Webinar Logistics

1. Evaluating School Principal EffectivenessWhy We Need to Evaluate Principals and Use Principal Evaluation as a Tool for Professional ImprovementOctober 4, 2011

2. Webinar Logistics Everyone is muted Use the chat function to make a comment or ask a question You may chat privately with individuals on your team If you have problems, you may send William Bentgen a message via the chat function or an email at williamb@ccsso.org

3. Evaluation

4. Welcome • Janice Poda,CCSSO • Initiative Director Education Workforce

5. Moderator • Mary Canole • School Leadership Consultant, Council of Chief State School Officers

6. Purpose To provide an objective, research-based overview of what an effective principal evaluation system should include. To provide SCEE Teams a Framework for Principal Evaluation Tool.

7. Framework for Principal Evaluation

8. Presenters • Margaret Terry Orr • Bank Street College of Education • Jean Satterfield • Assistant State Superintendent for the Maryland Division of Certification and Accreditation • Sarah Brown Wessling • National Teacher of the Year 2010, English Teacher, Johnston High School, Johnston, Iowa

9. Research on conventional practice for principal evaluation • Wide variation in principal evaluation scope, instruments, and practices • Few psychometrically rigorous evaluation rubrics or rating systems • Movement: • away from assessing leadership traits • toward use standards • toward the relationship between leadership practices and student achievement

10. Essential content elements of principal evaluation system: Who is assessed The purposes of assessment What is assessed What sources of evidence are used

11. Essential organizational elements of principal evaluation system: How the assessment is conducted How evidence is valued Psychometric qualities Implementation, organization, and support of evaluation Evaluation of the system’s effectiveness

12. Considerations of who is assessed How “principal” is defined To include all school building leaders, or just principals To include district leaders or not To differentiate based on years of experience, time in current building assignment, and levels of responsibility

13. Purposes of the evaluation Summative—for consequential decisions Formative—for professional growth Organizational change—cohesive system Evaluation systems differ based on which purposes are incorporated and to what degree.

14. Poll

15. How much emphasis does your state give to each of the 3 purposes of leader evaluation? • Summative • No emphasis • Minimal emphasis • Moderate emphasis • Great emphasis • Formative • No emphasis • Minimal emphasis • Moderate emphasis • Great emphasis • Organizational change • No emphasis • Minimal emphasis • Moderate emphasis • Great emphasis

16. Poll Results • Summative • No emphasis (0%) • Minimal emphasis (5%) • Moderate emphasis (13%) • Great emphasis (16%) • Formative • No emphasis (0%) • Minimal emphasis (5%) • Moderate emphasis (16%) • Great emphasis (13%) • Organizational change • No emphasis (0%) • Minimal emphasis (16%) • Moderate emphasis (13%) • Great emphasis (5%)

17. What is assessed? Leadership Development School, community, district and state context

18. Leadership practices National standards District priorities for practice (e.g. teacher evaluation practices) Span of authority and control in whether leaders can perform the practices

19. Teacher and organizational capacity and effectiveness Indirect influence on student achievement through influence on: • teacher instructional practices • distributed leadership • school culture and climate • teacher and school use of data • community engagement • working conditions • school wide improvement goals

20. Student and other outcomes Student achievement progress Progress on other student outcomes, such as graduation rates and reduced dropout rates Progress on other broader school effectiveness goals, such as improved learning for ELLs and special education students Improved safety and security

21. Context Resources Challenges Parent and community expectations Other district and state policies

22. What types of evidence is collected? Observations Documentation Principal reports Perceptions of actions and behaviors Perceptions of working conditions, school climate Student performance data

23. Whose judgments? Principal Subordinate staff (teachers, other professionals, support staff) Peers (other principals) Supervisors (central office and superintendent) Students Families Community partners

24. Considerations in selecting types of evidence to include • Psychometric considerations • Validity of measures • Validity of combining measures • Representation of scope and depth of principal work • Reliability • Balance between direct observation of principal practice, evidence and impact • Evaluator skill • Time

25. When measures are made and how interpreted? • How often is measurement made? • Initial-interim-final? or • Annual only? • How are results interpreted? • What is used to make judgments? Rubrics and rating forms? • Are results disaggregated? • Who makes the judgments in reviewing the evidence?

