[51 Pa.B. 1653]
[Saturday, March 27, 2021]

[Continued from previous Web Page]

§ 19.3a. Principal evaluation.

 Educator Effectiveness rating tools, comprised of instructions and forms, function as summary records in the evaluation of the effectiveness of professional employees as defined. Educator Effectiveness rating tools shall be used in accordance with the General Provisions contained in § 19.1a (relating to general provisions).

 Table 19.3a-1 represents the rating form for the evaluation of principals, including assistant or vice principals, directors of career and technical centers, and directors of special education, and depicts the significance (that is, weighting) of each rating area to the overall performance rating.

Table 19.3a-1: PDE 13-2 Rating Form

PDE 13-2		Department of Education Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
LEA:		School:
Employee Name (Last, First, Middle):
Rating Period:	[  ] Professional Employee  or  [  ] Temporary Professional Employee
Date Completed:	[  ] Annual Evaluation  or  [  ] Semi-Annual Evaluation (Temporary only)

PRINCIPAL RATING FORM
(A) OBSERVATION & PRACTICE
Domain		Rating (a)	Factor* (b)	Adjusted Rating (a x b)
Strategic/Cultural Leadership		[0—3]	10%—30%	[0—0.90]
Systems Leadership		[0—3]	10%—30%	[0—0.90]
Leadership for Learning		[0—3]	10%—30%	[0—0.90]
Professional & Community Leadership		[0—3]	10%—30%	[0—0.90]
(A) Observation & Practice Rating				[0—3]
*The four assigned factors must total 100%.
(B) STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Building Level Score**				Converted to a 0—3 Point Scale
				[0—3]
**Scores for principals assigned to multiple buildings shall be calculated pro rata.
(C) PERFORMANCE GOALS
Performance Goals Rating				[0—3]
(D) PRINCIPAL SUMMATIVE RATING (ALL MEASURES)
Principal Category	Measure	Rating (f)	Factor (g)	Adjusted Rating (f x g)
Principal/Temporary Principal with Building Level Data	Observation & Practice	[0—3]	70%	[0—2.10]
Building Level Data	[0—3]	10%	[0—0.30]
Performance Goals	[0—3]	20%	[0—0.60]
PRINCIPAL WITH BUILDING LEVEL DATA RATING				[0—3]***
Principal/Temporary Principal w/out Building Level Data	Observation & Practice	[0—3]	80%	[0—2.40]
Performance Goals	[0—3]	20%	[0—0.60]
PRINCIPAL W/OUT BUILDING LEVEL DATA RATING				[0—3]***
***Final Rating Values		0 Failing	1 Needs Improvement	2         3 Proficient   Distinguished

I certify the afore-named employee has received a performance rating of:  [  ] DISTINGUISHED      [  ] PROFICIENT      [  ] NEEDS        [  ] FAILING IMPROVEMENT
Distinguished, Proficient, or Needs Improvement* shall be considered Satisfactory. Failing shall be considered Unsatisfactory.
*A second Needs Improvement rating issued by the same employer within 4 years of the first where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered Unsatisfactory.
The performance rating shall be deemed:   [  ] SATISFACTORY                      [  ] UNSATISFACTORY
Date:	Rater Name/Position:
Date:	Chief School Administrator Signature:
I acknowledge that I have read the information contained herein and that I have been provided an opportunity to discuss it with the rater.
Date:	Employee Signature:
Employee signature does not signify agreeance with the performance rating.

 (a) Observation and Practice

 (1) The evaluation of the effectiveness of a professional employee serving as a principal shall be based on observation and practice models (see Table 19.1a-1: Rating Areas and Significance by Professional Employee Evaluated).

 (2) Approved practice models related to planning and preparation, school environment, delivery of service and professional development shall be aligned to four domains of leadership and published on the Department's web site. The practice models and four domains establish a framework for the Observation and Practice evaluation of principals. An LEA may use any portion or combination of the approved practice models associated with a domain in determining a domain rating for the professional employee.

