Pennsylvania Code & Bulletin
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

• No statutes or acts will be found at this website.

The Pennsylvania Code website reflects the Pennsylvania Code changes effective through 52 Pa.B. 6342 (October 1, 2022).

22 Pa. Code § 19.4a. Nonteaching Professional (NTP) Employee Evaluation.

§ 19.4a. Nonteaching Professional (NTP) Employee Evaluation.

 Educator Effectiveness rating tools, comprised of instructions and forms, function as summary records in the evaluation of the effectiveness of professional employees. Educator Effectiveness rating tools shall be used in accordance with the General Provisions contained in §  19.1a (relating to general provisions).

 Table 19.4a-1 represents the rating form, and depicts the significance (that is, weighting) of each rating area in the overall performance rating, for the evaluation of nonteaching professionals which includes educational specialists, instructional professionals other than classroom teachers, supervisor professionals other than supervisors of special education.

Table 19.4a-1: PDE 13-3 Rating Form



PDE 13-3
Department of Education
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
LEA: School:
Employee Name (Last, First, Middle):
Rating Period:  Professional Employee  or   Temporary Professional Employee
Date Completed:  Annual Evaluation  or   Semi-Annual Evaluation (Temporary only)


NONTEACHING PROFESSIONAL RATING FORM
(A) OBSERVATION & PRACTICE
Domain Rating
(a)
Factor
(b)
Adjusted Rating
(a x b)
I. Planning & Preparation [0—3] 25% [0—0.75]
II. Educational Environment [0—3] 25% [0—0.75]
III. Delivery of Service [0—3] 25% [0—0.75]
IV. Professional Development [0—3] 25% [0—0.75]
(A) Observation & Practice Rating
[0—3]
(B) STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Building Level Score*
Converted to a 0—3 Point Scale
[0—3]
*Scores for nonteaching professionals assigned to multiple buildings shall be calculated pro rata.
(C) NONTEACHING PROFESSIONAL SUMMATIVE RATING (ALL MEASURES)
NTP Category Measure Rating
(f)
Factor
(g)
Adjusted Rating
(f x g)
NTP with
Building Level
Data
Observation & Practice [0—3] 90% [0—2.70]
Building Level
Data
[0—3] 10% [0—0.30]
NTP WITH BUILDING LEVEL DATA RATING
[0—3]**
NTP w/out
Building Level
Data
Observation & Practice [0—3] 100% [0—3.00]
NTP W/OUT BUILDING LEVEL DATA RATING
[0—3]**
Temporary NTP Observation & Practice [0—3] 100% [0 —3.00]
TEMPORARY NTP RATING
[0—3]**
***Final Rating Values 0
Failing
1
Needs
Improvement
2         3
Proficient   Distinguished


I certify the afore-named employee has received a performance rating of:
  DISTINGUISHED       PROFICIENT       NEEDS         FAILING
IMPROVEMENT
Distinguished, Proficient, or Needs Improvement* shall be considered Satisfactory. Failing shall be considered
Unsatisfactory.
*A second Needs Improvement rating issued by the same employer within 4 years of the first where the
employee is in the same certification shall be considered Unsatisfactory.
The performance rating shall be deemed:
   SATISFACTORY                       UNSATISFACTORY
Date: Rater Name/Position:
Date: Chief School Administrator Signature:
I acknowledge that I have read the information contained herein and that I have been provided an opportunity to discuss it with the rater.
Date: Employee Signature:
Employee signature does not signify agreeance with the performance rating.

 (a)  Observation and Practice

   (1)  The effectiveness of a professional employee serving as a nonteaching professional shall be based on observation and practice models (see Table 19.1a-1: Rating Areas and Significance by Professional Employee Evaluated).

   (2)  A rating must be given in each of the four domains of professional practice, with each domain rating constituting a percentage of the single, summative Observation and Practice rating for the nonteaching professional.

     (i)   Domains and weighting for Educational Specialists (ES) and for instructional professionals other than Classroom Teachers (CT) are denoted in Table 19.4a-2.

Table 19.4a-2: NTP Observation & Practice Weighting by Domain
(ES, Instructional Professional other than CT)



DOMAIN PERCENTAGE OF OBSERVATION &
PRACTICE RATING
I. Planning & Preparation 25%
II. Educational Environment 25%
III. Delivery of Service 25%
IV. Professional Development 25%

     (ii)   The rating for each domain of professional practice for educational specialists and instructional professionals other than classroom teachers shall be based on the four levels of performance as defined in Table 19.4a-3.

