[44 Pa.B. 3497]
[Saturday, June 14, 2014]
[Continued from previous Web Page] Descriptions of the four domains in Part (A) NTPE Observation and Practice are summarized in Table A.
Table A: Descriptions of Four Domains Domain Description
I. Planning & Preparation*
25%
Effective nonteaching professional employees (NTPEs) plan and prepare to deliver high-quality services based upon extensive knowledge of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and/or systems-level needs and within the context of interdisciplinary collaboration. Service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. II. Educational Environment*
25%
Effective NTPEs 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. III. Delivery
of Service*
25%
Effective NTPE service delivery and practice emanates from a problem-solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to: (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. IV. Professional
Development*
25%
Effective NTPEs have high ethical standards and a deep sense of professionalism, focused on improving their own service delivery and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record keeping systems are efficient and effective. NTPEs 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 their practice. Reflection on their practice results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and contribute to improving the practice of others. Adapted by the Pennsylvania Department of Education with permission from copyrighted material of Charlotte Danielson.
* Crosswalks pertaining to the four domains for NTPE Observation and Practice in the rating form, as set forth in sections 1123(d)(1)(i)—(iv) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. §§ 11-1123(d)(1)(i)—(iv)), and to professional practice areas attributable to the certifications held by NTPEs will be available at the Department's website.
Table B summarizes NTPE performance levels for each of the Domain Rating Assignments and for the ratings to be assigned for each domain in the ''Rating (A)'' column.
Table B: Four Levels of Performance in Four Domains Domain Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Distinguished I. Planning & Preparation
25%
NTPE's planning and preparation reflects little understanding of their discipline/supervisory position 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. NTPE's planning and preparation reflects moderate understanding of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and/or systems-level needs. Some service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. NTPE's planning and preparation reflects solid understanding of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and/or systems-level needs. Most service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. NTPE's planning and preparation reflects extensive understanding of their discipline/supervisory position relative to individual and/or systems-level needs. All service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system. II. Educational Environment
25%
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, student behavior, use of physical space, instruction and intervention with students, maintaining confidentiality, etc. Adults communicate modest expectations for improved academic, behavioral and social-emotional outcomes. There are some clearly defined standards for interactions, student behavior, use of physical space, instruction and intervention with students, maintaining confidentiality, etc. Environment functions smoothly, with little or no loss of service delivery time. Expectations for interactions, student behavior, use of physical space, instruction and intervention with students, and maintaining confidentiality are high. Standards for student conduct are clear and the environment supports academic, behavioral and social-emotional growth. Recipients of services make a substantive contribution to various dimensions of the environment and contribute to improved academic, behavioral and social-emotional outcomes. III. Delivery of Service
25%
Effective service delivery and practice does not emanate from a problem-solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to: (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. Effective service delivery and practice partially emanates from a problem-solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. Effective service delivery and practice emanates from a problem-solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to: (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. Effective service delivery and practice emanates from a problem-solving process that can be applied to an individual and/or at the systems level and is used to: (a) identify priority areas for improvement; (b) analysis of variables related to the situation; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services. As a function of interdisciplinary collaboration and problem-solving, student and systems-level outcomes improve over time. IV. Professional Development
25%
NTPE does 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. NTPEs communicate ineffectively with all parties as evidenced by lack of clarity, limited frequency and absence of cultural sensitivity. NTPEs do not assume 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. NTPE 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. NTPEs communicate effectively, albeit inconsistently, with all parties through clarity, frequency and cultural sensitivity. NTPEs inconsistently 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 is beginning to result in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others. NTPE fully adheres 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. NTPEs communicate effectively with all parties through clarity, frequency and cultural sensitivity. NTPEs consistently 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 results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others. NTPE has 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. NTPEs always communicate effectively with all parties through clarity, frequency and cultural sensitivity. NTPEs always 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 always results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others. From Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teacher, 2nd Edition (pp 41-42), by Charlotte Danielson, Alexandria, VA ASCD © 2007. Adapted and reproduced with permission.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING TOOL—STANDARDS OF USE The rating form and related documents are available at the Department's website in electronic versions and Excel worksheet format for scoring and rating tabulation.
I. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Assessment—The term shall mean the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment test, the Keystone Exam, an equivalent local assessment or another test established by the State Board of Education to meet the requirements of section 2603-B(d)(10)(i) (24 P. S. § 26-2603-B(d)(10)(i)) and required under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425) or its successor statute or required to achieve other standards established by the Department for the school or school district under 22 Pa. Code § 403.3 (relating to single accountability system).
Chief School Administrator—An individual who is employed as a school district superintendent, an executive director of an intermediate unit or a chief school administrator of an area vocational-technical school or career technology center.
Classroom Teacher—A professional or temporary professional employee who provides direct instruction to students related to a specific subject or grade level and usually holds one of the following:
Instructional I Certificate (see § 49.82),
Instructional II Certificate (see § 49.83),
Vocational Instructional I Certificate (see § 49.142), and
Vocational Instructional II Certificate (see § 49.143).
Department—The Department of Education of the Commonwealth.
Distinguished—The employee's performance consistently reflects the employee's professional position and placement at the highest level of practice.
Education Specialist—A person who holds an educational specialist certificate issued by the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, a certificate endorsed in the area of elementary school counselor, secondary school counselor, school counselor K-12, school nurse, home and school visitor, school psychologist, dental hygienist, or instructional technology specialist.
Employee—A person who is a professional employee or temporary professional employee.
Failing—The employee does not meet performance expectations required for the position.
Keystone Exam—An assessment developed or caused to be developed by the Department pursuant to 22 Pa. Code § 4.51 (relating to state assessment system).
LEA—A local education agency, including a public school district, area vocational-technical school, career technology center and intermediate unit, which is required to use a rating tool established pursuant to section 1123 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 11-1123).
Needs Improvement—The employee is functioning below proficient for performance expectations required for continued employment.
NTPE—A nonteaching professional employee or a person who is an education specialist or a professional employee or temporary professional employee who provides services other than classroom instruction, and includes supervisors and employees with instructional certification who are not categorized as ''classroom teachers'' by the LEA.
Performance Improvement Plan—A plan, designed by an LEA with input of the employee, that may include mentoring, coaching, recommendations for professional development and intensive supervision based on the results of the rating provided for under this chapter.
Principal—A building principal, an assistant principal, a vice principal or a director of vocational education.
Professional Employee—An individual who is certificated as a teacher, supervisor, principal, assistant principal, vice-principal, director of vocational education, dental hygienist, visiting teacher, home and school visitor, school counselor, child nutrition program specialist, school nurse, or school librarian.
Proficient—The employee's performance consistently reflects practice at a professional level.
PSSA—The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment established in 22 Pa. Code § 4.51 (relating to state assessment system).
PVAAS—The Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System established in compliance with 22 Pa. Code § 403.3 (relating to single accountability system) and its data made available by the Department under Section 221 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 2-221).
Student Performance—A compilation of performance measures of all students in the school building in which the NTPE is employed as set forth in Paragraph (IV) relating to standards of use for student performance measures.
Temporary Professional Employee—An individual who has been employed to perform for a limited time the duties of a newly created position or of a regular professional employee whose service has been terminated by death, resignation, suspension or removal.
II. General Provisions.
1. The rating of an employee shall be performed by or under the supervision of the chief school administrator, or, if so directed by the chief school administrator, by an assistant administrator, a supervisor or a principal, who has supervision over the work of the professional employee or temporary professional employee being rated, provided that no unsatisfactory rating shall be valid unless approved by the chief school administrator. (24 P. S. § 11-1123(h)(3))
2. The rating form shall be marked to indicate whether the employee is a professional employee or temporary professional employee.
3. A temporary professional employee must be notified as to the quality of service at least twice a year. (24 P. S. § 11-1108)
4. The rating form includes two measures or rated areas: NTPE Observation and Practice, and Student Performance of all students in the school building. Application of each measure is dependent on the availability of data. A rating in the range of zero to three based on the ''0 to 3 Point Scale'' must be given to each of the two rating areas.
5. NTPE Observation and Practice is divided into four domains: I. Planning and Preparation; II. Educational Environment; III. Delivery of Service; and IV. Professional Development. For each domain, an employee must be given a rating of zero, one, two or three which is based on observation, practice models, evidence or documented artifacts.
