Transcript Session PowerPoint - Fairfax County Public Schools

FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
Connecting School-Based Administrator
Evaluation to Student Academic Progress
SMARTR Goals for School-Based
Administrators
Teacher Effectiveness
Student
Achievement
Student Achievement
James Stronge, Ph.D.
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Organizing Questions
1
What are the
requirements
for school-based
administrator
SMARTR goals?
2
What should we
know in using
SMARTR goals
in school-based
administrator
evaluation?
3
How are
SMARTR goals
rated in Standard
7 – Student
Academic
Progress?
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
1
Organizing Question #1
1
What are the
requirements
for school-based
administrator
SMARTR goals?
3
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Requirement by the Code of Virginia
…and that includes, among other things, an
assessment of such administrators' skills and
knowledge; student academic progress and school
gains in student learning [emphasis added]; and
effectiveness in addressing school safety and
enforcing student discipline. The division
superintendent shall implement such performance
evaluation process in making employment
recommendations to the school board pursuant to §
22.1-293.”
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Standard 7:
Student Academic Progress
The school-based administrator’s leadership
results in acceptable, measurable student
academic progress based on established
standards.
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Standard 7:
Student Academic Progress
Sample Key Elements
Examples may include, but are not limited to:
• 7.1 Collaboratively develops, implements, and monitors the school
improvement plan that results in increased student academic
progress.
• 7.2 Utilizes research-based techniques for gathering and analyzing
data from multiple measures to use in making decisions related to
student academic progress and school improvement.
• 7.3 Collaborates with teachers and staff to monitor and improve
multiple measures of student progress through the analysis of
data, the application of educational research, and the implementation
of appropriate intervention and enrichment strategies.
• 7.4 Sets benchmarks and implements appropriate strategies and
interventions to accomplish desired outcomes
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Standard 7:
Student Academic Progress
Sample Key Elements
Examples may include, but are not limited to:
• 7.5 Provides evidence that students are meeting measurable,
reasonable, and appropriate achievement goals.
• 7.6 Demonstrates responsibilities for school academic achievement
through proactive interactions with faculty/staff, students, and
other stakeholders.
• 7.7 Collaboratively develops, implements, and ensures teachers’
student achievement goals are aligned with building-level goals for
increased student academic progress and for meeting state
benchmarks.
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Highly Effective
Generates high level
of student academic
progress with all
programs and
populations of
learners in schools.
At least ninety
percent of students
and/or programs
meet and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
School-Based Administrator
Standard 7 Performance Matrix
Effective
Generates
appropriate level of
student academic
progress with all
programs and
populations of
learners in schools.
At least eighty
percent of students
and/or programs
meet and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
Developing/Needs
Improvement
Generates
appropriate level of
student academic
progress with only
some programs and
populations of
learners in schools.
At least fifty percent
of students and/ or
programs meet
and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
Ineffective
Generates low level
of program and
student academic
progress
development
amongst all students.
Less than fifty
percent of students
and/ or programs
meet and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
Standard 7: Student Academic Progress
Recommendations*
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
 Include multiple measures of student academic
progress
 Use student academic progress goals or other
measures of student progress
 Account for 40 percent of the school-based
administrator’s Summative Performance Evaluation
* Source: 2011 Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for
Principals
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Samples of Measures of Student
Academic Progress
Increase in the percent of students enrolled in the
International Baccalaureate Program.
Increase in the number/percentage of students in
underperforming subgroups who enroll in college-level
courses in high school.
Increase in the percent of minority students taking
Advanced Placement/dual enrollment courses.
Increase in the number/percentage of students with
disabilities meeting their Individualized Education Plan
(IEP) goals.
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Samples of Measures of Student
Academic Progress
Increase in examples of nonacademic core middle or high
school classes or students receiving prestigious awards on
a consistent basis (e.g., art, music, band, speech).
Increase in the percentage of elementary students
successfully meeting assessment benchmarks in
English/reading, mathematics, science, and history and
social science.
Pattern of improvement in SOL assessment pass rates.
Pattern of improvement in subgroup achievement on SOL
assessments.
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Guidance on Measures of Student
Academic Progress
• Give priority to quantitative measures already
available in the school that are valid and provide valid
measures of growth.
• Use SMARTR goal setting or other measures that
incorporate data from validated achievement
measures whenever possible.
• Have at least one SMARTR goal included in the
evaluation.
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Our Second Focus Area
What should we
know in using
SMARTR goals
in school-based
administrator
evaluation?
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
How do school-based administrator and
teacher goal setting compare?
Teacher
School-based
Administrator
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC

