisor | |
|
Objective Setting: If the specialist is assigned a home school, objectives are jointly approved by home school principal and/or relevant manager for specialists. Principal will determine if objectives were met. If the specialist is not assigned to a home school designation, relevant manager approves objectives and determines if objectives were met. | ||
Performance Standards
Teachers are evaluated on five standards:
Standard 1: Instruction
Standard 2: Assessment
Standard 3: Curriculum and Planning
Standard 4: Learning Environment
Standard 5: Professional Responsibilities
Student Services Professionals are evaluated on five similar standards, which can vary according to their discipline:
Standard 1: Direct Service/Instructional Support
Standard 2: Assessment
Standard 3: Program and Planning
Standard 4: Consultation and Contribution to the Learning Environment
Standard 5: Professional Responsibilities
Each standard has multiple criteria with a number of indicators that can be used to evaluate whether the educator is meeting the standards. A criterion for assessment, for example, is that the educator uses and interprets a variety of assessments to monitor and evaluate students. Criterion for professional responsibilities include collaborating with identified team on expectations, strategies and use of data; engaging families in the learning process; and demonstrating integrity, professional and ethical standards.
Process
Formal evaluation includes several distinct steps:
u Orientation and notification of evaluation
u Pre-observation conference with the evaluator
u Formal observation
u Post-observation conference
u Mid-evaluation structured conference – Educator provides the evaluator with Records of Teaching/Service that address all five standards
u Additional observation (probationary teachers and SSP's)
u Comprehensive Evaluation – Educator completes an action plan to be shared with the evaluator at the final meeting to sign documents
If the educator receives an overall rating of unsatisfactory, the educator will be placed on a plan for remediation.
Note: All forms and the complete Professional Evaluation Handbook can be found at MyDPS, a special work place on the DPS portal that can be found by going to the “Staff” page from the DPS home page and clicking on the MyDPS link on the top of the page.
Satisfactory Comprehensive Performance Ratings
For those enrolled in ProComp, a pay raise is based on a performance rating of satisfactory. Evaluators will use the performance evaluation process to identify how well educators are meeting the five performance standards and corresponding criteria. The ratings include:
Exceeding (E)
Meeting, (M)
Developing (D)
Not Meeting (NM) expectations
A rating is given for each performance standard and each criterion on the comprehensive performance form. Educators who meet and/or exceed expected levels of performance positively influence the performance of students and other staff members. Educators who meet expectations reflect a high standard of performance. Educators who are developing toward or not meeting a performance standard will be offered assistance and professional development opportunities to improve.
When an evaluator and educator complete the comprehensive professional evaluation, the result is a contractual recommendation of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance for the purpose of determining a pay raise. Only educators rated as satisfactory will receive a pay raise. In order to receive this comprehensive rating, an<S> </S>evaluator must rate an educator “Developing,” “Meeting” or “Exceeding” on all five performance standards.
An evaluator will rate an educator’s comprehensive performance as unsatisfactory, if he or she determines a “Not Meeting” expectation:
For one or more performance standards or
For a total of five or more criteria (across all performance standards)
To determine whether an educator is not meeting expectations on a standard, the evaluator must ascertain that the educator is performing at the “Not Meeting” expectation on 50% or more of the criteria for that standard.
If the evaluator perceives that an educator is headed toward an unsatisfactory comprehensive rating, he or she should schedule a meeting with the educator as soon as possible to discuss this concern.
Prior to giving an “unsatisfactory" rating, it is important that the evaluator meets with the educator a minimum of two times to discuss his or her performance, provide documentation, offer suggestions or assistance for improvement, and monitor performance aimed at improvement. In addition, the evaluator must provide an explanation of the “Not Meeting” expectation in the comments section of the Comprehensive Performance form.