 (3) A rating must be given in each of the four domains, with each domain rating constituting a percentage of the single, summative Observation and Practice rating.

 (4) The percentage, or weighting, assigned to each domain must be established before the start of the evaluation period by the principal and the evaluator (see Table 19.3a-2: Principal Observation & Practice Weighting by Domain).

 (i) No domain shall be assigned a value of less than 10% or greater than 30%.

 (ii) The total of the four domains must equal 100% of the rating for Observation and Practice.

Table 19.3a-2: Principal Observation & Practice Weighting by Domain

	DOMAIN	PERCENTAGE OF OBSERVATION & PRACTICE RATING
I.	Strategic/Cultural Leadership	10%—30%
II.	Systems Leadership	10%—30%
III.	Leadership for Learning	10%—30%
IV.	Professional & Community Leadership	10%—30%

 (5) The rating for each domain of principal practice shall be based on the four levels of performance as defined in Table 19.3a-3.

Table 19.3a-3: The Four Levels of Performance by Domain* (Principal)

I. STRATEGIC/CULTURAL LEADERSHIP (10%—30%)
School leaders/supervisors systematically and collaboratively develop a positive, equitable, and inclusive culture to promote continuous student growth and staff development. They articulate and model a clear vision for the school that meaningfully engages all students, communities, and staff.
Failing	Needs Improvement	Proficient	Distinguished
The school leader/supervisor provides little or no strategic direction with most work being done by staff in isolation.   Decisions are not student-focused and reflect opinion with little use of data. Fails to recognize the need for change.	The school leader/supervisor provides some strategic direction with a few collaborative processes in place.   Data is used sparingly to make decisions with some focus on improvement. The culture is moderately student-centered.   Change occurs only when required to meet the expectations of others.	The school leader/supervisor utilizes a data-based vision that is student-centered.   The culture is collaborative with a focus on continuous improvement. The staff is held accountable for student success.   Change is evidence based.	The school leader/supervisor establishes a future-focused, data-based vision around individual student success.   The culture is highly collaborative with staff accepting responsibility for the achievement of each student.   Change for continuous improvement is embraced.
II. SYSTEMS LEADERSHIP (10%—30%)
School leaders/supervisors ensure that there are processes and systems in place for budgeting, staffing, problem solving, communicating expectations, and scheduling that result in organizing the work routines. They must manage efficiently, effectively, and safely to foster student achievement in a positive, equitable, inclusive environment.
Failing	Needs Improvement	Proficient	Distinguished
The school leader/supervisor establishes an educational environment that is characterized by disorder and conflict with no plan evident for school safety.   Resources are allocated with little or no focus on the needs of students.   Staff is low performing with no system designed to improve.	The school leader/supervisor establishes an educational environment in which rules and regulations partially support orderly conduct and school safety.   Educator evaluations are completed as an administrative process only.   Resources are not allocated equitably to meet the needs of all students.	The school leader/supervisor establishes and communicates a clear plan for school safety.   An effective educator evaluation system is used to improve instruction.   Time schedules, student scheduling, and other resources are structured to meet the needs of all students.	The school leader/supervisor clearly involves all staff in the development and implementation of a safe school plan.   Evidence-based research and strategies are mainstays of a plan for improvement of instruction.   Staff and students maintain a respectful environment and celebrate differences.   Resources are equitably allocated based upon student need and are aligned with a clearly stated vision.
III. LEADERSHIP FOR LEARNING (10%—30%)
School leaders/supervisors ensure that a standards-aligned system is in place to address, in a positive, equitable, and inclusive manner, the linkage of curriculum, instruction, assessment; data on student learning; and educator effectiveness based on research and emerging, evidence-based best practices.
Failing	Needs Improvement	Proficient	Distinguished
The school leader/supervisor establishes an educational environment that is characterized by low expectations for both students and staff.   Curriculum, instruction, and assessment are viewed as independent entities.   No plan for improvement exists.   Significant interruptions to instructional time frequently occur.	The school leader/supervisor establishes an educational environment that is characterized by inconsistent expectations.   Effort is being made to align curriculum, instruction, and assessment.   School improvement efforts are sporadic.   The quality of instruction is inconsistent.   A moderate number of interruptions occur.	The school leader/supervisor regularly and consistently communicates high expectations to staff, students, and community.   Curriculum, instruction, and assessment are aligned.   The school leader/supervisor is at the forefront of improvement efforts and assures high quality instruction is delivered to all students.   Instructional time is maximized with few or no interruptions.	The school leader/supervisor ensures students and staff support and maintain high expectations.   The school leader/supervisor and staff collaborate on a consistent basis to assess and align curriculum, instruction, and assessment.   School improvement efforts are jointly developed by the school leader/supervisor and staff.   Instructional time is highly valued and maximized without unnecessary interruptions.
IV. PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP (10%—30%)
School leaders/supervisors promote the success of all students, the positive interactions among building stakeholders, and the professional growth of staff by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
Failing	Needs Improvement	Proficient	Distinguished
The school leader/supervisor establishes little or no communication among school and the community.   Staff members exhibit low levels of professionalism.   Little or no professional development exists.	The school leader/supervisor establishes minimal levels of communication among school and the community.   Staff members exhibit moderate levels of professionalism.   Isolated professional development activities exist.	The school leader/supervisor ensures that there is regular, consistent communication among school and community.   Community members are partners in the educational program.   Staff members exhibit high levels of professionalism.   Professional development is based upon identified needs and is aligned with instructional priorities.	The school leader/supervisor ensures that high levels of two-way communication exist among school and community.   Staff members are involved beyond the school day to support students' academic and social-emotional needs.   Staff is highly involved in planning, implementing, and participating in professional development aligned with instructional priorities.

