1 Policy GCO-Employee Evaluation Presentation to the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners Policy Committee May 21, 2019 Jessica Papia, Director Employee Effectiveness Dr. Sonja Brookins Santelises Chief Executive Officer, Baltimore City Public Schools Jeremy Grant-Skinner, Chief Human Capital Officer
Employee Evaluation Policy Proposed Policy – GCO 2 Proposed new policy GCO (Employee Evaluations) is an • update and replacement of the Performance Based Evaluation System (PBES) Policy. Proposed policy clarifies more uniform expectations for • purpose of evaluations & how to conduct evaluations, and expands these more consistent expectations to encompass all employee groups in Baltimore City Schools. Proposed policy aligns procedure language to reflect current • employee evaluations.
Intended Outcomes of Proposed Policy 3 Clarify Board’s purpose for evaluating employees Clarify Board’s definition of high quality employee performance Align processes for feedback, conferences, and observations of practice with our current context
Background: Clarity & Relevance of Procedures Related to Employee Evaluations 4 Sources for procedures related to employee evaluations • vary, typically depending on the employee bargaining unit. The PBES Policy clarifying expectations for evaluations • of BTU employees is the most comprehensive, yet has not been updated since 2003. It is silent on key components of the current Teacher • Effectiveness Evaluation, our current electronic evaluation system, and our current Maryland CCRS.
Background: Evaluation Forms and Ratings Vary By Union and Job Title Type 5 Union Job Title Type Final Evaluation Ratings BTU Classroom Teacher Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective Related Service Provider; Other Proficient, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory Teacher Level PSASA Principal Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective Assistant Principal, Dean, Non Satisfactory, Satisfactory with a PIP, Schools Based Unsatisfactory CUB All Highly Effective, Effective, Developing FOP All Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory Local 44 Food Services, All other Above Standards, Meets Standards, Below Standards PSRP All Highly Effective, Effective, Developing Unaffil. All Outstanding, Strong, Meets Expectations, Needs Improvement, Unsatisfactory
Background: Evaluation Timelines Vary By Union and Job Title Type 6 Employee Group Evaluation Milestones (10 & 12-month) Principal • Oct 31 Initial Conference • April VAL-ED Nov-Dec SLOs June SLOs, Leadership • • • Feb 28 Mid Year Framework Classroom Teacher • Oct 15 Initial Conference • March SLOs • Oct-Nov SLOs • April 1 Formal Observation • Dec 1 Formal Observation • April Professional • Jan 15 Mid Year Expectations Assistant Principal, Dean, • Oct 31 Initial Conference • July 31 Annual Evaluation Non Schools Based • Feb 28 Mid Year Form Related Service Provider; • Oct 15 Initial Conference • April 1 Formal Observation Other Teacher Level • Dec 1 Formal Observation • June Annual Evaluation • Jan 15 Mid Year Form Noncertificated Staff • Oct 31 Initial Conference • June Annual Evaluation (CUB, Local 44, PSRP, • Feb 15 Mid Year Form Unaffiliated)
Historical Feedback on Evaluations 7 Dec 2014 Jan 2015 Feb 2015 Professional teacher teacher principal Expectation group group feedback May 2015 Sept 2015 BTU SLO teacher Building group Reps April 2017 Dec 2015 Jan 2016 teacher & SPM principal teacher principal group group group Feb-June Summer Nov 2017 Evaluation June 2016 2017 2017 SREB Experience teacher teachers & teacher focus Overall group principals groups groups
Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement 8 BTU & PSRP PSASA CUB & L44 Engagement Engagement Engagement • 3/8/19 - Leadership • 3/12/19 - Leadership • 3/26/19, 4/11/19 - Leadership • 3/21/19, 4/4/19 - Field • 3/26/19 - Membership Representatives • May Membership (TBD) • 4/23/19 - Building Representatives Employee Engagement Stakeholder Engagement • 4/1/19 – Online form available (via City • 3/19/19 – ASCBC Schools News) • 4/25/19 – PCAB • 4/10/19 - BMoreEdChat • 4/30/19 – Community advocate focus • 4/10/19 - Charter School Leader Focus group Group • 5/13/19 – SECAC • 4/25/19 - FaceBook Live • 5/30/19 – Charter and Operator-Led • 5/6/19 - Lunch focus group, May Citywide Schools Advisory Board
