Transcript Administrator Evaluation - Wethersfield Public Schools

CONNECTICUT ADMINISTRATOR
EVALUATION
Overview of SEED
SEED – CT’s System for Educator and Evaluation
and Development
April 2013
Wethersfield Public Schools
1
Administrator Evaluation
Student
Learning (45%)
Teacher
Effectiveness (5%)
Leadership
Practice (40%)
Stakeholder
Feedback (10%)
Practice Rating
(50%)
Outcomes
Rating (50%)
Final Rating (100%)
2
Why should Connecticut focus on the evaluation
of school and district leaders?
A proficient administrator is one who:
• Meets expectations as an instructional leader
• Meets expectations in at least three other areas of practice
• Meets one target related to stakeholder feedback
• Meets state accountability growth targets on tests of core
academic subjects
• Meets and makes progress on 3 student learning objectives
aligned to school and district priorities
• Having more than 60% of teachers proficient on the student
growth portion of their evaluation
3
Evaluate All Administrators
Anyone with an 092 license:
 Principals
 Assistant Principals
 Instructional Supervisors
 Other school-based staff who
have primarily administrative
duties
 Central Office Administrators
 Teachers
 Superintendents
 Anyone else not on the other list
4
SCHOOL YEAR: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND EVIDENCE COLLECTION
JULY
Orientation and context setting
AUGUST
Goal setting and plan development
JANUARY
Mid-year formative review
APRIL
Self-assessment
MAY
Preliminary summative assessment
(to be finalized in August)
5
1. Orientation and Context Setting
• Orientation to SEED
• Review data such as:
o Student learning data
o SPI rating
o Stakeholder survey data
o District Improvement Plan (DIP)
o School Improvement Plan (SIP)
• Superintendent communicates student learning
priorities
• School improvement plan, including student learning
goals, in place
6
2. Goal Setting and Plan Development
Available Data:
• Superintendent’s Priorities
• School Improvement Plan
• Prior Evaluation Results
• SPI
• Parent Survey
• Staff Survey
“1-2-3 Goal Setting”
1 - Survey Goal
2 - Focus areas (using Leadership Evaluation Rubric)
3 - Goals related to student achievement
7
Administrator Evaluation
Student
Learning (45%)
Teacher
Effectiveness (5%)
Leadership
Practice (40%)
Stakeholder
Feedback (10%)
Practice Rating
(50%)
Outcomes
Rating (50%)
Final Rating (100%)
8
2. Goal Setting and Plan Development
One (1) Stakeholder Feedback Target (10%)
• Must be based on feedback from at least teachers and parents
• Should be based on growth, except:
- When ratings are already high
- When administrator is new to the role
9
Stakeholder Feedback (10%)
1. Select appropriate survey measures aligned to the Connecticut
Leadership Standards
2. Review baseline data on selected measures
3. Set one target for growth on selected measures (or performance
on selected measures when growth is not feasible to assess)
4. Later in the school year, administer surveys to relevant
stakeholders
5. Aggregate data and determine whether the administrator achieved
the target
6. Assign a summative rating, using this scale:
Exemplary
Proficient
Developing
Below Standard
Substantially
exceeded target
Met target
Made substantial
progress but did not
meet target
Made little or no
progress against
target
10
2. Goal Setting and Plan Development
Two (2) Practice Focus Areas
• At least one focused on instructional leadership
• Aligned to District Improvement Plan and School Improvement
Plan
• Form the basis for the professional conversation between
administrator and evaluator
11
Leadership Practice (40%)
Teaching
and
Learning PE
Other 5 PE
Performance
Expectations
20%
20%
Total
Leadership
Practice
Rating
40%
Performance Expectations:
1. Vision, Mission & Goals
2. Teaching and Learning
3. Organizational Systems and Safety
4. Families and Stakeholders
5. Ethics and Integrity
6. The Educational System
12
Plan Implementation/Evidence Collection
Minimum of:
• Two observations (school visits for principals)
• Four observations for assistant principals and for any
administrator new to their district, school, the profession, or who
has received ratings of developing or below standard
School visits: Frequent & Purposeful
13
Administrator Evaluation
Student
Learning (45%)
Teacher
Effectiveness (5%)
Leadership
Practice (40%)
Stakeholder
Feedback (10%)
Practice Rating
(50%)
Outcomes
Rating (50%)
Final Rating (100%)
14
2. Goal Setting and Plan Development
Three (3) Student Learning Objectives (SLO) 45%
• Aligned to the CT subject matter standards/CCSS
• At least one focused on non-tested subjects and/or grades
• At least one focused on cohort and extended graduation
(HS only)
• Written as a SMART Goal
15
Student Learning (45%)
SPI Progress & Average SPI
Subgroup Progress
State-tested
Academic
Learning:
Progress and
Results
22.5%
3 SLOs
Locally –
Determined
Measures:
Progress and
Results
22.5%
Total Student
Learning
Rating
45%
Currently there is no student growth measure in place statewide in CT. When one is
available, it should be 50-70% of a principal’s rating here.
