DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of the Secretary

PROPOSED

Education Impact Analysis Pursuant To 14 Del.C. Section 122(d)

107A Specialist Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II) Revised

A. Type of Regulatory Action Required

Amendment to Existing Regulation

B. Synopsis of Subject Matter of the Regulation

The Secretary of Education seeks the consent of the State Board of Education to amend 14 DE Admin. Code 107A Specialist Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II) Revised. The amendments include, but are not limited to: 1) changing the effective date to the more broad date of the 2011-2012 school year; 2) revising language to reflect the new state assessment; 3) adding new appraisal criteria to the Planning and Preparation and Instruction Appraisal Components; 4) changing language to reflect the current Student Record System; 5) revision to the number of Appraisal Criteria needed in order for an Appraisal Component to be Satisfactory because of the additional criteria; 6) revising the definition of “Highly Effective”; 7) providing interim provisions for the determination of Effective, Needs Improvement and Ineffective for the Summative Evaluation Rating; 8) revising the parameters around when an Improvement Plan is needed; 9) specifying in the Challenge Process that the process includes meeting with the specialist; and 10) that the Department will monitor the evaluation implementation.

Persons wishing to present their views regarding this matter may do so in writing by the close of business on or before September 2, 2011 to Susan Haberstroh, Education Associate, Regulation Review, Department of Education, at 401 Federal Street, Suite 2, Dover, Delaware 19901. A copy of this regulation is available from the above address or may be viewed at the Department of Education business office.

C. Impact Criteria

1. Will the amended regulation help improve student achievement as measured against state achievement standards? The amended regulation is related to specialist evaluation and should support improved student achievement as measured against state achievement standards.

2. Will the amended regulation help ensure that all students receive an equitable education? The amended regulation is related to specialist evaluation and does not specifically address all students’ receiving an equitable education.

3. Will the amended regulation help to ensure that all students’ health and safety are adequately protected? The amended regulation is related to specialist evaluation and does not specifically address students’ health and safety.

4. Will the amended regulation help to ensure that all students’ legal rights are respected? The amended regulation is related to specialist evaluation and does not specifically address all students’ legal rights.

5. Will the amended regulation preserve the necessary authority and flexibility of decision making at the local board and school level? The amendments do not change the authority or flexibility of decision making at the local board and school level.

6. Will the amended regulation place unnecessary reporting or administrative requirements or mandates upon decision makers at the local board and school levels? The amendments do not place unnecessary reporting or administrative requirements or mandates upon decision makers at the local board and school levels.

7. Will the decision making authority and accountability for addressing the subject to be regulated be placed in the same entity? The decision making authority does not change because of the amendments.

8. Will the amended regulation be consistent with and not an impediment to the implementation of other state educational policies, in particular to state educational policies addressing achievement in the core academic subjects of mathematics, science, language arts and social studies? The amendments are consistent with other state educational policies.

9. Is there a less burdensome method for addressing the purpose of the regulation? The amendments do not significantly change the method for specialist evaluation which is the purpose of the regulation.

10. What is the cost to the State and to the local school boards of compliance with the regulation? There are no additional costs to the State or to the local boards or charter schools because of compliance to the regulation with the amendments.

107A Specialist Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II) Revised

The Specialist Appraisal Process, Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II) Revised shall be effective for all school districts and charter schools beginning July 1, 2011, with the 2011-12 school year and shall, at such time, replace the current 14 DE Admin. Code 107 Specialist Appraisal Process, Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II).

The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this regulation:

“Announced Observation” shall consist of the Pre-observation Form and conference with the evaluator, an observation by the evaluator at an agreed upon date and time, using the associated formative conferences and reports. The observation for the specialist may be a collection of data over a specified period of time, up to four (4) weeks, or it may be an observation of sufficient length, at least thirty (30) minutes, to gather appropriate data and assess specialist performance.

“Board” shall mean a local board of education or a charter school board of directors.

“Credentialed Evaluator” shall mean the individual, usually the supervisor of the specialist, who has successfully completed the evaluation training in accordance with 10.0. The Credentialed Evaluator may also be referred to as Evaluator.

“DASA” shall mean the Delaware Association of School Administrators.