How do school-based administrator and
teacher goal setting compare?
The goal setting process is the same.
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Step 5:
Determine
needs
Create
specific
growth goals
using baseline
data
Create and
implement
leadership and
management
strategies
Monitor
progress
through
ongoing data
collection
Assess goal
attainment
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC

How do school-based administrator and
teacher goal setting compare?
Evaluating the goal using SMARTR criteria is
the same. The goal must be…
STRATEGIC AND SPECIFIC - Aligned with school-wide goals and focused
on specific learning needs of all students
MEASUREABLE - Quantitative, observable, consistent measure(s) for
overall school performance
ATTAINABLE -
Doable yet challenging
RESULTS-ORIENTED
- Identifies specific outcomes or targets for student
achievement
TIME BOUND - Establishes a sense of priority or urgency for goal attainment
RIGOROUS - Has an appropriate level of rigor to demonstrate mastery of
learning objective(s)
Is this a SMARTR goal?
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Let’s practice evaluating SMARTR goals.

Evaluate the goals using the SMARTR criteria.

If it does not meet all SMARTR criteria, how can
it be revised? Reword the goal.

Be prepared to share with the entire group.
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
School-based Administrator
SMARTR Goal 1
By the end of the 2013-2014 school year, English 8
SOL pass rates will increase by ten percent (from 85
percent during the 2012-2013 school year to 93.5
percent).
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
School-Based Administrator
SMARTR Goal 2
By the end of the 2013-2014 school year, English
8 SOL pass rates of English Language Learner
students will increase by 15 percent (from 50
percent during the 2012-2013 school year to 57.5
percent).
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC



Comparing the SMARTR Goals
Compare the two SMARTR goals (which are
from the same school).
Which of the two SMARTR goals might be
better? Why?
Discuss this with your group.
How do school-based administrator and
teacher goal setting contrast?
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Teacher
School-based
Administrator
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Differences Between Teacher and
School-based Administrator Goals
Teacher goals are
typically…
School-based administrator
goals are typically…

Based on smaller numbers
of students: micro-vision


Focused on individual
student growth
Strongly influenced by
individual student
characteristics
Loosely correlated to
school improvement plans





Based on larger
populations of students:
macro-vision
Focused on percentage of
students reaching mastery
Less influenced by
individual student
characteristics
Highly correlated to school
improvement plans
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Baseline and Post-Measures
Used for teachers…


Usually take place in the
same year
Use the same group of
students
Used for school-based
administrators…


