On-the-job Evaluation of Principals Jacquelyn O. Wilson, Ed.D. Delaware SAELP Director Wallace Foundation National Conference October 25-28, 2006.

On-the-job Evaluation of Principals

Jacquelyn O. Wilson, Ed.D.Delaware SAELP Director

Wallace Foundation National ConferenceOctober 25-28, 2006

Delaware Performance Evaluation System II

Educator Professional Development and Accountability Act of 2000 Established DPAS II for all educators Required that the system have no more than 5

components, with one component addressing student improvement.

Required that evaluators be properly trained and credentialed

Delaware Performance Appraisal System II

Four Components Each component weighted equally Taken together, the components of the DPAS II

system provide a strong focus on teaching and learning

Components 2 through 4 directly relate to an administrator’s daily responsibilities

Component 1 examines the administrator’s performance in light of national standards for school leaders

Delaware Performance Appraisal System II

Component 1 – Leader Standards Component 2 – Goals and Priorities Component 3 – School or District Improvement

Plan Component 4 – Measures of Student

Achievement

Delaware Performance Evaluation System II-Component 1

Assesses the administrator’s performance against six national standards

Establish a context in which administrators focus on components 2, 3, and 4

Assessed through an electronic survey

Component 1

School Leader Survey Provides judgment about 4 components of

professional practice for each of six school leader standards

Survey completed by: Administrator completes a self-assessment Teachers who are supervised by the administrator

complete an anonymous survey by April 1 Evaluator completes a survey

Component 1

School Leader Survey All surveys are forwarded electronically to the

evaluator, who develops a composite score of the data from the three surveys

Evaluator develops a summary assessment in the spring of the year

Components 2, 3, and 4

Components 2, 3 and 4 are intentionally aligned with the school improvement plan and the district strategic plan

Designed to work together to reinforce and support improved student performance and to drive continuous improvement

Data and evidence collected by administrator as part of the process should be a natural harvest of the administrator’s ongoing work.

Component 2: Goals and Priorities

Sources of Goals Most should be linked directly to an

administrator’s school or district improvement plan

Should be focused on improving practice and student performance

May include a goal based on leader standards May focus on unique school or district conditions May result from the administrator’s self-reflection

Component 2: Goals and Priorities

Substance of goals should: Connect to ISLLC Standards for School Leaders Be organizationally grounded Emphasize the direct contributions of the

administrator Be anchored in analysis of data Be limited in number Have a longitudinal focus Be challenging Be mutually determined

Component 3 – School or District Improvement Plan

Process mirrors that employed in Component 2

Evaluator and administrator review school or district improvement plan and identify specific goals and targets

An agreed upon timeline for achievement of targets will be developed

Component 4 – Student Improvement

Achievement and improvement in 3 broad areas grounds this part of the system School Accountability DSTP data Other measures of student achievement

Process

Goal Setting

Conference

Leader Standards

Survey

SummativeEvaluation

&Conference

Mid-Year Conference

Procedures

Determine administrators to be evaluated and their status

Administrator submits completed goal form prior to August 15, based on the Summative Evaluation conference held during the summer. New administrators should complete the goal form within one month of employment

Procedures

Administrator and evaluator meet within one month of summative conference, and no later than September 15 to agree upon goals. For superintendents, conference with the Board will take place prior to June 30

Mid-year conference will be held in December or January

Written summary of mid-year conference prepared by the evaluator

Procedures

Evaluator and administrator agree on who will complete Leader Standards Survey

Survey completed by April 1 Evaluator develops a composite of data

from survey Administrator compiles student achievement

data and progress on goals and submits to evaluator at least one week in advance of summative conference

Procedures

Summative Conference Held during the summer (Superintendent and Board will

hold a summative conference no later than June 15) All four components reviewed and discussed Initiate discussion of goals for the upcoming year. Evaluator completes Summative Evaluation Form and

forwards to administrator within one week of conference

Waiver Process

DPAS II features an annual process, but certain aspects may be waived for experienced educators whose performance is at least satisfactory. One year cycle for inexperienced administrators Two year cycle for experienced administrators

whose performance is satisfactory

Waiver Year

During a waiver year, the goal setting process and conference continue

Evaluator and administrator meet at least four times over the two-year cycle Summer or early fall of year 1 for agreement on

goals Mid year each year to discuss progress End of year 2 to for summative conference

The Leader Standards survey is conducted in the spring of year two

Component Performance Levels

Satisfactory Performance Clear and convincing evidence that the administrator has

met established targets; Demonstrated flexibility in adapting to unusual

circumstances; School leader know what to do and does it; Administrator understands the concept underlying the

component and implements it well

Component Performance Levels

Unsatisfactory Performance Little or no evidence of achievement of

established targets Administrator does not yet appear to understand

the concepts underlying the component and was unable to meet the established targets

Summative Performance Levels

Effective Four satisfactory ratings among the four

components Needs Improvement

One unsatisfactory rating among the four components

Ineffective Two or more unsatisfactory ratings among the

four components

Pattern of Ineffective Administration

Needs Improvement rating for a third consecutive year results in a pattern of ineffective administration

Effective Ineffective Ineffective

Needs Improvement

Needs Improvement

Ineffective

Needs Improvement

Ineffective Needs Improvement

Needs Improvement

Ineffective Ineffective

Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective

Ineffective Ineffective Needs Improvement

Ineffective Needs Improvement

Ineffective

Ineffective Needs Improvement

Needs Improvement

Improvement Plan

Developed when an administrator receives: An overall rating of Needs Improvement or

Ineffective on the Summative Evaluation A rating of Unsatisfactory on any component of

the Summative Evaluation

Improvement Plan

Must include: Definition of specific deficiencies Measurable goals for improving deficiencies to

satisfactory level Evidence that must be provided or behaviors that

must be demonstrated Procedures for evaluating and documenting

improvement Timeline Record of judgment and date completed

Development of Improvement Plan

Expectation of mutual development Both evaluator and administrator complete a

preliminary Assistance Plan Meet to bring two preliminary plans together

into one final Assistance Plan If consensus cannot be reached, the

evaluator will develop the Plan.

Appeal Process

An administrator may appeal any rating on the Summative Evaluation, either a component rating or the overall rating Must submit additional information specific to the

point pf disagreement in writing within 10 days If the differences cannot be resolved, the appeal

is forwarded to the supervisor of the evaluator. If the Superintendent is also the evaluator, the

appeal is directed to him/her The decision of the evaluator is final

Delaware Performance Evaluation Sytem II

Two-year pilot in two school districts 2005-2007

Outside evaluator to provide feedback regarding the system and the training

Changes to the system and to the training following each year of the pilot

Statewide implementation 2007-2008 to 17remaining districts and all charter schools

So what did we find out with the pilot in year one???

Principals need to know the standards and the behaviors that lead to results in student achievement

Principals need to understand how to use data …..to set goals, priorities, and targets for improvement

Principals must be trained on how to collect evidence to show that they did what they said they would do and the results of that work…good or bad

So what did we find out with the pilot in year one???

Principals must be able to communicate with their supervisor what is really important regarding school improvement---this means one must be an instructional leader

Principals need high quality professional development in order to be effective leaders-