 *Crosswalks pertaining to the four domains in Leadership Observation and Practice in the rating form and the professional practice areas of planning and preparation, school environment, delivery of service, and professional development, as set forth in section 1138.4(a) are posted on the Department's web site.

 (6) Observation and Practice ratings shall be informed using evidentiary source materials noted in the professional employee's record, including dates and times as applicable. Records may include, but are not limited to, any combination of the following items as appropriate for the employee and the employee's placement in a classroom and educational program:

 (i) Notations of professional observations, employee/rater conferences or interviews, or informal observations or visits.

 (ii) Communication logs (such as emails, letters, notes regarding phone conversations to parents, staff, students, community members).

 (iii) Utilization of formative and summative assessments that impact instruction and critiques of lesson plans.

 (iv) Agendas and minutes of meetings, programs, courses, or planning sessions.

 (v) Family, parent, school and community feedback.

 (vi) Development and implementation of school improvement plans, professional growth programs, in-service programs, student assemblies, safety programs, and other events or programs that promote educational efficacy, health and safety.

 (vii) Budget and expenditure reports.

 (viii) Professional development documentation toward continuance of certification or licensure or both.

 (ix) Examination of sources of evidence provided by the employee.

 (7) The evidence and evaluator observations and findings shall provide the basis for rating the professional employee's level of performance in each of the four domains and for assigning each domain rating a zero, one, two or three point value.

 (8) The rating value for each domain is adjusted by the percentage factor attributed to that domain (see Table 19.3a-1: PDE 13-2 Rating Form, Part (A)); the sum of the adjusted values is the Principal Observation and Practice rating.

 (b) Student performance: building level data

 (1) Student Performance data as available and attributable at the building level shall comprise 10% of the evaluation of the effectiveness of a professional employee serving as a principal (see Table 19.1a-1: Rating Areas and Significance by Professional Employee Evaluated).

 (2) A Building Level Score is comprised minimally of two of the four measures (Assessment, Growth, Attendance Rate, Graduation Rate). If fewer than two of the four measures are available, the Building Level Data weighting of 10% shall be reallocated to Observation and Practice.

