Transcript Evaluating Principals

Cathy Pine, Ph.D., Director
Office of Professional Development
New Jersey Dept. of Education
December 6, 2011




National and state context for creating a
principal evaluation system
NJ DOE work to date and proposed timeline
Challenges
Questions and feedback
2
3

Need to prepare students for a changing world
◦ “21st century skills”
◦ “college and career ready”



Recognition that the achievement gap persists –
US global rankings and closer to home
RTTT opportunity and NCLB waiver option put
emphasis on the importance of educator
effectiveness
2010 NJ Governor’s Executive Order No. 42 and
the creation of the Educator Evaluation Task
Force
4


Enhanced expectations for students mean
enhanced expectations for educators, e.g.,
Common Core State Standards & assessments and
revised InTASC professional teaching standards
States are being challenged to build a coherent
educator effectiveness system across the
continuum of practice – evaluation is a key
component
5
Improving the effectiveness of the principal
will improve student outcomes
◦ Fostering a rigorous curriculum
◦ Supporting teachers in delivering high-quality
instruction
◦ Connecting with the external community
6
Principal’s effectiveness is critical to retaining
effective teachers
◦ Influence on working conditions
◦ Influence on school culture focused on
collaboration, student learning, and educator
learning
◦ Role in developing staff and exiting ineffective
teachers
7
A common understanding and set of
expectations around effective leadership
practice is necessary to improve effectiveness
and inform professional development
◦ Goals of evaluation are to assess in order to
develop professional practice
◦ Assessment of current performance is necessary to
provide feedback on practice and to support a
continuous cycle of improvement
8


The existence of a system to evaluate
performance reinforces the importance of
principal effectiveness
“What gets measured gets done.”
-Peter Drucker
9




Most systems still result in a binary
judgment – satisfactory/unsatisfactory
Critical behaviors related to improving
student learning are not emphasized
Most systems are not aligned with
professional growth and development plans
Principal evaluation is not seen as a high
priority for district leaders
10
11

To create a high-quality evaluation system
that enables districts and the state to:
◦ Identify and address professional development
needs
◦ Recognize excellence and inform hiring, retention,
and, where applicable, separation
◦ Address inequitable distribution of effective
teachers across schools and subject areas

With the ultimate goal of increasing student
achievement for all the state’s 1.4 million
students
12

The needs of students are paramount.

All children can achieve at the highest levels.

Educators have the power to inspire, engage, and
broaden the opportunities of all students.
13


Multiple measures of student achievement
that represent at least 50% of the evaluation
and
Measures of practice that would account for
the remaining 50% of the evaluation.
14



Required components of principal
evaluations
Measures of practice
40%
Differential retention
of effective teachers
10%
Measures of student
achievement
50%
Aligned with 2008
ISLLC professional
standards for school
leaders
Hiring and retaining
effective teachers
and exiting poor
performers
35% aggregate
performance
15% school goals
Four levels of performance: highly
effective, effective, partially effective,
ineffective
Use of multiple sources of evidence
15






Vision-building and change
Leading learning
Management and operations
Ethical behavior
Family and community engagement
Advocacy and policy
16

Examination of commercial systems and statedeveloped systems
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

Domains of practice
Rubrics
Types of evidence
Weightings of components
Procedural details
Links to professional development
Conversations with higher ed representatives,
the Professional Development Advisory
Committee for School Leaders, PSA critical
friends group, and the Evaluation Pilot Advisory
Committee
17
Teacher capacity
and
effectiveness
Leadership
practices
Student
achievement
gains
Other student
outcomes
Organizational
capacity and
effectiveness
Other school
outcomes
Margaret Terry Orr
Bank Street College of Education
New York, NY
18







Who is included?
What is assessed within the different
“lanes”, i.e. components
What sources of evidence are used?
Who makes the value judgments on the
evidence?
Are contextual factors taken into
consideration? How?
How are the pieces weighted when
combined?
How is the evaluation conducted?
Margaret Terry Orr
Bank Street College of Education
New York, NY
19


Application had to address three principles,
including: Supporting effective instruction
and leadership by developing and
implementing state teacher and principal
evaluation systems that take into account
both student outcomes and practice.
Application included details about the
principal evaluation system components (as
set forth in the EETF report), guidelines for
the assessment of principal practice, and a
timeline for statewide implementation.
20





Be research-based and shown to be valid and
reliable;
Be based on multiple sources of evidence
collected throughout the year;
Encompass domains of practice aligned to the
NJ Professional Standards for School Leaders;
Include at least two observations of principal
performance;
Include a measure of progress on at least one
individual, school and/or district performance
goal;
21






Incorporate feedback from teachers;
Incorporate feedback from any other stakeholder
groups (such as parents or students) if deemed
appropriate based on designated performance goals;
Include an assessment of the quality of the
principal’s evaluations of teachers;
Include evidence of the principal’s leadership for
implementing a rigorous curriculum and
assessments aligned to content standards;
Include evidence of the principal’s leadership for
high-quality instruction; and
Include rubrics for assessing practice that have a
minimum of 4 levels of performance.
22




2011-12 SIG schools will begin to implement
their principal evaluation systems – training is
beginning next week
2011-12 Mini-pilot in a few interested
districts (2-3)
2012-13 SIGS continue with implementation;
Larger pilot with volunteer districts (20-25?)
2013-14 Statewide rollout
23
24





Evaluation of assistant principals and supervisors
Determining valid measures for the minimum
recommended components
Contextual considerations related to time in the
position, school and district characteristics (e.g.,
size of teaching staff, number of administrative
support staff, DFG)
Weighting of components, within the practice
measures or between practice and student
achievement – should these differ according to
context and/or over time?
Incorporation of student achievement results in
non-tested subjects and grades.
25




Timeline for pilot year - getting information
out quickly so that districts can make an
informed decision about participation
Funding availability for pilot – not sure yet
Creating and communicating the necessary
guidance to districts
Lack of an evaluation system for
superintendents
26




Sharing information/templates on
commercial systems to support districts in
making informed choices
Communicating expectations and preparing
more detailed guidance
Adoption of 2008 ISLLC standards to update
our professional standards for school leaders
Building a technical assistance team
27

We can do a better job of developing systems
to evaluate principals in order to:
◦ Provide more focused feedback based on evidence
◦ Reward excellence and identify areas for
improvement
◦ Provide the necessary leverage to dismiss
ineffective practitioners; and
◦ Support relevant and practical professional
development plans and activities.

We have to create and perfect this system
together
28

“Leaders … will be explorers, adventurers,
trailblazers … leaders of leaders … They will
gather around them people who have the
future in their bones.”
-Rowan Gibson, 2008, Rethinking the Future
29

NJDOE staff members:
Eileen Aviss-Spedding
Bernadette (Bobbi) Newman
Carol Albritton
Victoria Duff
Jessani Gordon
30

Email: [email protected]

Email: [email protected]
31