6. The Student Performance score shall be comprised of the Building Level Score which will be provided by the Department or its designee, and published annually on the Department's website.
7. Each of the two measures in Final NTPE Effectiveness Rating shall be rated on the zero-to-three-point scale. Each number in Rating (C) shall be multiplied by the Factor (D) and the sum of the Earned Points or Total Earned Points shall be converted into a Performance Rating using the table marked Conversion to Performance Rating.
8. An overall performance rating of Distinguished or Proficient shall be considered satisfactory.
9. An initial overall performance rating of Needs Improvement shall be considered satisfactory.
10. The second overall performance rating of Needs Improvement issued by the same employer within 10 years of the first rating of Needs Improvement where the employee is in the same certification shall be considered unsatisfactory.
11. For professional employees, two consecutive overall unsatisfactory ratings, which include professional observations, and are not less than four months apart, shall be considered grounds for dismissal.
12. No temporary professional employee shall be dismissed unless rated unsatisfactory, and notification, in writing, of such unsatisfactory rating shall have been furnished the employee within 10 days following the date of such rating.
13. An employee who receives an overall performance rating of Needs Improvement or Failing must participate in a performance improvement plan. No employee will be rated Needs Improvement or Failing based solely on student test scores.
14. The rating form shall be marked to indicate the appropriate performance rating and whether the overall final rating is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
15. The rating form must be signed by the chief school administrator or by a designated rater, who is an assistant administrator, supervisor or principal, has supervision over the work of the professional employee or temporary professional employee being rated, and is directed by the chief school administrator to perform the rating.
16. A final rating of unsatisfactory will not be valid unless signed by the chief school administrator.
17. A signed copy of the rating form shall be provided to the employee.
18. The rating tool is not intended to establish mandates or requirements for the formative process of supervising NTPEs.
19. This rating form, section or chapter may not be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator of an LEA to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of an NTPE, based on information and data available at the time of the action.
III. Standards of Use for NTPE Observation and Practice.
Part (A) ''NTPE Observation and Practice'' in the rating form shall be completed using the following standards, calculations and procedures.
(a) NTPE observation and practice domains. The rating of an NTPE for effectiveness in professional practice shall be based on observation or other supervisory methods. Professional practice shall comprise 80% of the Final NTPE Effectiveness Rating of the employee. The percentage factor for each domain is listed in Table C:
Table C: Four Domains
Domains % of 80% allotment I. Planning and preparation. 25.0 II. Educational environment. 25.0 III. Delivery of service. 25.0 IV. Professional development. 25.0 (b) Summative process of evaluation. LEAs shall utilize professional practice models (e.g., Danielson, Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching; Department, Framework for Leadership; Department-developed frameworks/rubrics for education specialists) that address the areas related to observation and practice contained in sections 1123(d)(1)(i)—(iv) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. §§ 11-1123(d)(1)(i)—(iv)) and are approved by the Department. The Department shall publish a list of approved practice models for assessing the four domains annually on the Department's website. The list of approved practice models will include frameworks for professional observation and practice, and relevant crosswalks linking frameworks to the four domains in Table C for professional and temporary professional employees holding certificates issued by the Department who are not assigned classroom teacher or principal positions. Examples of certificates for professional and temporary employees include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Education specialist (22 Pa. Code §§ 49.101—105).
(2) Instructional (22 Pa. Code §§ 49.82—83, 49.142—143).
(3) Administrative and supervisory (22 Pa. Code §§ 49.111 and 49.121).
LEAs shall assign the appropriate practice model to each NTPE position description. LEAs shall notify NTPEs of the professional practice models assigned to the NTPEs' positions. An NTPE must be given a rating in each of the four domains. In determining a rating for an employee, an LEA may use any portion or combination of the practice models related to the domains. The four domains and practice models establish a framework for the summative process of evaluating NTPEs. The form and standards do not impose mandates on the supervisory and formative processes utilized by an LEA.
(c) Evidentiary sources. NTPE observation and practice evaluation results and ratings shall be based on evidence. Information, including dates and times, if applicable, on the source of the evidence shall be noted in the employee's record. As appropriate for the employee and the employee's placement in an LEA program, records may include, but not be limited to, any combination of the following items:
(1) Notations of professional observations, employee/rater conferences or interviews, or informal observations or visits, including dates for observations, interviews and conferences.