 (3) For a principal assigned to multiple buildings, a single Building Level Score shall be calculated proportional to the professional employee's building assignments.

 (4) A principal who transfers from one building to another within an LEA shall have the option of using Observation and Practice or Performance Goals measures instead of Building Level Data for the first 2 school years of the new location assignment. Before evaluation in the new location assignment, the principal and the LEA shall agree upon one or more replacement measures and the reallocation of the Building Level Data weighting of 10% to the selected measures to calculate the final performance rating.

 (c) Performance goals

 (1) Performance Goals shall comprise 20% of the annual evaluation for all principals.

 (2) Performance Goals shall be determined before the beginning of each school year between the principal and the supervising administrator, referencing the Observation and Practice leadership domains and practice models to inform the focus areas of performance. Performance Goals may be district-specific or building-specific goals and should include specific measurable areas and the evidence to be collected during the year.

 (3) After the initial meeting to determine goals, the principal and the supervising administrator shall meet midyear to monitor progress on the established Performance Goals and to modify as necessary.

 (4) At the conclusion of the school year, the principal and the immediate supervisor shall meet to evaluate the attainment of Performance Goals and a zero, one, two- or three-point rating shall be assigned.

§ 19.4a. Nonteaching Professional (NTP) Employee evaluation.

 Educator Effectiveness rating tools, comprised of instructions and forms, function as summary records in the evaluation of the effectiveness of professional employees. Educator Effectiveness rating tools shall be used in accordance with the General Provisions contained in § 19.1a 9 (relating to general provisions).

 Table 19.4a-1 represents the rating form, and depicts the significance (that is, weighting) of each rating area in the overall performance rating, for the evaluation of nonteaching professionals which includes educational specialist, instructional professionals other than classroom teachers, supervisor professionals other than supervisors of special education.

Table 19.4a-1: PDE 13-3 Rating Form

PDE 13-3		Department of Education Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
LEA:		School:
Employee Name (Last, First, Middle):
Rating Period:	[  ] Professional Employee  or  [  ] Temporary Professional Employee
Date Completed:	[  ] Annual Evaluation  or  [  ] Semi-Annual Evaluation (Temporary only)

NONTEACHING PROFESSIONAL RATING FORM
(A) OBSERVATION & PRACTICE
Domain		Rating (a)	Factor (b)	Adjusted Rating (a x b)
I. Planning & Preparation		[0—3]	25%	[0—0.75]
II. Educational Environment		[0—3]	25%	[0—0.75]
III. Delivery of Service		[0—3]	25%	[0—0.75]
IV. Professional Development		[0—3]	25%	[0—0.75]
(A) Observation & Practice Rating				[0—3]
(B) STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Building Level Score*				Converted to a 0—3 Point Scale
				[0—3]
*Scores for nonteaching professionals assigned to multiple buildings shall be calculated pro rata.
(C) NONTEACHING PROFESSIONAL SUMMATIVE RATING (ALL MEASURES)
NTP Category	Measure	Rating (f)	Factor (g)	Adjusted Rating (f x g)
NTP with Building Level Data	Observation & Practice	[0—3]	90%	[0—2.70]
Building Level Data	[0—3]	10%	[0—0.30]
NTP WITH BUILDING LEVEL DATA RATING				[0—3]**
NTP w/out Building Level Data	Observation & Practice	[0—3]	100%	[0—3.00]
NTP W/OUT BUILDING LEVEL DATA				[0—3]**
Temporary NTP	Observation & Practice	[0—3]	100%	[0 —3.00]
TEMPORARY NTP RATING				[0—3]**
***Final Rating Values		0 Failing	1 Needs Improvement	2         3 Proficient   Distinguished

I certify the afore-named employee has received a performance rating of:  [  ] DISTINGUISHED      [  ] PROFICIENT      [  ] NEEDS        [  ] FAILING IMPROVEMENT
Distinguished, Proficient, or Needs Improvement* shall be considered Satisfactory. Failing shall be considered Unsatisfactory.
*A second Needs Improvement rating issued by the same employer within 4 years of the first where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered Unsatisfactory.
The performance rating shall be deemed:   [  ] SATISFACTORY                      [  ] UNSATISFACTORY
Date:	Rater Name/Position:
Date:	Chief School Administrator Signature:
I acknowledge that I have read the information contained herein and that I have been provided an opportunity to discuss it with the rater.
Date:	Employee Signature:
Employee signature does not signify agreeance with the performance rating.