Table 19.4a-3: The Four Levels of Performance by Domain (ES, Instructional Professional other than CT)



I. PLANNING & PREPARATION (25%)
Effective nonteaching professionals (NTPs) plan and prepare to deliver high-quality services equitably to all learners
based upon extensive evidence-based knowledge of their discipline relative to individual and systems-level needs and within the context of interdisciplinary collaboration. Service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable, and represent relevant goals for the individual and system.*
Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Distinguished
NTP’s planning and preparation reflect little or no understanding of their discipline 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.**
NTP’s planning and preparation reflect moderate understanding of their discipline relative to individual and systems-level needs.

Some service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable, and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system.**
NTP’s planning and preparation reflect a thorough understanding of their discipline relative to individual and systems-level needs.

Most service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable, and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system.**
NTP’s planning and preparation reflect extensive understanding of their discipline relative to individual and systems-level needs.

All service delivery outcomes are clear, measurable, and represent relevant goals for the individual and/or system.**
II. EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT (25%)
Effective NTPs 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.*
Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Distinguished
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, behavior, use of space and time, instruction and intervention with students, maintaining confidentiality, etc.**
Environment is controlled, but reflects only moderate expectations for improved academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes.

There are some clearly defined standards for interactions, use of space and time, instruction and intervention with students, and maintaining confidentiality, etc.**
Environment functions smoothly, with an efficient use of space and time and effective supports for academic, behavioral, and social-emotional growth.

Standards and expectations for interactions, instruction and intervention with students, and maintaining confidentiality are high.**
Recipients of services make a significant and meaningful contribution to various dimensions of the environment and contribute
to improved academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes.**
III. DELIVERY OF SERVICE (25%)
Effective NTP service delivery and evidence-based practice originate from a problem-solving process that can be
applied at the individual, group, and systems level and is used for: (a) identification of priority areas for improvement;
(b) analysis of variables related to the situation, including student needs and backgrounds; (c) selection of relevant factors within the system; (d) fidelity of implementation of services and supports; and (e) monitoring of effectiveness of services.*
Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Distinguished
Minimal or no use of a problem-solving process to identify, analyze, and provide appropriate services and supports with fidelity.

Minimal or no use of data and/or stakeholder engagement to monitor and improve the effectiveness of services.**
Moderate use of a problem-solving process to identify, analyze, and provide appropriate services and supports.

Inconsistent use of data and/or stakeholder engagement to monitor and improve the effectiveness of services.**
Effective use of a problem-solving process to identify, analyze, and provide appropriate services and supports with fidelity.

Consistent use of data and/or stakeholder engagement to monitor and improve the effectiveness of services.**
Effective use of a problem-solving process to identify, analyze, and provide appropriate services and supports with flexibility and fidelity.

Extensive and strategic use of data and/or stakeholder engagement to monitor and improve the effectiveness of services.

As a function of interdisciplinary collaboration and problem-solving, student and systems-level outcomes improve over time.**
IV. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (25%)
Effective NTPs have high ethical standards and a deep sense of professionalism, focused on improving their own service delivery in an equitable and inclusive manner and supporting the ongoing learning of colleagues. Their record keeping systems are efficient and effective. NTPs 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 evidence-based practices. Reflection on their practice results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and contribute to improving the practice of others.*
Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Distinguished
NTPs do 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.

Communication is ineffective, as evidenced by lack of clarity, limited frequency, and absence of cultural sensitivity.
NTPs 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.

Communication is somewhat effective, albeit inconsistent.
NTPs fully adhere 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.

Communication is clear, frequent, and effective.
NTPs have 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.

NTPs do not take on 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.**
NTPs infrequently accept 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.**
NTPs 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 may result in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others.**
Communication is proactive and highly effective, characterized by clarity, frequency, respect, and cultural sensitivity.

NTPs consistently seek out 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 consistently results in ideas for improvement that are shared across professional learning communities and/or contribute to improving the practice of others.**

 *Adapted by the Pennsylvania Department of Education with permission from copyrighted material of Charlotte Danielson.

 **From Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teachers, 2nd Edition (pp. 41-42), by Charlotte Danielson, Alexandria, VA: ASCD. [copy ] 2007 by ASCD. Adapted and reproduced with permission.

     (iii)   The effectiveness of supervisor nonteaching professionals shall be evaluated using the approved practice models published within the Framework for Leadership. A crosswalk between planning and preparation, educational environment, delivery of service and professional development and the Leadership domains is available on the Department’s web site. Domains and weighting for supervisor nonteaching professionals are denoted in Table 19.4a-4.