(2) Lesson unit plans (types, titles and numbers), materials, technology, resource documents, visual technology, utilization of space, student assignment sheets, student work, instructional resources, student records, grade book, progress reports and report cards.
(3) Development and implementation of improvement plans, professional growth programs, in-service programs, student assemblies, and other events or programs that promote educational efficacy, health or safety.
(4) Communication logs (emails, letters, notes regarding phone conversations, etc.) to parents, staff, students, and/or community members.
(5) Utilization of formative and summative assessments that impact instruction and critiques of lesson plans.
(6) Agendas and minutes of meetings, programs, courses, or planning sessions.
(7) Budget and expenditure reports.
(8) Interaction with students' family members.
(9) Family, parent, school and community feedback.
(10) Act 48 documentation or continuing education documentation directly related to the employee's position in the LEA.
(11) Use of professional reflections.
(12) Examination of sources of evidence provided by the employee.
The documentation, evidence and findings of the rater shall provide a basis for the rating of the employee in the domains of observation and practice.
(d) Scoring. An LEA must provide a rating score in each domain. The four NTPE observation and practice domains shall be rated and scored on a zero-to-three-point scale. The ratings of Failing, Needs Improvement, Proficient and Distinguished are given numeric values as shown in Table D.
Table D: Domain Rating Assignment—0-3 Scale Performance Rating Value Failing 0 Needs Improvement 1 Proficient 2 Distinguished 3 (e) Ratings and weighted scoring. The four domains of NTPE observation and practice in Part (A) of the form are each assigned a percentage factor. Each domain shall be scored on the ''0-to-3-point scale.'' The individual score or rating for each domain is adjusted by the percentage factor attributed to that domain. The score of zero, one, two or three for each domain is calculated into points based on its percentage factor. The sum of the points for all domains will be the total NTPE Observation and Practice Rating. The calculation for each domain is set forth in Table E.
Table E: NTPE Observation and Practice Rating Domain Title Rating
(A)Factor
(B)Earned
Points
(A x B)
Max Points I. Planning and preparation. 25% 0.75 II. Educational environment. 25% 0.75 III. Delivery of service. 25% 0.75 IV. Professional development. 25% 0.75 NTPE Observation & Practice Points/Rating 3.00
(f) Administrative action based on available data. Nothing in these standards of use for NTPE observation and practice, this section or this chapter shall be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator of an LEA to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of an NTPE, based on information and data available at the time of the action.
(IV) Standards of Use for Student Performance Measures.
(a) Building, school or configuration. For the purposes of Paragraph (IV) relating to Standards of Use for Student Performance Measures, the term ''building'' shall mean a school or configuration of grades that is assigned a unique four-digit identification number by the Department unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(b) Percentage. The student performance for all students in the school building in which the NTPE is employed will be derived from the Building Level Score. As set forth in 22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(a)(3), the Department will provide the Building Level Score for each building within an LEA based on available data. Building Level Scores will be published annually on the Department's website. The Student Performance Rating shall comprise 20% of the Final NTPE Effectiveness Rating.
(c) Student performance measure. The student performance measure derived from the Building Level Score shall include, but is not limited to, the following when data is available and applicable to a building where the NTPE is employed:
(1) Student performance on assessments.
(2) Value-added assessment system data made available by the Department under section 221 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 2-221).
(3) Graduation rate as reported to the Department under section 222 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 2-222).
(4) Promotion rate.
(5) Attendance rate as reported to the Department under section 2512 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 25-2512).
(6) Industry certification examinations data.
(7) Advanced placement course participation.
(8) Scholastic aptitude test and preliminary scholastic aptitude test data.
(d) Building level score. Comparable to 22 Pa. Code § 19.1(IV)(a), the Student Performance Rating shall be determined through conversion of the Building Level Score. The percentage weight given to each measure component contained in Appendix A will be utilized in Building Level Score computations using available data. The Department or its designee will provide the Building Level Score for each building within an LEA based on available data. Building Level Scores will be published annually on the Department's website.
(e) Student performance rating. Each LEA shall utilize the conversions in Table F below to calculate the Student Performance Rating derived from the Building Level Score for each building with eligible building level data.