“DPAS II Revised Guide for Specialists” shall mean the manual that contains the prescribed forms, detailed procedures, specific details about the five (5) components of evaluation and other relevant documents that are used to implement the appraisal process.

“DSEA” shall mean the Delaware State Education Association.

“Experienced Specialist” shall mean a specialist who holds a valid and current Continuing or Advanced License, issued pursuant to Chapter 12 of Title 14 of the Delaware Code; or Standard or Professional Status Certificate issued prior to August 1, 2003 or holds a valid and current license from his or her respective licensure body.

“Improvement Plan” shall be the plan that a specialist and evaluator mutually develop in accordance with 8.0.

“Interim assessment” shall mean an assessment given at regular and specified intervals throughout the school year, and designed to evaluate students’ knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of academic standards, and the results of which can be aggregated (e.g., by course, grade level, school, or school district) in order to inform teachers, administrators, and specialists at the student, classroom, school, and district levels.

“Novice Specialist” shall mean a specialist who holds a valid and current Initial License issued pursuant to Chapter 12 of Title 14 of the Delaware Code or holds a valid and current license from his or her respective licensure body.

“Satisfactory Component Rating” shall mean the specialist’s performance demonstrates an understanding of the concepts of the component under Chapter 12 of Title 14 of the Delaware Code.

“Satisfactory Evaluation” shall be equivalent to the overall Highly Effective, Effective or Needs Improvement rating on the Summative Evaluation and shall be used to qualify for a continuing license.

"Specialist" shall mean an educator other than a teacher or administrator and includes, but is not limited to, School Counselors, Library Media Specialists, School Psychologists, and School Nurses.

“State Assessment” shall mean the Delaware Student Testing Program (DSTP) or its successor Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System (DCAS).

“Student Achievement” shall mean

(a) For tested grades and subjects:

(1) A student’s score on the DSTP or successor statewide assessment DCAS; and, as appropriate,

(2) Other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language proficiency assessment; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms. Such alternative measures shall be approved by the Department of Education and developed in partnership with input from the relevant specialist organizations or respective licensure body and the Delaware State Education Association (DSEA).

“Student Growth” shall mean the change in achievement data for an individual student between two points in time. Growth may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

“Summative Evaluation” shall be the final evaluation at the conclusion of the appraisal cycle.

“Unannounced Observation” shall consist of an observation by the evaluator at a date and time that has not been previously arranged using the associated formative conferences and reports. The observation shall be of sufficient length, at least thirty (30) minutes, to gather appropriate data and assess specialist performance.

“Unsatisfactory Component Rating” shall mean the specialist’s performance does not demonstrate an understanding of the concepts of the component.

“Unsatisfactory Evaluation” shall be the equivalent to the overall Ineffective rating on the Summative Evaluation.

“Working Day” shall mean a day when the employee would normally be working in that district or charter school.

3.1 Experienced specialists who have earned a rating of Highly Effective on their most recent Summative Evaluation shall receive a minimum of (1) Announced Observation each year with a Summative Evaluation at least once every two (2) years. The Student Improvement component for Highly Effective specialists shall be evaluated each year, regardless of whether or not a Summative Evaluation is conducted. If a Highly Effective specialist does not achieve a Satisfactory rating on the Student Improvement Component, the specialist shall receive a Summative Evaluation the following year, regardless of whether the specialist would otherwise be due for a Summative Evaluation pursuant to this section.

3.2 Experienced specialists who have earned a rating of Effective and have earned Satisfactory ratings on at least four (4) of the Appraisal Components found in 5.0, including Student Improvement, on his or her most recent Summative Evaluation shall receive a minimum of one (1) Announced Observation each year with a Summative Evaluation at least once every two (2) years. The Student Improvement component for Effective specialists shall be evaluated each year, regardless of whether or not a Summative Evaluation is conducted. If an Effective specialist does not achieve a Satisfactory rating on the Student Improvement Component, the specialist shall receive a Summative Evaluation the following year, regardless of whether the specialist would otherwise be due for a Summative Evaluation pursuant to this section.

3.3 Experienced specialists who are not otherwise included in 3.1 or 3.2 shall receive a minimum of one (1) Announced Observation and one (1) Unannounced Observation with a Summative evaluation at the end of the one (1) year period. These specialists shall have an Improvement Plan which may require additional observations and other types of monitoring as outlined in the DPAS II Revised Guide for Specialists.