16
2. Goal Setting and Plan Development
Set the goals
(Administrator)
Meet and
Discuss
1 Stakeholder
Any important
feedback target (1) assumptions about
specific goals?
2 Practice focus
areas (2)
Anything that
depends on things
3 Student learning beyond the
objectives (3
administrator’s
SLOs)
control?
What sources of
evidence will be used
to assess
performance?
Agree on the
Plan
Are the goals
ambitious and
attainable?
Is there alignment
between district
priorities and
administrator goals?
Do the practice focus
areas address growth
needs for the
administrator?
17
Teacher Effectiveness (5%)
• Teacher effectiveness is measured by an aggregation of teachers’
student learning objectives (SLOs)
• Administrators will receive a rating following the table below:
Exemplary
81-100% of
teachers are rated
proficient or
exemplary on the
student growth
portion of their
evaluation
Proficient
Developing
Below Standard
61-80% of teachers 41-60% of teachers 0-40% of teachers
are rated proficient are rated proficient are rated proficient
or exemplary on the or exemplary on the or exemplary on the
student growth
student growth
student growth
portion of their
portion of their
portion of their
evaluation
evaluation
evaluation
18
3. Mid-Year Formative Review
Before meeting:
• Administrator: Analyze available student achievement data
• Evaluator: Review observation(s) and feedback forms
At meeting:
• Discussion of 1-2-3 goals
• Surface changes in the context & adjust goals if appropriate
19
4. Self-Assessment
Administrator assesses own practice against the six performance
expectations, determining if he/she:
• Needs to grow and improve practice on this element
• Has some strengths on this element but needs to continue to grow
and improve
• Is consistently effective on this element, OR
• Can empower others to be effective on this element
Administrator reviews progress on focus areas
Question: Why self assess in the spring?
Answer: Inform the summative rating.
20
5. Summative Rating and Review
Meet and
Discuss
Assign Rating
Review strengths
Four levels
Review growth
areas
Use all available
information
Convey probable
rating
Adjust as
Needed
Likely new
information:
SPI Rating
Teacher SLOs
21
5. Summative Rating & Review
Exemplary
• Substantially exceeding indicators of performance
• Could serve as a model for other leaders
Proficient
• Meeting indicators of performance
• The expectation for experienced administrators
Developing
• Meeting some indicators of performance but not all
• Expected for new administrators
• Multiple years at this level a concern for experienced administrators
Below Standard
• Not meeting indicators of performance
22
6. Summative Rating & Review
Student
Learning (45%)
Teacher
Effectiveness (5%)
Outcomes Rating
(50%)
Leadership
Practice (40%)
Stakeholder
Feedback (10%)
Practice Rating
(50%)
Final Rating (100%)
(Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant)
23
6. Summative Rating and Review
Practice Related Indicators Rating
Outcomes Related Indicators
Rating
Exemplary
Proficient
Developing
Below Standard
Gather
further
information
Gather
further
information
Exemplary
Exemplary
Exemplary
Proficient
Proficient
Proficient
Proficient
Proficient
Developing
Proficient
Developing
Developing
Below Standard
Below
Standard
Gather
further
information
Below Standard
Below Standard
Below Standard
24