Download
1 / 21
E N D
1. Lake County Public Schools October 30, 2006 IPDP Standards Alignment Review
2. Florida Statute 1012.98: The Department of Education shall design methods by which the state and district school boards may evaluate and improve the professional development system. The evaluation must include an annual assessment of data that indicates progress or lack of progress of all students. If the review of the data indicates progress, the department shall identify the best practices that attributed to the progress. If the review of the data indicates a lack of progress, the department shall investigate the causes of lack of progress, provide technical assistance, and require the school district to employ a different approach to professional development. The department shall report annually to the State Board of Education and the Legislature any school district that, in the determination of the department, has failed to provide an adequate professional development system. This report must include the results of the departments investigation and any intervention provided.
3. Protocol Ratings 4 - Excellent Pervasive evidence of the implementation of the standard
3 - Good Considerable evidence of the implementation of the standard
2 - Marginal Some, but inconsistent, evidence of the implementation of the standard
1 - Unacceptable - Little or no evidence of the implementation of the standard
4. 1.1.4. Individual Professional Development Plan: The Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP) is directly related to specific student performance data for those areas to which the teacher is assigned, contains clearly defined training objectives, specifies measurable improvement in student performance resulting from the training activity, and includes an evaluation component documenting the expected student performance gains.
5. Criteria for Standards-aligned IPDPs Aligned with the School Improvement Goals
Student Data disaggregated at the classroom level
Training Objective(s) addresses student needs
Research-based Training and Learning Activities
Specific measurable goals for student achievement.
Student performance results
Documented conferences
Results used for future planning
6. Alignment with School Improvement Goals Results:
The large majority of the IPDPs reviewed (84%) were aligned with School Improvement Goals.
93% of the high school teachers had clearly indicated the related school improvement goal.
74% of the elementary teachers were successful in meeting this important alignment indicator.
7. Recommendations:
Require each and every teacher to copy the related school improvement goal verbatim (including the goal number) in the School Improvement Goal section of the IPDP.
8. Student Data Results:
Just 6% of the IPDPs reviewed indicated data that was specific and disaggregated for the students in the teachers classroom.
In a large number of cases only the instruments used for needs assessment were indicated on the IPDP with no notation of student performance on the assessments.
9. IPDPs and Student Data Examples:
10. IPDPs and Student Data Non-Examples:
11. Recommendations: Reword the Student Data to include specific results on previous assessments that are analyzed in appropriate groupings for disaggregation.
12. Training Objectives: Results:
47% of the IPDPs contained training objectives that specified areas of teacher learning clearly related to needs indicated by the student data.
The IPDPs of the Middle School teachers were more aligned with this standard than those of elementary teachers (65% vs. 30%).
13. Recommendations: Reword the Related Professional Development Objectives by beginning with I need to learn
14. Training and Learning Activities : Results:
55% of the IPDPs reviewed included training and implementation activities related to student data and the indicated professional development objective.
In the 11% of the IPDPs receiving the lowest rating on Training and Learning Activities, most lacked specificity concerning planned training, making it difficult to discern if the activity was research based.
Many of the IPDPS did not detail activities that indicated classroom implementation of strategies learned through training activities.
15. Recommendations: Make sure that both training and implementation activities are specific and detailed.
16. Student Achievement Goals: Results:
Just 33% of the IPDPs reviewed evidenced specific and measurable achievement goals.
47% the Middle School teachers met the criteria for this standard, the alignment percentage decreased significantly for high school elementary teachers (27% and 26% respectively).
Many IPDPs listed valid measurement instrument, but did not detail any benchmarks for determining the improvement of student achievement.
17. Recommendations: Require that an achievable performance goal be specified for every assessment instrument that is listed in the Student Outcome Goals section of the IPDP:
18. Student Performance Results: Results:
The Documented Results section of 51% of the IPDPs reviewed fulfilled all of the criteria of this standard.
Many IPDPs indicated general comments of improvement rather than specific student performance scores.
19. Recommendations: Require that specific student performance data is entered on the IPDP prior to the final teacher/administrator review conference.
20. Documented Conferences: Results:
83% of the IPDPs reviewed participant signatures and pre-post conference dates provided evidence that the teacher met individually with the principal or a designee as the IPDP was being developed and again upon completion for evaluating/reviewing the results of the IPDP.
21. Use of Results: Results:
83% of the IPDPs reviewed provided evidence that the results of the IPDP are used as part of the needs assessment for the next years IPDP through the completion of the Professional Growth Reflection template.