 (a) Observation and Practice

 (1) The effectiveness of a professional employee serving as a nonteaching professional shall be based on observation and practice models (see Table 19.1a-1: Rating Areas and Significance by Professional Employee Evaluated).

 (2) A rating must be given in each of the four domains of professional practice, with each domain rating constituting a percentage of the single, summative Observation and Practice rating for the nonteaching professional.

 (i) Domains and weighting for Educational Specialists (ES) and for instructional professionals other than Classroom Teachers (CT) are denoted in Table 19.4a-2.

Table 19.4a-2: NTP Observation & Practice Weighting by Domain
(ES, Instructional Professional other than CT)

	DOMAIN	PERCENTAGE OF OBSERVATION & PRACTICE RATING
I.	Planning & Preparation	25%
II.	Educational Environment	25%
III.	Delivery of Service	25%
IV.	Professional Development	25%

 (ii) The rating for each domain of professional practice for educational specialists and instructional professionals other than classroom teachers shall be based on the four levels of performance as defined in Table 19.4a-3.

Table 19.4a-3: The Four Levels of Performance by Domain (ES, Instructional Professional other than CT)

I. PLANNING & PREPARATION (25%)
Effective nonteaching professionals (NTPs) plan and prepare to deliver high-quality services equitably to all learners based upon extensive evidence-based knowledge of their discipline relative to individual and systems-level needs and within the context of interdisciplinary collaboration. Service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable, and represent relevant goals for the individual and system.*
Failing	Needs Improvement	Proficient	Distinguished
NTP's planning and preparation reflect little or no understanding of their discipline relative to individual and/or systems-level needs.   Service delivery outcomes, as a function of planning and preparation, are not clear, not measurable, and do not represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system.**	NTP's planning and preparation reflect moderate understanding of their discipline relative to individual and systems-level needs.   Some service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable, and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system.**	NTP's planning and preparation reflect a thorough understanding of their discipline relative to individual and systems-level needs.   Most service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable, and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system.**	NTP's planning and preparation reflect extensive understanding of their discipline relative to individual and systems-level needs.   All service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable, and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system.**
II. EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT (25%)
Effective NTPs assess and enhance the quality of the environment along multiple dimensions toward improved academic, behavioral and social-emotional outcomes. Environmental dimensions include adult-student relationships, staff interactions, security and maintenance, administration, student academic orientation, student behavioral values, student-peer relationships, parent and community-school relationships, instructional and intervention management and student activities.*
Failing	Needs Improvement	Proficient	Distinguished
Environment is characterized by chaos and conflict, with low expectations for improved academic, behavioral and social-emotional outcomes.   There are no clear standards for interactions, behavior, use of space and time, instruction and intervention with students, maintaining confidentiality, etc.**	Environment is controlled, but reflects only moderate expectations for improved academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes.   There are some clearly defined standards for interactions, use of space and time, instruction and intervention with students, and maintaining confidentiality, etc.**	Environment functions smoothly, with an efficient use of space and time and effective supports for academic, behavioral, and social-emotional growth.   Standards and expectations for interactions, instruction and intervention with students, and maintaining confidentiality are high.**	Recipients of services make a significant and meaningful contribution to various dimensions of the environment and contribute to improved academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes.**
III. DELIVERY OF SERVICE (25%)
Effective NTP service delivery and evidence-based practice originate from a problem-solving process that can be applied at the individual, group, and systems level and is used for: (a) identification of priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation, including student needs and backgrounds; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services.*
Failing	Needs Improvement	Proficient	Distinguished