26. How measures are valued: See: Principal Score Card (Milanowski, 2009)

27. Evaluating the evaluation system • New field • Test out: • Measures • Tools • Processes • Implementation • Evaluate the underlying theory of action

28. Theory of action of principal evaluation as a lever of change

29. Making evaluation system design decisions Start with purpose Build in an evaluation of the system from the start Involve critical stakeholders to engage, educate and create buy-in Keep it simple, easy to use, and easy to understand

30. Framework for Principal Evaluation: Key evaluation elements and considerations

31. Jean Satterfield Assistant State Superintendent for the Maryland Division of Certification and Accreditation

32. 7 MD Pilots Model Teacher & Principal Evaluation System • 2011-2012: 7 Districts run pilot to identify ways to measure student growth in all subject areas and for all teachers • Student growth will account for 50% of a teacher and principal evaluations • 2012-2013: Statewide pilot using results and feedback from pilot year to inform the no-fault, statewide pilot. • Fall 2013: Mode fully operational statewide

33. Pilots Underway… • Baltimore County • Instrument aligns to the Danielson Model • 11 principals self selected to participate [with 80+ teachers] • Data systems and measures in place • Baltimore City • 8 principal volunteers with 300+ teachers in 8 schools begin 1st cycle in December

34. MD District Pilots • Charles County: 7 pilot school principals & 56 teachers now working with teacher leaders to complete a pilot evaluation tool. • Kent County: All 7 schools (2 teachers per school) • Completed internal restructuring • Migrated to a new student data management system

35. Pilots (continued) Prince Georges County: Aligned with the Danielson model – All principals & 100 teachers in 38 schools. Data systems and measures are progressing. Queen Anne’s County: 7 principals & 126 teachers are exploring cost effective methods for aligning data, validating student growth measures and delivering PD.

36. Pilots (continued) • Data collection system in place to identify PD needs of teachers, principals and the system • St. Mary’s County: • Five principals,11 assistant principals, 235 teachers • Implemented the Danielson model for the past 10 years

37. Sarah Brown Wessling National Teacher of the Year 2010 English Teacher, Johnston High School, Johnston, Iowa

38. Evaluation Discussion Group Join the Evaluation Discussion Group http://scee.groupsite.com/page/teacher-evaluation On the Collaboration Site Home Page select Evaluation If you are not already a member, request an invitation

39. Upcoming Webinars • NEW DATE: November 1, 2:00 EDT • Continuing the Conversation About Educator Evaluation: Next Steps After the SCEE Topical Meeting • Save the date for our December webinar • December 13, 2:00 EDT

40. 30 Minute Q&A Participants respond to questions regarding the framework tool—we’ll pose three questions Participants ask questions of the experts We will post the Q&A on the webinars page at the conclusion of this event http://scee.groupsite.com/page/webinars

41. Using the Chat Find the Chat in the bottom right side of your screen. To make the Chat appear larger on your screen, click on the triangle next to the Participants list to minimize it. Questions and comments sent to All Participants are visible to everyone. To offer an anonymous question or comment privately, click on Circe Stumbo’s name in the list of Chat recipients or email her at circe@westwinded.com. For technical assistance find William Bentgen in the Chat box or email him at williamb@ccsso.org.

44. Chat with other SCEE members… Which elements of the Framework for Principal Evaluation generated the most discussion with your team? Example: In Maryland, framework elements most discussed: The difference between how to measure highly effective and effective.

45. Chat with other SCEE members… 2. If you have a Principal Evaluation Model in place, who are you evaluating (“Who is assessed”)? Example: In Maryland, principals are included in the evaluation/assessment – We are discussing whether the same model could be used for all levels of administrators, e.g., assistant principals and supervisors.

46. Chat with other SCEE members… 3. Which elements of the Framework for Principal Evaluation should be the highest priority for SCEE to attend to with future technical assistance (TA)? Example: In MD, we would like TA to address validity, reliability, and how to use student growth data.

47. Thank You Please complete the webinar evaluation that you will receive by email.

48. Resources Brown-Sims, M. (2010). Evaluating School Principals. Tips & Tools. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Calabrese, R. L., & Zepeda, S. J. (1999). Decision-making assessment: Improving principal performance. The International Journal of Educational Management, 13(1), 6. Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2006). What are principals expected to do? congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 221-237. Goldring, E., Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2007). Assessing learner-centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards and current practices. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Hessel, K., & Holloway, J. (2001). School leaders and standards: a vision for leadership. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational administration quarterly, 44(4), 496-528. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervison and Curriculum Development.

49. Resources (cont.) McREL. (2010). McREL's Principal Evaluation System. Milanowski, A., & Schuermann, P. (2009). Principal evaluation (powerpoint slides), Teacher Incentive Fund Grantee Meeting. Bethesda, MD: Center for Educator Compensation Reform. Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Porter, A. C., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2006). A framework for the assessment of learning-centered leadership. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Portin, B., Feldman, S., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Purposes, Uses, and Practices of Leadership Assessment in Education Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Reeves, D. B. (2004). Assessing educational leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press. Rhode Island Department of Education. (November 9, 2010 ). Working draft. Rhode Island Model. building administrator professional practice framework. Providence, RI: Rhode Island Department of Education. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational administration quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.