News from the Stakeholders Feedback Session on RISE

For those of you who did not attend the Stakeholders Feedback session, changes have been made to the RISE rating rubric in order to align it 1:1 with the HR appraisal tool. We were able to achieve this by breaking up some of the previous performance objectives to match the appropriate domain and dimension. Some additions were made based on feedback to best show the breadth of work you all do in specific settings.

In response to suggestions provided in Stakeholders Feedback session, the following changes have been made to our RISE appraisal system:

Rating Rubric

• Based on recommendations from last year’s end of year survey, we had already divided the planning dimension into RtI for elementary and Indicator 13 for secondary. During the stakeholder feedback session, some SLPs who only serve centralized programs indicated concern with this split, as neither one of these areas is applicable to them. 
• A recommendation from one of our SLP stakeholders to focus on “planning” as the foundation for this domain, led us to redistribute RtI and Indicator 13 into other areas of the rubric (to be evaluated only if applicable), and we have moved the planning and use of evidence-based practice to this domain. This makes all domains and associated ratings applicable to all SLPs regardless of where they serve.

Campus Observation Feedback Form  

• We have simplified the feedback form to focus on observations specific to therapy and service delivery.  
• Feedback will be organized by specific attributes from the rubric to avoid repetition making feedback easier to read.

Principal Feedback

• We will alert you when the Principal Feedback form is being sent to principals.
• We will seek your input on the most appropriate Principal to seek feedback from while cc-ing your main principal.
• Principals will be encouraged to collaborate with other staff members who have direct knowledge of your skills/performance (including ARD facilitators and SpEd Department Chair/Lead).
• We will encourage Principals to reach out to you directly in the event that their feedback form indicates a concern.
• We have added a question for principals to complete: “Is there any other information you would like to provide, that will be shared directly with your campus SLP?”

Portfolio:

• Expectations were clarified as to what is required and what is optional.
• Discussion took place about changing the verbiage to required, recommended, and optional. It was decided after further discussion that this may cause more confusion. In an effort to establish clarity on this topic, portfolio components considered for a rating of proficient will be stated as “required”, and components considered for a rating of accomplished or distinguished will be stated as “optional”.
• A non-duty staff development opportunity will be provided if you are interested in viewing a sample portfolio and to receive guidance on how to develop a strong portfolio.

Thank you again, to all who participated!