Table 19.4a-4: NTP Observation & Practice Weighting by Domain (Supervisor)



DOMAIN PERCENTAGE OF OBSERVATION &
PRACTICE RATING
I. Strategic/Cultural Leadership 25%
II. Systems Leadership 25%
III. Leadership for Learning 25%
IV. Professional & Community Leadership 25%

     (iv)   The rating for each domain of professional practice for supervisor nonteaching professionals shall be based on the four levels of performance as defined in Table 19.3a-3

   (3)  Approved practice models shall be published on the Department’s web site. The practice models and associated domains establish frameworks for the Observation and Practice evaluation of nonteaching professionals. In determining a domain rating for the professional employee, an LEA may use any portion or combination of the approved practice models associated with a domain within the framework developed for the role of the nonteaching professional evaluated.

   (4)  Observation and Practice ratings shall be informed using evidentiary source materials noted in the professional employee’s record, including dates and times as applicable. Records may include, but are not limited to, any combination of the following items as appropriate for the employee and the employee’s placement in a school or program:

     (i)   Notations of professional observations, employee/rater conferences or interviews, or informal observations or visits.

     (ii)   Communication logs (such as emails, letters, notes regarding conversations with parents, staff, students, community members).

     (iii)   Utilization of formative and summative assessments that impact instruction and critiques of lesson plans.

     (iv)   Agendas and minutes of meetings, programs, courses or planning sessions.

     (v)   Family, parent, school and community feedback.

     (vi)   Development and implementation of school improvement plans, professional growth programs, in-service programs, student assemblies, safety programs, and other events or programs that promote educational efficacy, health and safety.

     (vii)   Budget and expenditure reports.

     (viii)   Professional development documentation toward continuance of certification or licensure or both.

     (ix)   Use of professional reflections.

     (x)   Examination of sources of evidence provided by the employee.

   (5)  The evidence and evaluator observations and findings shall provide the basis for rating the professional employee’s level of performance in each of the four domains and for assigning each domain rating a zero, one, two- or three-point value.

   (6)  The rating value for each domain is adjusted by the percentage factor attributed to that domain (see Table 19.4a-1: PDE 13-3 Rating Form, Part (A)); the sum of the adjusted values is the Observation & Practice rating for the nonteaching professional.

 (b)  Student Performance: Building Level Data

   (1)  Student Performance data as available and attributable at the building level shall comprise 10% of the evaluation of the effectiveness of a nonteaching professional employee (see Table 19.1a-1: Rating Areas and Significance by Professional Employee Evaluated).

   (2)  A Building Level Score is comprised minimally of two of the four measures (Assessment, Growth, Attendance Rate, Graduation Rate). If fewer than two of the four measures are available, the Building Level Data weighting of 10% shall be reallocated to Observation and Practice.

   (3)  For a nonteaching professional assigned to multiple buildings, a single Building Level Score shall be calculated proportional to the professional employee’s building assignments.

   (4)  Instead of using a Building Level Score, a nonteaching professional who transfers from one building to another within an LEA shall have the option of reallocating the 10% weighting to Observation & Practice or utilizing LEA Selected Measures for the first two school years of the new location assignment. Before evaluation in the new location assignment, the nonteaching professional and the LEA shall agree to the LEA Selected Measures, if applicable, and the reallocation of the weighting of 10% from Building Level Data to Observation and Practice or to LEA Selected Measures to calculate the final performance rating.

Authority

   The provisions of this §  19.4a issued under sections 1138.3(d)(1), 1138.4(e)(1), 1138.5(d)(1) and 1138.11 of the Public School Code of 1949 (24 P.S. § §  1138.3(d)(1), 1138.4(e)(1), 1138.5(d)(1) and 1138.11); and sections 201 and 506 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. § §  61 and 186).

Source

   The provisions of this §  19.4a adopted March 26, 2021, effective March 31, 2021, 51 Pa.B. 1653.

Cross References

   This section cited in 22 Pa. Code §  19.1a (relating to general provisions).

Appendix A. Interim Rating Form

 To be utilized for any interim evaluation of a professional employee serving as a classroom teacher, principal, or nonteaching professional in accordance with section 1138.9(2).