3.4 Novice specialists shall receive a minimum of two (2) Announced Observation and one (1) Unannounced Observation with a Summative Evaluation at the end of the one year period. Novice specialists who have earned a rating of Needs Improvement or Ineffective on their most recent Summative Evaluation shall have an Improvement Plan which may require additional observations or other types of monitoring as outlined in the DPAS II Revised Guide for Specialists.

4.1 All districts and charter schools shall use the manual entitled DPAS II Revised Guide for Specialists as developed and as may be amended by the Department of Education in collaboration with DASA and DSEA to implement the appraisal system.

4.2 The manual shall contain, at a minimum, the following:

4.2.1 Specific details about each of the five (5) Appraisal Components listed in 5.1.

4.2.2 All forms or documents needed to complete the requirements of the appraisal process.

4.2.3 Specific procedures to implement the appraisal system.

5.1 The following five (5) Appraisal Components, including the four (4) any Appraisal Criteria specified for each, shall be the basis upon which the performance of a specialist shall be evaluated by a credentialed evaluator:

5.1.1 Planning and Preparation

5.1.1.1 Designing Coherent Programs or Services: Specialist designs activities and plans for services that support the needs of the students or clients served.

5.1.1.2 Demonstrating Knowledge of Best Practice and Models of Delivery: Specialist uses practices and models of delivery that are aligned with local and national standards.

5.1.1.3 Demonstrating Knowledge of Students or Clients: Specialist shows knowledge of the needs and characteristics of the students or clients, including their approaches to learning, knowledge, skills, and interests.

5.1.1.4 Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources: Specialist selects appropriate resources, either within or outside of the school, that support the needs of students or clients.

5.1.1.5 Demonstrating Knowledge of How to Design or Use Student Assessments: Specialist creates and or selects assessments that are congruent with instructional goals, criteria and standards. The specialist plans for the use of formative and summative assessments of the specialist’s students.

5.1.2 Professional Practice and Delivery of Services

5.1.2.1 Creating an Environment to Support Student or Client Needs: Specialist creates an environment in which student or client needs are identified and valued. Specialist and student or client interactions show rapport that is grounded in mutual respect.

5.1.2.2 Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness: Specialist has a repertoire of instructional or professional strategies and makes modifications to services based on needs of the students or clients.

5.1.2.3 Communicating Clearly and Accurately: Verbal and written communication is clear and appropriate to students’ or clients’ ages, backgrounds, needs, or levels of understanding.

5.1.2.4 Delivering Services to Students or Clients: Specialist is responsive to the identified needs of the students or clients and meets standards of professional practice. The resources and materials are suitable and match the needs of the students or clients. The delivery of service is coherent.

5.1.3 Professional Collaboration and Consultation

5.1.3.1 Collaborating with Others: Specialist develops partnerships with school or district staff or external agencies to provide integrated services that meet student or client needs.

5.1.3.2 Serving as a Consultant to the School Community: Specialist shares expertise with school staff to assist them in their work or to respond to school wide issues, problems, or concerns.

5.1.3.3 Providing Resources and Access: Specialist provides school, district or external based resources to appropriate staff, students, or clients or gives information about the effective use of the resources.

5.1.3.4 Maintaining Standards of Professional Practice: Specialist adheres to his or her professional standards of practice, including issues surrounding confidentiality.

5.1.3.4 Communicating with Families: Specialist shares information about district or school educational programs and expectations for student or client performance. Specialist develops a mechanism for two way communication with families about student or client progress, behavior, personal needs, or concerns.

5.1.3.5 Use of Assessment in Planning and Delivery of Services: Specialist makes the criteria of the assessment known to the students, monitors the students’ progress, provides descriptive feedback, and promotes student self-assessment and uses data to plan future instruction.

5.1.4 Professional Responsibilities

5.1.4.1 Communicating with Families: Specialist shares information about district or school educational programs and expectations for student or client performance. Specialist develops a mechanism for two way communication with families about student or client progress, behavior, personal needs, or concerns. Maintaining Standards of Professional Practice: Specialist adheres to his or her professional standards of practice, including issues surrounding confidentiality.