Gathering Feedback: Areas of Focus 9 Purpose of • Why do we evaluate employees? Evaluating • What do we hope to learn? Employees Defining • What does Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, and Performance Ineffective performance mean? Conducting Formal • What might unannounced formal observations look Observations like? • What might it look like for employees to be on/off Annual Evaluations: evaluation cycles? How would we identify eligible Every Year staff? • Universal: Initial Planning Conference, Mid Year, Aligning Milestones Annual Evaluation • Union Specific: Observations, SLOs Aligning Use of • Use for professional development Information • Career pathway and leadership opportunities
Proposed Policy: Purpose of Employee Evaluations 10 The Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners (“Board”) is • committed to ensuring excellence and equity in education for each child at every level. The Board requires all employees’ professional performance to be evaluated in a manner which reinforces the leadership role which all staff play in connecting with, supporting, inspiring, and challenging students and contributing to their success . Employee evaluation systems should align with those elements • of professional performance that ensure: the success of district initiatives ; the creation of environments that embody mutual respect and safety; and, the equitable access to educational rigor and supports that contribute to a culture of excellence and academic success for each student .
Proposed Policy: Purpose of Employee Evaluations (cont.) 11 Employee evaluations provide an authentic assessment of • professional performance and impact, and drive a cycle of employee performance management focused on continuous staff improvement in all roles across the district. A comprehensive system of employee evaluation establishes the • professional criterion and expectations that will distinguish, support, and retain high performing employees at all levels committed to increasing student success.
Defining Employee Performance Proposed Regulation Employee performance exceeds high expectations of the role, demonstrates high levels of leadership, and includes evidence Highly of impact on student, school, and/or district success. This level Effective of performance is exemplary and distinguishes the employee amongst a professional community of high impact leaders. Employee performance meets high expectations of the role Effective and includes evidence of impact on student, school, and/or district success. Employee performance meets expectations of the role in many Developing areas, but employees demonstrate limited impact in their role. There is evidence of employees growing in their practice. Employee performance meets expectations of the role in few areas. Employees are generally inconsistent in their practice Ineffective and demonstrate limited impact in their role, with little evidence of growth in their practice. 12
Proposed Policy & Regulations 13 Highlighted protocols include: • Universal milestones for all employees, regardless of affiliation • Attention to importance of data and evidence of impact on student, school, and/or district success • Formal observation processes that increase authenticity and accuracy • Roles and responsibilities for supervisors, evaluators, qualified observers, and employees • Use of electronic evaluation systems and update request process
Proposed Policy & Regulations (cont.) 14 Key protocol questions: • Should the district shift to annual evaluation cycles, in an effort to differentiate for employee performance and need? • Should the regulations specify process and expectations for review wand updates to the content of employee evaluations and their components? • Should the regulations memorialize specific deadlines in the year?
Board Policy & Regulations: Overview 15 GCO-RA: Individual Development Plan GCO-RB: Mid Year GCO: Employee Includes rating Evaluations GCO-RC: Annual Evaluation definitions for 4-tier GCO-RD: Formal Teacher-Level Applies to all City Observations certificated staff Schools employees, regardless of affiliation GCO-RE: Performance Improvement Plan GCO-RF: Evaluation Review & Update Process
Legal and Policy References 16 • Legal Authority Annotated Code of Maryland Education Article § 4-205 • Annotated Code of Maryland Education Article § 4-311 • Annotated Code of Maryland Education Article § 6-201 • Annotated Code of Maryland Education Article § 6-202 • Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 13A.07.01 • Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 13A.07.04 • Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 13A.07.09 • Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 13A.12.01 • • Administrative Regulation References GCO-RA, GCO-RB, GCO-RC, GCO-RD, GCO-RE, GCO-RF •
Recommend
More recommend