Table 19.4a-5: PDE 13-4 Rating Form



PDE 13-4
Department of Education
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
LEA: School:
Employee Name (Last, First, Middle):
Rating Period (M/D/Y - M/D/Y):  Professional Employee
(for Temporary Professional Employee, use PDE 13-1, 13-2, or 13-3 as
appropriate)
Date Completed:  Interim Evaluation


INTERIM RATING FORM
(A) CLASSROOM TEACHER: OBSERVATION & PRACTICE
Domain Rating*
(a)
Factor
(b)
Adjusted Rating
(a x b)
I. Planning & Preparation [0—3] 20% [0—0.60]
II. Classroom Environment [0—3] 30% [0—0.90]
III. Instruction [0—3] 30% [0—0.90]
IV. Professional Responsibilities [0—3] 20% [0—0.60]
(A) Observation & Practice Rating [0—3]
(A) PRINCIPAL: OBSERVATION & PRACTICE
Domain Rating
(a)
Factor*
(b)
Adjusted Rating
(a x b)
I. Strategic/Cultural Leadership [0—3] 10%—30% [0—0.90]
II. Systems Leadership [0—3] 10%—30% [0—0.90]
III. Leadership for Learning [0—3] 10%—30% [0—0.90]
IV. Professional & Community Leadership [0—3] 10%—30% [0—0.90]
(A) Observation & Practice Rating [0—3]
*The four assigned factors must total 100%.
(A) NONTEACHING PROFESSIONAL (Educational Specialist, Instructional Professional other than
Classroom Teacher): OBSERVATION & PRACTICE
Domain Rating
(a)
Factor
(b)
Adjusted Rating
(a x b)
I. Planning & Preparation [0—3] 25% [0—0.75]
II. Educational Environment [0—3] 25% [0—0.75]
III. Delivery of Service [0—3] 25% [0—0.75]
IV. Professional Development [0—3] 25% [0—0.75]
(A) Observation & Practice Rating [0—3]
(A) NONTEACHING PROFESSIONAL (Supervisor): OBSERVATION & PRACTICE
Domain Rating
(a)
Factor
(b)
Adjusted Rating
(a x b)
I. Strategic/Cultural Leadership [0—3] 25% [0—0.75]
II. Systems Leadership [0—3] 25% [0—0.75]
III. Leadership for Learning [0—3] 25% [0—0.75]
IV. Professional & Community Leadership [0—3 25% [0—0.75]
(A) Observation & Practice Rating [0—3]
(B) ALL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES: LEA SELECTED MEASURES
(B) LEA Selected Measures Rating** [0—3]
**Ratings for employees evaluated using multiple measures shall be calculated pro rata.
(C) SUMMATIVE RATING ()
Professional
Employee
Category
Measure Rating
(f)
Factor
(g)
Adjusted Rating
(f x g)
Classroom
Teacher
(A) Observation & Practice [0—3 70% [0—2.10]
(B) LEA Selected Measures
[0—3] 30% [0—0.90]
CLASSROOM TEACHER RATING
[0—3]***
Principal
(A) Observation & Practice
[0—3] 70% [0—2.10]
(B) LEA Selected Measures
[0—3] 30% [0—0.90]
PRINCIPAL RATING
[0—3]***
Nonteaching
Professional
(A) Observation & Practice
[0—3] 70% [0—2.10]
(B) LEA Selected Measures
[0—3] 30% [0—0.90]
NONTEACHING PROFESSIONAL RATING
[0—3]***
***Final Rating Values 0
Failing
1
Needs
Improvement
2         3
Proficient   Distinguished


I certify the afore-named employee has received a performance rating of:
  DISTINGUISHED       PROFICIENT       NEEDS         FAILING
IMPROVEMENT
Distinguished, Proficient, or Needs Improvement* shall be considered Satisfactory. Failing shall be considered
Unsatisfactory.
*A second Needs Improvement rating issued by the same employer within 4 years of the first where the
employee is in the same certification shall be considered Unsatisfactory.
The performance rating shall be deemed:
   SATISFACTORY                       UNSATISFACTORY
Date: Rater Name/Position:
Date: Chief School Administrator Signature:

 (a)  When evaluating a professional employee serving as a principal, the LEA may use Performance Goals as a locally developed rubric under LEA Selected Measures.

 (b)  When evaluating a professional employee serving as a nonteaching professional, the LEA may use a locally developed rubric appropriate to the role and responsibilities of the nonteaching professional.

Authority

   The provisions of this Appendix A issued under sections 1138.3(d)(1), 1138.4(e)(1), 1138.5(d)(1) and 1138.11 of the Public School Code of 1949 (24 P.S. § §  1138.3(d)(1), 1138.4(e)(1), 1138.5(d)(1) and 1138.11); and sections 201 and 506 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. § §  61 and 186).

Source

   The provisions of this Appendix A adopted March 26, 2021, effective March 31, 2021, 51 Pa.B. 1653.



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 Code 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.