5.1.4.2 Developing a Recording student data in a Record System: Specialist keeps student or client records relevant to their services and shares information with appropriate school personnel.

5.1.4.3 Growing and Developing Professionally: Specialist chooses and participates in professional development that is aligned with his or her professional needs and aligned with the needs of the school, district or students.

5.1.4.4 Reflecting on Professional Practice: Specialist engages in reflective thinking as an individual, as a team participant, or as a school and community member with the goal of improving professional practice and delivery of service.

5.1.5 Student Improvement

5.1.5.1 Measuring Student Improvement: Specialist’s sStudents collectively demonstrate appropriate levels of Student Growth as benchmarked against standards set by the Secretary based on input from stakeholder groups.

6.1 Each Appraisal Component shall be weighted equally and assigned a rating of Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory on the Summative Evaluation.

6.1.1 A satisfactory rating for each of the first four Appraisal Components shall mean the specialist demonstrates acceptable performance by meeting at least three (3) of the four (4) has no more than one unacceptable rating on the Appraisal Criteria specified in each of the five (5) components set forth in 5.1.

6.1.2 A satisfactory rating for the Student Improvement Component shall mean that the specialist demonstrates acceptable performance by meeting the standards set by the Secretary pursuant to 5.1.5.1.

6.2 The Summative Evaluation shall also include one of four overall ratings: Highly Effective, Effective, Needs Improvement or Ineffective.

6.2.1 Highly Effective shall mean that the specialist has earned a Satisfactory Component Rating in four (4) of the five (5) Appraisal Components in accordance with 5.0, including an Exceeds rating in the Student Improvement Component meaning and that the specialist’s students collectively demonstrate on average achieve high rates of student growth, as defined in the DPAS II Revised Guide for Specialists, as the same may be amended from time to time, developed pursuant to 4.0 of this regulation., that is, more than one grade level improvement in an academic year.

6.2.1.1 Notwithstanding 6.2.1 for the 2011-2012 school year, “Highly Effective” shall mean that the specialist has earned a Satisfactory Component rating in five (5) of the five (5) Appraisal Components in accordance with 5.0, including an Exceeds rating in the Student Improvement Component meaning that the students collectively demonstrate high rates of student growth as defined in the DPAS II Revised Guide for Specialists, as the same may be amended from time to time, developed pursuant to 4.0 of this regulation.

6.2.2 Effective shall mean that:

6.2.2.1 The specialist has received earned a Satisfactory Component Rating in at least three (3) Appraisal Components, including a Satisfactory rating in the Student Improvement Component, and

6.2.2.2 The specialist does not meet the requirements for a Highly Effective rating found in 6.2.1.

6.2.2.3 Notwithstanding 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.2.2 for the 2011-2012 school year, the specialist has earned a Satisfactory Component Rating in four (4) of the first four (4) Appraisal Components, and a Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory rating in the Student Improvement Component, and

6.2.2.4 The specialist does not meet the requirements for a "Highly Effective" rating found in 6.2.1.1.

6.2.3 Needs Improvement shall mean that:

6.2.3.1 The specialist has received earned one (1) or two (2) Satisfactory Component Ratings out of the five (5) Appraisal Components in accordance with 5.0, including a Satisfactory rating in the Student Improvement Component, or

6.2.3.2 The specialist has received earned three (3) or four (4) Satisfactory Component Ratings out of the five (5) Appraisal Components in accordance with 5.0, and the specialist has received earned an Unsatisfactory rating in the Student Improvement Component.

6.2.3.3 Notwithstanding 6.2.3.1 and 6.2.3.2 for the 2011-2012 school year, the specialist has earned a Satisfactory Component Rating in 3 (three) of the first four (4) Appraisal Components, and a Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory rating in the Student Improvement Component.

6.2.4 Ineffective shall mean that:

6.2.4.1 The specialist has received earned zero (0), one (1), or two (2) Satisfactory Component Ratings out of the five (5) Appraisal Components in accordance with 5.0, and

6.2.4.2 The specialist has received earned an Unsatisfactory Component Rating in the School Improvement Component.

6.2.4.35 If a specialist’s overall Summative Evaluation rating is determined to be “Needs Improvement” for the third consecutive year, the rating shall be re-categorized as “Ineffective”.

