Teacher Evaluation

Today I want to briefly discuss Penn-Trafford’s teacher supervision model.  The model is based on the Charlotte Danielson model of teacher evaluation.  This model is grounded by a 22 section rubric.  The rubric has three domains: Domain I deals with Planning and Preparation, Domain II deals with The Classroom Environment, Domain III concentrates on Instruction, and Domain IV showcases professional Responsibilities.  Teachers are expected to be “proficient” or “distinguished” in all areas.  If not, there is an expectation that help will be given to the teacher and improvement must be made in the areas of deficiency.

The supervision model places teachers in one of three areas. The first area is called the “Differentiated Supervision Model”.  This area is for teachers that are doing a very good job. In this model teachers are informally observed many times a year.  They are evaluated based on how well they have accomplished goals that they have set out for themselves and their classroom for the year.  The second area is called the “General Supervision Model”.  This model is a more traditional model of teacher supervision where teachers are observed twice a year and evaluated at the end of the year.  All teachers are cycled through this model every 5 years. So in any given year a minimum of 1/3 of the teachers are in this model. This allows for a more formal supervision to make sure everything is going well.  This model also serves as a “transition” for teachers if they are moved out of (or into) the Structured Model or Differentiated Model.  The last area is called the “Structured Supervision Model”. In this model there is a team of administrators and teacher colleagues that help support the teachers.  The Structured Model is composed of two parts.  The first is for teachers that do not have tenure or those teachers that are new to the school district.  We want to make sure these teachers get the most support as they start their careers or are coming to the school district with tenure.  The second part is for teachers that are deemed “at risk”.  These are employees that need a lot of support to become good teachers.  Regardless of whether you are new to the district or are considered “at risk”, in this model, a teacher is formally observed a minimum of four times a year and given a formal evaluation twice during that year (typically half way through the year and at the end of the year).  In addition, “at risk” teachers have an improvement plan that they must adhere to in order to reach a satisfactory rating.  

Regardless of being in the Differentiated, General, or Structured Model, the building principals have countless informal observations of the teacher.  Our principals do an outstanding job of being in the classrooms.  A teacher is given a “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory” rating based on their performance in the classroom.  However, the district can always give an unsatisfactory rating (or fire someone) if their behavior warrants those actions.  In other words, the supervision model does not take in all of the discipline options available to the school district.  The school district can start proceedings to fire a teacher once they have received two consecutive ratings of “unsatisfactory”.   Of course it is the responsibility of the school district to show that we have given support and tried to help the at risk teacher. It has always been my goal to make sure I do everything possible to help an at risk employee because ultimately we want the employee to become the best employee possible. In my experience, if the district shows a good faith effort in helping an “at risk” employee, and that employee does not improve, and then the employee usually ends up not working for the school district anymore.  

Pennsylvania has adopted an evaluation system that is similar to the one that I have just described.  It is a Danielson based system.  However, PT’s system is much more rigorous in that we have three different “models” within the system.  The State’s system clumps everyone into one system. One requirement of the new evaluation system is that at least 50% of the teacher’s overall evaluation will be based on the Danielson rubric and the other 50% must be based on data (i.e. test scores).  The 50% for data is broken down in the following way: 15% will be based on building level test data (how well the building does on the PSSA exams); 15% will be based on teacher specific data (how well students in a teachers class do on the PSSA test); 20% is “elective” data.  The elective data is chosen by the school district and can be chosen from the following list:  National Tests, District Rubrics, IEP Growth, Projects, Portfolios or Surveys.  All school districts in Pennsylvania must choose these elective data sets in the upcoming year.

You can find the entire Penn-Trafford Teacher Evaluation here.

Questions concerning Common Core

Today I want to clear the air on some misconceptions that I have been confronted with concerning the Penn Trafford School District and the Common Core.  Before I begin, I want to state that one can have an opinion on the Common Core based on facts.  I have blogged twice about the Common Core.  The first time I discussed some of the problems surrounding the Common Core; the second time I discussed the impact of the Common Core on our school district.  My purpose in this blog is to dispel some blatant falsehoods concerning the Common Core and our school district.

1. People have approached me and said that the Common Core requires Penn Trafford to teach sex education in kindergarten.  For those of us with kids in school we know that is false.  Penn Trafford has aligned our curriculum to the Common Core and I can assure you that there is no sex education in kindergarten.  As a matter of fact, the earliest that our curriculum really addresses those issues is in eighth grade when the curriculum approaches the subject of Aids.  But even at that juncture, a parent can have their student opt out of the discussion of Aids even though the discussion revolves around the spread and aftermath of the Aids virus.  It is simply malignant lies to lead anyone to believe that our school district will be teaching sex education in Kindergarten.

2. There is a misconception that the Common Core will require the school district to replace the teaching of classic literature with "presidential orders".  I am not sure exactly what this means, but I can tell you the facts about what happens in the school.  The school district approves the  novels that are  taught in the school district.  These novels have not changed much over the past 40 years.  The teachers determine what novels to teach that will best teach our curriculum.  The classics are still a large part of that.  I am not aware of any presidential orders being substituted for classic literature.  The books the students read are still very much a local, school board decision.

3. I have been approached and told that because funding to the schools is tied to the Common Core that the administrators will not speak against the Common Core.  First, there is no funding at Penn Trafford that is tied in to the Common Core.  I have never been told by anyone that I must agree to the Common Core to continue State funding.  To think otherwise is ludicrous.  I am offended that someone would think that I would jeopardize my integrity by choosing money from the State over kids.

There are many legitimate complaints one can have against the Common Core.  I have my opinions as well.  However, all of us must be educated on the facts and what is actually happening in the school district and the State.  Check out PDE and actually read the Common Core standards, that is a good place to start. Until then, I encourage everyone not to resort to lies and fearmongering.  The Common Core can either be stricken down or stand on their own without exaggeration, lies and misinformation.

Preliminary Budget Passes

On Monday, the Board passed a preliminary budget for the 2013-2014 school year.  Pennsylvania requires that school districts vote on the budget twice and that there be at least a 30 day time period between votes.  This is the reason that the first vote is considered a preliminary vote. 

The budget for the 2013-2014 totals $49,305,888.00.  This is an increase of $632,572 (1.3%) over the current budget.  The district saved over $800,000.00 by not replacing 7 retiring teachers and one central office administrator.  Since the 2007-2008 school year, the school district has trimmed teaching staff by 33 positions.  The loss of teaching staff parallels the school district's declining enrollment.  I know there is a lot of discussion in the media concerning the teacher pension issue.  Fortunately for the school district, the Board started planning for this event years ago by putting money aside for the sharp increases in contributions that the district will realize in the upcoming years.  There is now more than $2,000,000.00 in the pension fund.  With that being said, the school district has not started to use the fund yet.   As a matter of fact, our budget projections indicate that with retirement projections and the natural increase in State funding the district will be able to withstand the pension increases (hopefully) without ever using the pension fund; kudos to the Board and Administration when they started to plan for this eventuality a few years ago.  The budget that was passed on Monday does not include a property tax increase.  The Board will discuss whether they feel it is beneficial to start adding millage to the renovation project.  Currently, the Board has 10 mils available for building renovation and they will discuss the merits (or demerits) of slowly adding millage to that figure over the next few years starting at the meeting on Monday, May 13^th.  

The budget can be viewed from our web site or people can come to the administrative offices and view a hard copy.  In addition, the budget presentation that was presented to the Board can be found here.