Minimal or no use of a problem-solving process to identify, analyze, and provide appropriate services and supports with fidelity.   Minimal or no use of data and/or stakeholder engagement to monitor and improve the effectiveness of services.**	Moderate use of a problem-solving process to identify, analyze, and provide appropriate services and supports.   Inconsistent use of data and/or stakeholder engagement to monitor and improve the effectiveness of services.**	Effective use of a problem-solving process to identify, analyze, and provide appropriate services and supports with fidelity.   Consistent use of data and/or stakeholder engagement to monitor and improve the effectiveness of services.**	Effective use of a problem-solving process to identify, analyze, and provide appropriate services and supports with flexibility and fidelity.   Extensive and strategic use of data and/or stakeholder engagement to monitor and improve the effectiveness of services.
			As a function of interdisciplinary collaboration and problem-solving, student and systems-level outcomes improve over time.**
IV. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (25%)
Effective NTPs have high ethical standards and a deep sense of professionalism, focused on improving their own service delivery in an equitable and inclusive manner and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record keeping systems are efficient and effective. NTPs communicate with all parties clearly, frequently and with cultural sensitivity. These professionals assume leadership roles within the system and engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen evidence-based practices. Reflection on their practice results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and contribute to improving the practice of others.*
Failing	Needs Improvement	Proficient	Distinguished
NTPs do not adhere to ethical standards or convey a deep sense of professionalism. There is an absence of focus on improving their own service delivery and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues.   Their record keeping systems are inefficient and ineffective.   Communication is ineffective, as evidenced by lack of clarity, limited frequency, and absence of cultural sensitivity.   NTPs do not take on leadership roles within the system and do not engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that would serve to strengthen their practice.   Reflection on their practice does not result in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others.**	NTPs partially adheres to ethical standards and conveys an emerging sense of professionalism. There is some focus on improving their own service delivery and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues.   Their record keeping systems are approaching efficiency and effectiveness.   Communication is somewhat effective, albeit inconsistent.   NTPs infrequently accept leadership roles within the system and engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen their practice.   Reflection on their practice is beginning to result in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others.**	NTPs fully adhere to ethical standards and conveys an emerging sense of professionalism. There is a solid focus on improving their own service delivery and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues.   Their record keeping systems are efficient and effective.   Communication is clear, frequent, and effective.   NTPs assume leadership roles within the system and engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen their practice.   Reflection on their practice may result in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others.**	NTPs have exceptional adherence to ethical standards and professionalism. There is always evidence of improvement of practice and support to the ongoing learning of colleagues.   Their record keeping systems are exceptionally efficient and effective.   Communication is proactive and highly effective, characterized by clarity, frequency, respect, and cultural sensitivity.   NTPs consistently seek out leadership roles within the system and engage in a wide variety of professional development activities that serve to strengthen their practice.   Reflection on their practice consistently results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others.**

 *Adapted by the Pennsylvania Department of Education with permission from copyrighted material of Charlotte Danielson.

 **From Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teachers, 2nd Edition (pp. 41-42), by Charlotte Danielson, Alexandria, VA: ASCD. © 2007 by ASCD. Adapted and reproduced with permission.

 (iii) The effectiveness of supervisor nonteaching professionals shall be evaluated using the approved practice models published within the Framework for Leadership. A crosswalk between planning and preparation, educational environment, delivery of service and professional development and the Leadership domains is available on the Department's web site. Domains and weighting for supervisor nonteaching professionals are denoted in Table 19.4a-4.