A pattern of ineffective practice shall be based on the most recent Summative Evaluation ratings of a specialist using the DPAS II process. Two consecutive ratings of Ineffective shall be deemed as a pattern of ineffective practice. The following chart shows the consecutive Summative Evaluation ratings that shall be determined to be a pattern of ineffective practice:

8.1 An Improvement Plan shall be developed for a specialist who receives an overall rating of Needs Improvement or Ineffective on the Summative Evaluation or a rating of Unsatisfactory on any component in 5.0 on the Summative Evaluation regardless of the overall rating.

8.1.1 An Improvement Plan shall also be developed if a specialist’s overall performance during an observation is unsatisfactory. This unsatisfactory performance shall be noted by the evaluator on the Formative Feedback form by noting “PERFORMANCE IS UNSATISFACTORY” and initialing the statement.

8.2 The Improvement Plan shall contain the following:

8.2.1 Identification of the specific deficiencies and recommended area(s) for growth;

8.2.2 Measurable goals for improving the deficiencies to satisfactory levels;

8.2.3 Specific professional development or activities to accomplish the goals;

8.2.4 Specific resources necessary to implement the plan, including but not limited to, opportunities for the specialist to work with curriculum specialist(s), subject area specialist(s), instructional specialist(s) or others with relevant expertise;

8.2.5 Procedures and evidence that must be collected to determine that the goals of the plan were met;

8.2.6 Timeline for the plan, including intermediate check points to determine progress;

8.2.7 Procedures for determining satisfactory improvement.

8.2.8 Multiple observations and opportunity for feedback provided by a trained evaluator, a mentor, or lead specialist, or an instructional coach.

8.3 The Improvement Plan shall be developed cooperatively by the specialist and evaluator. If the plan cannot be cooperatively developed, the evaluator shall have the authority and responsibility to determine the plan as specified in 8.2 above.

8.4 The specialist shall be held accountable for the implementation and completion of the Improvement Plan.

8.5 Upon completion of the Improvement Plan, the specialist and evaluator shall sign the documentation that determines the satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance of the plan.

9.1 A specialist may challenge any rating on the Summative Evaluation, either a Component Rating or the Overall Rating, or a specialist may challenge the conclusions of an observation if the statement PERFORMANCE IS UNSATISFACTORY has been included on the Formative Feedback form. To initiate a challenge, a specialist shall submit additional information specific to the point of disagreement in writing within fifteen (15) working days of the date of the specialist’s receipt of the Summative Evaluation. Such written response shall become part of the appraisal record and shall be attached to the Summative Evaluation. All challenges together with the record shall be forwarded to the supervisor of the evaluator unless the supervisor of the evaluator is also in the same building as the specialist. In this situation, the challenge together with the record shall be forwarded to a designated district or charter school level credentialed evaluator.

9.1.1 Within fifteen (15) working days of receiving the written challenge, the supervisor of the evaluator or the designated district or charter school level credentialed evaluator shall review the record which consists of all documents used in the appraisal process and the written challenge, meet with the specialist, and issue a written decision.

9.1.2 If the challenge is denied, the decision shall state the reasons for denial.

9.1.3 The decision of the supervisor of the evaluator or the designated district or charter school level credentialed evaluator shall be final.

10.1 Evaluators shall have successfully completed the DPAS II training as developed by the Department of Education. Evaluators shall receive a certificate of completion which is valid for five (5) years and is renewable upon completion of professional development focused on DPAS II as specified by the Department of Education.

10.1.1 The Department of Education shall annually monitor evaluation implementation.

10.2 The training for the certificate of completion shall include techniques for observation and conferencing, content and relationships of frameworks for practice and a thorough review of the DPAS II Revised Guide for Specialists. Activities in which participants practice implementation of DPAS II procedures shall be included in the training.

10.3 The credentialing process shall be conducted by the Department of Education.

The Department of Education shall conduct an annual evaluation of the teacher appraisal process. The evaluation shall, at a minimum, include a survey of teachers and evaluators and interviews with a sampling of teachers and evaluators. Data from the evaluation and proposed changes to the DPAS II Revised Guide for Teachers shall be presented to the State Board of Education for review on an annual basis.