Often take place from
one year to the next
Use different groups of
students
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Example Goals
Teacher
School-Based Administrator
By the end of the 2013-2014
school year, 100 percent of my
AP History students will
increase their analysis of
historical documents skills as
determined by the AP History
test Data Based Question
(DBQ) rubric. Each student’s
post-assessment score will
increase by two levels above
the pre-assessment score.
By the end of the 2013-2014
school year, the percentage of
students passing at least one
college-level course (AP, IB, or
dual enrollment) out of the total
eligible student population will
increase by 10 percent (to 60
percent over last year’s 54
percent).
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Our Last Area of Focus
How are
SMARTR goals
rated in Standard
7 – Student
Academic
Progress?
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Highly Effective
At least ninety
percent of
students and/or
programs meet
and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
School-Based Administrator
SMARTR Goal Setting Matrix
Effective
Developing/Needs
Improvement
At least eighty
percent of students
and/or programs
meet and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
At least fifty percent
of students and/ or
programs meet
and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
Ineffective
Less than fifty
percent of
students and/ or
programs meet
and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Administrator Matrix Rules Explained:
Effective
By the end of the 2013-2014 school year, the percentage of students enrolled in at
least one college-level course (AP, IB, or dual enrollment) out of the total eligible
student population will increase by 10 percent over student enrollment (in these
courses) in 2012-2013.
EFFECTIVE: At least eighty percent of students and/or programs meet and/or
exceed SMARTR Goal.
In the 2012-2013 school year, there were 400 AP/dual enrollment students. A ten
percent increase is 40 students (400 * 0.10 = 40) A ten percent increase would be
440 AP/dual enrollment students in the 2013-2014 school year.
Effective Equation
N ≥ [Last Year’s Total AP/Dual Population + (Student Increase * 0.8)]
400 + (40 * 0.8)
400 + 32 = 432
Effective ≥ 432 AP/dual enrollment students
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Administrator Matrix Rules Explained:
Highly Effective
By the end of the 2013-2014 school year, the percentage of students enrolled in at
least one college-level course (AP, IB, or dual enrollment) out of the total eligible
student population will increase by 10 percent over student enrollment (in these
courses) in 2012-2013.
HIGHLY EFFECTIVE: At least ninety percent of students and/or programs
meet and/or exceed SMARTR Goal.
In the 2012-2013 school year, there were 400 AP/dual enrollment students. A ten
percent increase is 40 students (400 * 0.10 = 40) A ten percent increase would be
440 AP/dual enrollment students in the 2013-2014 school year.
Highly Effective Equation
N ≥ [Last Year’s Total AP/Dual Population + (Student Increase * 0.9)]
400 + (40 * 0.9)
400 + 36 = 436
Highly Effective ≥ 436 AP/dual enrollment students
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Administrator Matrix Rules Explained:
Developing/Needs Improvement
By the end of the 2013-2014 school year, the percentage of students enrolled in at
least one college-level course (AP, IB, or dual enrollment) out of the total eligible
student population will increase by 10 percent over student enrollment (in these
courses) in 2012-2013.
DEVELOPING/NEEDS IMPROVEMENT: At least fifty percent of students
and/or programs meet and/or exceed SMARTR Goal.
In the 2012-2013 school year, there were 400 AP/dual enrollment students. A ten
percent increase is 40 students (400 * 0.10 = 40) A ten percent increase would be
440 AP/dual enrollment students in the 2013-2014 school year.
Developing/Needs Improvement Equation
N ≥ [Last Year’s Total AP/Dual Population + (Student Increase * 0.5)]
400 + (40 * 0.5)
400 + 20 = 420
Developing/Needs Improvement ≥ 420 AP/dual enrollment students
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Administrator Matrix Rules Explained:
Ineffective
By the end of the 2013-2014 school year, the percentage of students enrolled in at
least one college-level course (AP, IB, or dual enrollment) out of the total eligible
student population will increase by 10 percent over student enrollment (in these
courses) in 2012-2013.
Ineffective: Less than fifty percent of students and/or programs meet and/or
exceed SMARTR Goal.
In the 2012-2013 school year, there were 400 AP/dual enrollment students. A ten
percent increase is 40 students (400 * 0.10 = 40) A ten percent increase would be
440 AP/dual enrollment students in the 2013-2014 school year.
Ineffective Equation
N < [last Year’s Total AP/Dual Population + (Student Increase * 0.5)]
400 + (40 * 0.5)
400 + 20 = 420
Ineffective < 420 AP/dual enrollment students
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Administrator Matrix Rules for
SMARTR Goal Setting
By the end of the 2013-2014 school year, the percentage of students enrolled in at
least one college-level course (AP, IB, or dual enrollment) out of the total eligible
student population will increase by 10 percent over student enrollment (in these
courses) in 2012-2013.
Highly Effective
At least ninety
percent of
students and/or
programs meet
and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
N ≥ 436
Effective
Developing/Needs
Improvement
At least eighty
percent of students
and/or programs
meet and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
At least fifty percent
of students and/ or
programs meet
and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
N = 435 - 432
N = 431 - 420
Ineffective
Less than fifty
percent of
students and/ or
programs meet
and/or exceed
SMARTR Goal.
N < 420
Stronge and Associates
Educational Consulting, LLC
Question and Answer Time