Policy GCO-Employee Evaluation Presentation to the Baltimore City - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• Dr. Sonja Brookins Santelises

Chief Executive Officer, Baltimore City Public Schools

Policy GCO-Employee Evaluation

1

Jessica Papia, Director Employee Effectiveness Jeremy Grant-Skinner, Chief Human Capital Officer

Presentation to the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners Policy Committee May 21, 2019

Employee Evaluation Policy Proposed Policy – GCO

• 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.

2

Intended Outcomes of Proposed Policy

Clarify Board’s purpose for evaluating employees Clarify Board’s definition of high quality employee performance Align processes for feedback, conferences, and

• bservations of practice with our current context

3

Background: Clarity & Relevance of Procedures Related to Employee Evaluations

• Sources for procedures related to employee evaluations

vary, typically depending on the employee bargaining unit.

• The PBES Policy clarifying expectations for evaluations
• f 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.

4

Background: Evaluation Forms and Ratings Vary By Union and Job Title Type

Union Job Title Type Final Evaluation Ratings

BTU Classroom Teacher Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective Related Service Provider; Other Teacher Level Proficient, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory PSASA Principal Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective Assistant Principal, Dean, Non Schools Based Satisfactory, Satisfactory with a PIP, 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 5

Background: Evaluation Timelines Vary By Union and Job Title Type

Employee Group Evaluation Milestones (10 & 12-month)

Principal

• Oct 31 Initial Conference
• Nov-Dec SLOs
• Feb 28 Mid Year
• April VAL-ED
• June SLOs, Leadership

Framework Classroom Teacher

• Oct 15 Initial Conference
• Oct-Nov SLOs
• Dec 1 Formal Observation
• Jan 15 Mid Year
• March SLOs
• April 1 Formal Observation
• April Professional

Expectations Assistant Principal, Dean, Non Schools Based

• Oct 31 Initial Conference
• Feb 28 Mid Year
• July 31 Annual Evaluation

Form Related Service Provider; Other Teacher Level

• Oct 15 Initial Conference
• Dec 1 Formal Observation
• Jan 15 Mid Year
• April 1 Formal Observation
• June Annual Evaluation

Form Noncertificated Staff (CUB, Local 44, PSRP, Unaffiliated)

• Oct 31 Initial Conference
• Feb 15 Mid Year
• June Annual Evaluation

Form 6

Historical Feedback on Evaluations

7

Professional Expectation

Dec 2014 teacher group Jan 2015 teacher group Feb 2015 principal feedback

SLO

May 2015 BTU Building Reps Sept 2015 teacher group

SPM

Dec 2015 principal group Jan 2016 teacher group April 2017 teacher & principal group

Evaluation Experience Overall

June 2016 teacher group Feb-June 2017 teachers & principals Summer 2017 teacher groups Nov 2017 SREB focus groups

Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement

BTU & PSRP Engagement

• 3/8/19 - Leadership
• 3/21/19, 4/4/19 - Field

Representatives

• 4/23/19 - Building

Representatives

PSASA Engagement

• 3/12/19 - Leadership
• 3/26/19 - Membership

CUB & L44 Engagement

• 3/26/19, 4/11/19 -

Leadership

• May Membership (TBD)

Employee Engagement

• 4/1/19 – Online form available (via City

Schools News)

• 4/10/19 - BMoreEdChat
• 4/10/19 - Charter School Leader Focus

Group

• 4/25/19 - FaceBook Live
• 5/6/19 - Lunch focus group, May Citywide

Stakeholder Engagement

• 3/19/19 – ASCBC
• 4/25/19 – PCAB
• 4/30/19 – Community advocate focus

group

• 5/13/19 – SECAC
• 5/30/19 – Charter and Operator-Led

Schools Advisory Board 8

• Why do we evaluate employees?
• What do we hope to learn?

Purpose of Evaluating Employees

• What does Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, and

Ineffective performance mean?

Defining Performance

• What might unannounced formal observations look

like?

Conducting Formal Observations

• What might it look like for employees to be on/off

evaluation cycles? How would we identify eligible staff?

Annual Evaluations: Every Year

• Universal: Initial Planning Conference, Mid Year,

Annual Evaluation

• Union Specific: Observations, SLOs

Aligning Milestones

• Use for professional development
• Career pathway and leadership opportunities

Aligning Use of Information

9

Gathering Feedback: Areas of Focus

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
• f 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.

12

Defining Employee Performance

Proposed Regulation Highly Effective

Employee performance exceeds high expectations of the role, demonstrates high levels of leadership, and includes evidence

• f impact on student, school, and/or district success. This level
• f performance is exemplary and distinguishes the employee

amongst a professional community of high impact leaders.

Effective

Employee performance meets high expectations of the role and includes evidence of impact on student, school, and/or district success.

Developing

Employee performance meets expectations of the role in many areas, but employees demonstrate limited impact in their role. There is evidence of employees growing in their practice.

Ineffective

Employee performance meets expectations of the role in few

• areas. Employees are generally inconsistent in their practice

and demonstrate limited impact in their role, with little evidence of growth in their practice.

Proposed Policy & Regulations

Highlighted protocols include:

• Universal milestones for all employees, regardless of

affiliation

• Attention to importance of data and evidence of impact
• n 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

13

Proposed Policy & Regulations (cont.)

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?

14

Board Policy & Regulations: Overview

GCO: Employee Evaluations

GCO-RA: Individual Development Plan GCO-RB: Mid Year GCO-RC: Annual Evaluation Includes rating definitions for 4-tier GCO-RD: Formal Observations Teacher-Level certificated staff GCO-RE: Performance Improvement Plan GCO-RF: Evaluation Review & Update Process

15

Applies to all City Schools employees, regardless of affiliation

Legal and Policy References

• 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

16

Board of School Commissioners

Cheryl A. Casciani, Chair Linda Chinnia, Vice-Chair

• Dr. Muriel Berkeley
• Dr. Michelle Harris Bondima

Andrew “Andy” Frank

• Dr. Martha James-Hassan

Ronald S. McFadden Vernon A. Reid Johnette A. Richardson Joshua Lynn, Student Commissioner Christian Gant, Esq., Board Executive Officer

Senior Management Team

• Dr. Sonja Brookins Santelises, Chief Executive Officer

Alison Perkins-Cohen, Chief of Staff Shashi Buddula, Interim Chief Technology Officer Sean L. Conley, Chief Academic Officer John L. Davis, Jr., Chief of Schools Jeremy Grant-Skinner, Chief Human Capital Officer Tina Hike-Hubbard, Chief Communications and Community Engagement Officer Theresa Jones, Chief Achievement and Accountability Officer Tammy L. Turner, Esq., Chief Legal Officer John Walker, Interim Chief Financial Officer

• Dr. Lynette Washington, Interim Chief Operating

Officer

17