Table 19.4a-4: NTP Observation & Practice Weighting by Domain (Supervisor)

	DOMAIN	PERCENTAGE OF OBSERVATION & PRACTICE RATING
I.	Strategic/Cultural Leadership	25%
II.	Systems Leadership	25%
III.	Leadership for Learning	25%
IV.	Professional & Community Leadership	25%

 (iv) The rating for each domain of professional practice for supervisor nonteaching professionals shall be based on the four levels of performance as defined in Table 19.3a-3

 (3) Approved practice models shall be published on the Department's web site. The practice models and associated domains establish frameworks for the Observation and Practice evaluation of nonteaching professionals. In determining a domain rating for the professional employee, an LEA may use any portion or combination of the approved practice models associated with a domain within the framework developed for the role of the nonteaching professional evaluated.

 (4) Observation and Practice ratings shall be informed using evidentiary source materials noted in the professional employee's record, including dates and times as applicable. Records may include, but are not limited to, any combination of the following items as appropriate for the employee and the employee's placement in a classroom and educational program:

 (i) Notations of professional observations, employee/rater conferences or interviews, or informal observations or visits.

 (ii) Communication logs (such as emails, letters, notes regarding conversations with parents, staff, students, community members).

 (iii) Utilization of formative and summative assessments that impact instruction and critiques of lesson plans.

 (iv) Agendas and minutes of meetings, programs, courses or planning sessions.

 (v) Family, parent, school and community feedback.

 (vi) Development and implementation of school improvement plans, professional growth programs, in-service programs, student assemblies, safety programs, and other events or programs that promote educational efficacy, health and safety.

 (vii) Budget and expenditure reports.

 (viii) Professional development documentation toward continuance of certification or licensure or both.

 (ix) Use of professional reflections.

 (x) Examination of sources of evidence provided by the employee.

 (5) The evidence and evaluator observations and findings shall provide the basis for rating the professional employee's level of performance in each of the four domains and for assigning each domain rating a zero, one, two- or three-point value.

 (6) The rating value for each domain is adjusted by the percentage factor attributed to that domain (see Table 19.4a-1: PDE 13-3 Rating Form, Part (A)); the sum of the adjusted values is the Observation & Practice rating for the nonteaching professional.

 (b) Student performance: building level data

 (1) Student Performance data as available and attributable at the building level shall comprise 10% of the evaluation of the effectiveness of a nonteaching professional employee (see Table 19.1a-1: Rating Areas and Significance by Professional Employee Evaluated).

 (2) A Building Level Score is comprised minimally of two of the four measures (Assessments, Growth, Attendance Rate, Graduation Rate). If fewer than two of the four measures are available, the Building Level Data weighting of 10% shall be reallocated to Observation and Practice.

 (3) For a nonteaching professional assigned to multiple buildings, a single Building Level Score shall be calculated proportional to the professional employee's building assignments.

 (4) Instead of using a Building Level Score, a nonteaching professional who transfers from one building to another within an LEA shall have the option of reallocating the 10% weighting to Observation & Practice or utilizing LEA Selected Measures for the first two school years of the new location assignment. Before evaluation in the new location assignment, the nonteaching professional and the LEA shall agree to the LEA Selected Measures, if applicable, and the reallocation of the weighting of 10% from Building Level Data to Observation and Practice or to LEA Selected Measures to calculate the final performance rating.

Appendix A. Interim Rating Form

 To be utilized for any interim evaluation of a professional employee serving as a classroom teacher, principal, or nonteaching professional in accordance with section 1138.9(2).

Table 19.4a-5: PDE 13-4 Rating Form

PDE 13-4		Department of Education Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
LEA:		School:
Employee Name (Last, First, Middle):
Rating Period (M/D/Y - M/D/Y):	[  ] Professional Employee (for Temporary Professional Employee, use PDE 13-1, 13-2, or 13-3 as appropriate)
Date Completed:	[  ] Interim Evaluation

