DASA/DSEA DPAS II Work

Group
Recommendations for
Changes to 106 A and 107
A

Work Group Members

Sherry Antonetti Speech Pathologist, Caesar Rodney
Clay Beauchamp Second Grade teacher, Lake Forest
Cheryl Bowman Guidance Counselor, Seaford
Kent Chase Assistant Principal, Woodbridge
Charlynne Hopkins Principal, Indian River
Chris JonesSocial Studies teacher, Appoquinimink
Jackie Kook Agriscience teacher, Christina
Suzette Marine Principal, Capital
Dave Santore Principal, Caesar Rodney
Nancy Talmo Business Education Teacher, Colonial

Our Initial Task

To look at the current rating system and
propose how the formative component
ratings could roll up to the summative
component ratings
To look at the overall summative rating
system and propose how the summative
component ratings could best roll up to an
overall rating

Refinement
How to determine the summative rating
for Components 1-4 when there is more
than one formative assessment
How to generate Component 5 ratings
when we have multiple measures what
would it look like for Measures B and C?

Our Process
Three problem solving meetings held
April 21, April 29, and May 12
Meeting were facilitated by Kevin Carson
(DASA) and Deb Stevens (DSEA)
Work group members worked in small and
large groups to reach consensus on a final
recommendation for each task

Current Formative to
Summative Ratings
Component 1-4 ratings:
Unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, distinguished
Formative

Component 5 ratings:
Summativ
Unsatisfactory, satisfactory, exceeds
e

Component 1-4 overall rating: Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory

no more than one
unacceptable rating on appraisal criteria specified in each
Overall
component.
Summativ
Overall summative rating: Highly effective, effective, needs
e
improvement, ineffective

Ratings Parameters
Equal weight for each component
20%
Eliminate overall rating for
Components 1-4
Average criterion for each
component
Create a numeric rating scale

Initial Rating System Proposal

Criteria Ratings - Components 1-4
Unsatisfactor
y
0
Unsatisfactor
y

Basic
2

Proficient
3

Component 1-4 Ratings

Basic
Proficient
1.6 to 2.5

2.6 to 3.5

0 to 1.5

Distinguishe
d
4

Distinguish
ed
3.6 to 4

Component 5 Rating
Unsatisfactor
y
0
Unsatisfactor
y
0 to 1.5

Basic

Proficient

(Unsatisfactory
w/discretion)

(satisfactory)

(Exceeds)

Summative Rating
Basic
Proficient
1.6 to 2.5

Distinguishe
d

2.6 to 3.5

Distinguish
ed
3.6 to 4

Revised Rating System

Proposal
Criteria Ratings - Components 1-4
Unsatisfactor
y
0
Unsatisfactor
y

Basic
2

Proficient
3

Component 1-4 Ratings

Basic
Proficient
1.6 to 2.59

2.6 to 3.59

0 to 1.59

Distinguishe
d
4

Distinguish
ed
3.6 to 4

Component 5 Rating
Unsatisfactor
y
0
Unsatisfactor
y
0 to 1.59

Basic

Proficient

(Unsatisfactory
w/discretion)

(satisfactory)

(Exceeds)

Summative Rating
Basic
Proficient
1.6 to 2.59

Distinguishe
d

2.6 to 3.59

Distinguish
ed
3.6 to 4

Example 1
Component Ratings
Component 1
a.3, b. 3, c. 4, d. 3, e. 2
Average = 3
Component rating = Proficient
Component 2
a.3, b.2, c. 3, d. 3
Average = 2.75
Component rating = Proficient
Component 3
a.3, b. 4, c. 3, d. 4, e. 3
Average = 3.4
Component rating = Proficient
Component 4
a. 4, b. 3, c. 4, d. 4
Average = 3.75
Component rating = Distinguished
Component 5
Proficient
Rating = 3 Component rating = Proficient

Summative Rating
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component

1
2
3
4
5

3
2.75
3.4
3.75
3

Total
15.9
Average3.18
Rating
Proficient

Example 2
Component Ratings
Component 1
a.2, b. 3, c. 2, d. 3, e. 2
Average = 2.4
Component rating = Basic
Component 2
a.3, b.2, c. 3, d. 3
Average = 2.75
Component rating = Proficient
Component 3
a.3, b. 2, c. 3, d. 2, e. 3
Average = 2.6
Component rating = Proficient
Component 4
a. 3, b. 3, c. 2, d. 3
Average = 2.75
Component rating = Proficient
Component 5
Basic
Rating = 2 Component rating = Basic

Summative Rating

Component
Component
Component
Component
Component

1
2
3
4
5

2.4
2.75
2.6
2.75
2

Total
12.5
Average2.5
Rating
Basic

Suggested Formula for Rating

Components with Multiple Formatives
Component 1 Ratings
Component 1
a.3, b. 3, c. 3, d. 3, e. 2
= 2.8
a.3, b. 4, c. 4, d. 3, e. 3
= 3.4
a.3, b. 4, c. 3, d. 3, e. 3
= 3.2

Summative Rating

Formative 1
Formative 2
Formative 3

2.8
3.4
3.2

Total
9.4
Average3.1
Rating
Proficient

Component 4
4a. Communicating with Family
Information about the instructional program
Information about individual students
Engagement of families in the instructional program

4b. Recording Data in a Student Record System

Student completion of assignments
Student progress in learning
Non-instructional records

4c. Growing and Developing Professionally

Enhancement of content knowledge and pedagogical skills
Receptivity to feedback from colleagues
Service to the profession

4d. Reflecting on Professional Practice

Accuracy
Use in future teaching

Rating Component 4
Currently done differently in different districts
Criteria may be rated only once over a one or
two year cycle
Some criteria may be rated more than once
over the one or two year cycle
The work group believes that these rating
differences with Component 4 can be
accommodated with an algorithm that would
account for multiple criteria entries included
as part of the online platform

Rating Component 5
The work group believes that quality and
relevance of the B and C measures are of
greater importance when deriving a rating
The work group believes that attributing
20% of the overall summative rating is
appropriate and still retains student
improvement as a significant factor
within the evaluation system

Rating Component 5
Given the ambiguity of the current rating system for Component 5
when it comes to
assigning a percentage value for each B and C measure for group 2
and 3 educators,
the work group believes that a Component 5 rating can be
determined:

Through a collaborative discussion between the educator and the

assessor
Where both parties can determine placement on the 4 part
summative rating scale for Component 5, particularly when rating
the B and C measures.
Measure A automatically places the educator in one of the four
rating categories. The combined rating for group 1 educators can
be determined using the same collaborative discussion.

Conclusions
The work group created this rating system
as a replacement for the current DPAS II
Summative Rating system.
The work group proposes and advocates
for the system to be adopted statewide,
not offered as an alternative evaluation
system available to districts upon
application.

On the Issue of Annual

Summatives
The group does not support annual summatives
An annual summative rating could potentially
be based upon only one formative observation
The group recommends retaining the current
two year cycle, but including the off year
component 5 rating in the summative by
averaging the component 5 rating for the two
years of the cycle.

Items for Further

Consideration
The proposed rating system should be
piloted during the 2015-16 school year
with statewide implementation in the
2016-17 school year
Component 5 measures for Groups 2 and 3
need to be revisited and revised

Items for Further

Consideration
To implement the proposed numeric rating
system any online evaluation platform
approved by the state must include an
algorithm that would automatically
calculate the component ratings taking
into account the number of times each
criterion is rated during the evaluation
period.