Table F: Conversion from 100 Point Scale to 0-3
Scale for Student Performance Rating
Building Level Score 0-3 Rating Scale* 90.0 to 107 2.50-3.00 70.0 to 89.9 1.50-2.49 60.0 to 69.9 0.50-1.49 00.0 to 59.9 0.00-0.49 *The Department will publish the full conversion formula on its website.
LEAs shall add the Student Performance Rating to Parts (B)(2) and (C)(2) of the Rating Form.
(f) Multiple building assignments. If an NTPE performs professional work in two or more buildings where the NTPE is employed, the LEA will use measures from each building based on the percentage of the employee's work performed in each building in calculating the whole 20% for this portion of the final rating.
(g) Absence of Building Level Score. For NTPEs employed in buildings for which there is no Building Level Score reported on the Department website, the LEA shall utilize the rating from the NTPE observation and practice portion of the rating form in Part (A)(1) in place of the Student Performance Rating.
(h) Administrative action based on available data. Nothing in these standards of use for student performance measures, this section or this chapter shall be construed to limit or constrain the authority of the chief school administrator of an LEA to initiate and take action on a personnel matter, including dismissal of an NTPE, based on information and data available at the time of the action.
(V) Recordkeeping: Maintenance of Rating Tool Data, Records and Forms.
(a) Records to be maintained. It shall be the duty of the LEA to establish a permanent record system containing ratings for each employee within the LEA and copies of all her or his ratings for the year shall be transmitted to the employee upon her or his request; or if any rating during the year is unsatisfactory copy of same shall be transmitted to the employee concerned. No employee shall be dismissed for incompetency or unsatisfactory performance unless such rating records have been kept on file by the LEA.
(b) Reporting of data restricted to aggregate results. Pursuant to Section 1123(i) of the Public School Code 11-1123(i), LEAs shall provide to the Department the aggregate results of all NTPEs evaluations.
(c) Confidentiality. Each LEA shall maintain records in accordance with Section 708(b)(7) of the act of February 14, 2008 (P. L. 6, No. 3), known as the ''Right-to-Know Law,'' (65 P. S. § 67.708(b)(7)), and Sections 221(a)(1) and 1123(p) of the Public School Code (24 P. S. §§ 2-221(a)(1) and 11-1123(p)).
(VI) LEA alternative rating tool.
The Department will review at the request of an LEA an alternative rating tool that has been approved by the LEA governing board. The Department may approve for a maximum period of not more than five years any alternative rating tool that meets or exceeds the measures of effectiveness established under 24 P. S. § 11-1123.
APPENDIX A
Percentage Weights for Data Components/Indicators of the Building Level Score for the Educator Effectiveness Rating Tool Appendix A contains the percentage weights assigned to data components for ''building level data'' and ''student performance of all students in the school building'' pursuant to section 1123 of the Public School Code (24 P. S. § 11-1123). The data components or indicators comprise the ''building level score'' for the professional employee or temporary professional employee rating form. The building level score is also the School Performance Profile for a school or building. For the purposes of this appendix, the term ''building'' shall mean a school or configuration of grades that is assigned a unique four-digit identification number by the Department unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
Table 1: Building Level Score—All Building Configurations
School Years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014Components/Indicators Building Configurations
K-12
SchoolsSecondary Schools Comprehensive
CTCs1K-8 Schools with Grade 3 K-8 Schools w/out Grade 3 Academic Achievement (40%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Reading/Literature—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Science/Biology—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Writing—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments—Percent Competent or Advanced 2.50 5.00 25.00 Not Applicable Not
ApplicableGrade 3 Reading—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA 2.50 Not Applicable Not
Applicable10.00 Not
ApplicableSAT/ACT College Ready Benchmark 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Closing the Achievement Gap—
All Group (5%)
% Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Reading/Literature—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Science/Biology—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Writing—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Closing the Achievement
Gap—Historically
Underperforming Students (5%)
% Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Reading/Literature—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Science/Biology—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Writing—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Academic Achievement Factor Total 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Academic Growth (40%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Reading/Literature—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Science/Biology—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Writing—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Academic Growth Factor Total 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Other Academic Indicators (10%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Cohort Graduation Rate or Promotion Rate2 (If No Graduation Rate) 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.00 5.00 Attendance 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.00 5.00 Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) or College Credit 2.50 2.50 2.50 Not Applicable Not
ApplicablePSAT/Plan Participation 2.50 2.50 2.50 Not Applicable Not
ApplicableOther Academic Indicators Factor Total 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Overall Factor Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Extra Credit for Advanced Achievement Added Factor is 1% of each of the following except 2% for Advanced Placement: Mathematics/Algebra I—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on Mathematics/Algebra I PSSA/Keystone Exam Reading/Literature—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on Reading/Literature PSSA/Keystone Exam Science/Biology—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on Science/Biology PSSA/Keystone Exam Writing—PSSA Percent of Students Advanced on Writing PSSA Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments Percent of Students Advanced on Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments Advanced Placement Percent of Grade 12 Students Scoring 3 or higher on any one AP Exam (x2.5) Notes for Table 1:
1 Comprehensive CTCs include full-time career technology centers and full-time area vocational-technical schools. Comprehensive CTC academic achievement is weighted at 44% while Closing the Achievement Gap is weighted at 3% for each group.
