Administrator Evaluations

1. Administrator Evaluations Karen Frost, Angela Huff and Shannon McGill

2. History of Performance Evaluations Rebore, 2011 1920: Educators were evaluated according to how their teaching style correlated with John Dewey or William James. Certain personality traits are related to exceptional teaching. 1960-1970: Emphasized common teaching behaviors effective in all instructional settings.

3. History Continued Rebore, 2011 1976: National Institute of Education called for new approach in defining effective teaching. This was the beginning of licensure based on competence and performance. Last decade: Quality based on relationship of teacher qualifications, preparation, performance, and educational outcomes.

4. Systems Approach Rebore, 2011 Basis for this approach developed by Robert S. McNamara Shifted to broader concept of employee evaluation management Evaluation by objectives Employees effectively evaluated within the context of pre-established objectives.

5. Performance Rebore, 2011 Essential relationship among employees One person’s performance can affect another person’s performance. All personnel must be evaluated from superintendent down through chain of command to principals and then teachers.

6. Increased Accountability Rebore, 2011 Parents and taxpayers are demanding increased accountability. Administrators and supervisors are held accountable for student achievement in schools especially with the passage of NCLB. Very small amount of data on principal evaluations

7. Principal Evaluations Reeves, 2003 Study by Doug Reeves: Principals reported evaluations often unclear or nonspecific Productive evaluation has specific standards that make expectations clear. Evaluations need to include preparation, data collection, and follow up. Objectives aligned with Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)

8. ISLLC Standard 1 The Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008 The Vision of Learning The vision and goals establish high, measurable expectations for all students and educators. The process of creating and sustaining the vision, mission, and goals is inclusive, buildingcommon understandings and genuine commitment among all stakeholders. Educational leaders ensure the achievement of all students by guiding the development and implementation of a shared vision of learning, strong organizational mission, and high expectations for every student.

9. ISLLC Standard 2 The Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008 The Culture of Teaching and Learning A strong professional culture supports teacher learning and shared commitments to the visionand goals. Leaders know and use rigorous curriculum and effective instructional practices, for success of every student. Leaders make appropriate,sound use of assessments, performance management, and accountability strategies to achievevision, mission, and goals.

10. ISLLC Standard 3 The Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008 Management of Learning Leaders distribute leadership responsibilities and supervise daily, ongoing managementstructures and practices to enhance teaching and learning. Leaders establish an infrastructure for finance and personnel that operates in support ofteaching and learning. Leaders ensure a safe environment by addressing real and potential challenges to the physicaland emotional safety and security of students and staff that interfere with teaching andlearning.

11. ISLLC Standard 4 The Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008 Relationships with the Broader Community to Foster Learning Leaders extend educational relationships to families and community members to add programs,services, and staff outreach and provide what every student needs to succeed in school and life. Leaders respond and contribute to community interests and needs in providing the best possible education for their children. Leaders maximize shared resources among schools, districts, and communities that provide keysocial structures and gathering places, in conjunction with other organizations and agencies thatprovide critical resources for children and families.

12. ISLLC Standard 5 The Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008 Integrity, Fairness, Ethics in Learning Leaders demonstrate appropriate ethical and legal behavior expected by the profession. Leaders demonstrate their commitment to examine personal assumptions, values, beliefs, andpractices in service of a shared vision and goals for student learning. Leaders perform the work required for high levels of personal and organizational performance,including acquiring new capacities needed to fulfill responsibilities, particularly for high-stakes accountability.

13. ISLLC Standard 6 The Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008 The Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural Context of Learning Leaders improve the broader political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context of educationfor all students and families through active participation and exerting professional influence inthe local community and the larger educational policy environment. Leaders contribute to policies and political support for excellence and equity in education. Working with policymakers informs and improves education policymaking and effectiveness ofthe public's efforts to improve education.

14. Measuring Principal Performance: How Rigorous Are Commonly Used Principal Performance Assessment Instruments? Learning Point Associates, 2010 • Performance assessments are a mechanism to ensure accountability and reinforce strong leadership practices. • Principals are second most influential factor in student performance. • Principals’ responsibilities have evolved from the traditional role of building manager.

15. ISLLC Standards Learning Point Associates, 2010 State principal professional standards are aligned with ISLLC standards. Principal candidates are required to receive a score on a standardized exam that is validated with the ISLLC standards. Pre-service principal preparation programs are designed around the ISLLC standards. Little has been published about the integration of ISLLC standards and principal performance assessments.

16. Principal Performance Assessment Review Learning Point Associates, 2010 Intended for use as a performance assessment Psychometrically tested for reliability and validity. (reliability rating of point 0.75) Publically available for purchase Eight performance assessment instruments were included in final review

17. Findings Learning Point Associates, 2010 Only 2 of 8 assessments were developed in the last decade Very few assessments had been rigorously developed or had psychometric testing available for review. All eight assessments measured the degree to which principals completed different roles. Some used self-assessment questionnaires, others used 360-degree surveys.

18. Conclusion Learning Point Associates, 2010 Principal performance assessment data will only achieve desired results if principals and their supervisors view the data as credible and actionable.

19. CCSD Administrator Evaluation • Performance Factors (Based on ISLLC Standards) 1. Develops, articulates and implements a vision of learning shared and supported by school and community. 2. Sustains a school culture and instructional program conducive to increased student and staff learning. 3. Demonstrates effective and efficient resources management. 4. Demonstrates exemplary professional qualities.

20. CCSD Administrator Evaluation 5. Facilitates the successful design and implementation of the local School Improvement Plan. 6. Improves student achievement as demonstrated through the use of standardized and local measurement instruments using data analysis. 7. Holds teachers and staff accountable for executing their duties and responsibilities. 8. Actively involved in K-12 area collaboration. 9. Efficiently uses Staff Development Resources to support the School Strategic Plan.

21. CCSD Administrator Evaluation • Accountability Goals (developed with supervisor) • Student Performance • School Performance • Leadership Development

22. CCSD Administrator Evaluation Unsatisfactory Proficient Exceptional Administrators receive a rating of U, P, or E for: • Each Performance Factor and Accountability Goals • Overall Instructional Leadership and District Strategic Goals • Overall Accountability Goals • Overall Evaluation For an overall Exceptional, all ratings in both Instructional Leadership and Accountability Goals must be Exceptional, and none of the Performance Factor ratings or the Overall ratings may be Unsatisfactory.

23. Race to the Top Schooling, Toth, & Marzano, 2011 Race to the Top requires participating states and local education agencies (LEAs) to develop a human capital strategy that: Informs the recruiting, selecting, hiring and induction processes Evaluates the effectiveness of teachers and principals using multiple measures with growth in student achievement as a significant factor Informs effective and targeted professional development and coaching Assesses the quality of teacher and principal preparation programs Supports decisions regarding teacher and principal compensation, tenure and dismissal of ineffective teachers and principals

24. References Learning Point Associates. (2010, February). Measuring principal performance: how rigorous are commonly used assessment instruments? (Issue Brief ). Naperville, IL: Condon & Clifford. Rebore, R. (2011). Human Resources Administration in Education: A Management Approach. Boston, MA : Allyn & Bacon. Reeves, D. (2003). Assessing Educational Leaders: Evaluating Performance for Improved Individual and Organizational Results. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press Schooling, P., Toth, M., Marzano, R.. (2011). Creating an aligned system to develop great teachers within the federal race to the top initiative [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.iobservation.com/files/whitepapers/Marzano-Race-to-the-Top-White-Paper.pdf