INTERIM RATING FORM
(A) CLASSROOM TEACHER: OBSERVATION & PRACTICE
Domain		Rating* (a)	Factor (b)	Adjusted Rating (a x b)
I. Planning & Preparation		[0—3]	20%	[0—0.60]
II. Classroom Environment		[0—3]	30%	[0—0.90]
III. Instruction		[0—3]	30%	[0—0.90]
IV. Professional Responsibilities		[0—3]	20%	[0—0.60]
(A) Observation & Practice Rating				[0—3]
(A) PRINCIPAL: OBSERVATION & PRACTICE
Domain		Rating (a)	Factor* (b)	Adjusted Rating (a x b)
I. Strategic/Cultural Leadership		[0—3]	10%—30%	[0—0.90]
II. Systems Leadership		[0—3]	10%—30%	[0—0.90]
III. Leadership for Learning		[0—3]	10%—30%	[0—0.90]
IV. Professional & Community Leadership		[0—3]	10%—30%	[0—0.90]
(A) Observation & Practice Rating				[0—3]
*The four assigned factors must total 100%.
(A) NONTEACHING PROFESSIONAL (Educational Specialist, Instructional Professional other than Classroom Teacher): OBSERVATION & PRACTICE
Domain		Rating (a)	Factor (b)	Adjusted Rating (a x b)
I. Planning & Preparation		[0—3]	25%	[0—0.75]
II. Educational Environment		[0—3]	25%	[0—0.75]
III. Delivery of Service		[0—3]	25%	[0—0.75]
IV. Professional Development		[0—3]	25%	[0—0.75]
(A) Observation & Practice Rating				[0—3]
(A) NONTEACHING PROFESSIONAL (Supervisor): OBSERVATION & PRACTICE
Domain		Rating (a)	Factor (b)	Adjusted Rating (a x b)
I. Strategic/Cultural Leadership		[0—3]	25%	[0—0.75]
II. Systems Leadership		[0—3]	25%	[0—0.75]
III. Leadership for Learning		[0—3]	25%	[0—0.75]
IV. Professional & Community Leadership		[0—3	25%	[0—0.75]
(A) Observation & Practice Rating				[0—3]
(B) ALL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES: LEA SELECTED MEASURES
(B) LEA Selected Measures Rating**				[0—3]
**Ratings for employees evaluated using multiple measures shall be calculated pro rata.
(C) SUMMATIVE RATING ()
Professional Employee Category	Measure	Rating (f)	Factor (g)	Adjusted Rating (f x g)
Classroom Teacher	(A) Observation & Practice	[0—3	70%	[0—2.10]
(B) LEA Selected Measures	[0—3]	30%	[0—0.90]
CLASSROOM TEACHER RATING				[0—3]***
Principal	(A) Observation & Practice	[0—3]	70%	[0—2.10]
(B) LEA Selected Measures	[0—3]	30%	[0—0.90]
PRINCIPAL RATING				[0—3]***
Nonteaching Professional	(A) Observation & Practice	[0—3]	70%	[0—2.10]
(B) LEA Selected Measures	[0—3]	30%	[0—0.90]
NONTEACHING PROFESSIONAL RATING				[0—3]***
***Final Rating Values		0 Failing	1 Needs Improvement	2         3 Proficient   Distinguished

I certify the afore-named employee has received a performance rating of:  [  ] DISTINGUISHED      [  ] PROFICIENT      [  ] NEEDS        [  ] FAILING IMPROVEMENT
Distinguished, Proficient, or Needs Improvement* shall be considered Satisfactory. Failing shall be considered Unsatisfactory.
*A second Needs Improvement rating issued by the same employer within 4 years of the first where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered Unsatisfactory.
The performance rating shall be deemed:   [  ] SATISFACTORY                      [  ] UNSATISFACTORY
Date:	Rater Name/Position:
Date:	Chief School Administrator Signature:

 (a) When evaluating a professional employee serving as a principal, the LEA may use Performance Goals as a locally developed rubric under LEA Selected Measures.

 (b) When evaluating a professional employee serving as a nonteaching professional, the LEA may use a locally developed rubric appropriate to the role and responsibilities of the nonteaching professional.

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 21-467. Filed for public inspection March 26, 2021, 9:00 a.m.]

---

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

---