2 Promotion rate is not included in 2012-2013 calculations; it will be included in subsequent years.
Table 2: Building Level Score—All Building Configurations
School Year 2014-2015 and ThereafterComponents/Indicators1 Building Configurations
K-12
Schools
Secondary
Schools
Comprehensive
CTCs2
K-8 Schools
with Grade 3
K-8 Schools
w/out Grade 3
Academic Achievement (40%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 English Language Arts/Literature—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 15.00 15.00 9.50 15.00 20.00 Science/Biology—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA/Keystone Exam 7.50 7.50 4.75 7.50 10.00 Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments—Percent Competent or Advanced 2.50 5.00 25.00 Not Applicable Not
ApplicableGrade 3 English Language Arts—Percent Proficient or Advanced on PSSA 2.50 Not Applicable Not
Applicable10.00 Not
ApplicableSAT/ACT College Ready Benchmark 5.00 5.00 Not
ApplicableNot Applicable Not
ApplicableClosing the Achievement Gap—All Group (5%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 English Language Arts/Literature—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.50 Science/Biology—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Closing the Achievement Gap—Historically Underperforming Students (5%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 English Language Arts/Literature—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.50 Science/Biology—Percent of Required Gap Closure Met 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 Academic Achievement Factor Total 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Academic Growth (40%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Mathematics/Algebra I—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 English Language Arts/Literature—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Science/Biology—Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Academic Growth Factor Total 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Other Academic Indicators (10%) % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor % Factor Cohort Graduation Rate or Promotion Rate3 (If No Graduation Rate) 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.00 5.00 Attendance 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.00 5.00 Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) or College Credit 2.50 2.50 2.50 Not Applicable Not
ApplicablePSAT/Plan4 Participation 2.50 2.50 2.50 Not Applicable Not
ApplicableOther Academic Indicators Factor Total 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Overall Factor Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Extra Credit for Advanced Achievement Added Factor is 1% of each of the following except 2% for English Language Arts/Literature and Advanced Placement: Mathematics/Algebra I—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on Mathematics/Algebra I PSSA/Keystone Exam English Language Arts/Literature—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on English Language Arts/Literature PSSA/Keystone Exam Science/Biology—PSSA/Keystone Exam Percent of Students Advanced on Science/Biology PSSA/Keystone Exam Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments Percent of Students Advanced on Industry Standards-Based Competency Assessments Advanced Placement Percent of Grade 12 Students Scoring 3 or higher on any one AP Exam (x2.5) Notes for Table 2:
1 Previous factor weightings assigned to Writing are included in English Language Arts/Literature factor weightings.
2 Comprehensive CTCs include full-time career technology centers and full-time area vocational-technical schools. Comprehensive CTC academic achievement is weighted at 44% while Closing the Achievement Gap is weighted at 3% for each group.
3 Promotion rate is not included in 2012-2013 calculations; it will be included in subsequent years.
4 Plan will be replaced by ACT Aspire when ACT Aspire is fully operational.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 14-1244. Filed for public inspection June 13, 2014, 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.
