slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Webinar Logistics

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 49

Webinar Logistics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 73 Views
  • Uploaded on

Evaluating School Principal Effectiveness Why We Need to Evaluate Principals and Use Principal Evaluation as a Tool for Professional Improvement October 4, 2011. Webinar Logistics. Everyone is muted Use the chat function to make a comment or ask a question

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Webinar Logistics' - makala


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

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

webinar logistics
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 [email protected]

welcome
Welcome
  • Janice Poda,CCSSO
    • Initiative Director Education Workforce
moderator
Moderator
  • Mary Canole
    • School Leadership Consultant, Council of Chief State School Officers
purpose
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.

presenters
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
research on conventional practice for principal evaluation
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
essential content elements of principal evaluation system
Essential content elements of principal evaluation system:

Who is assessed

The purposes of assessment

What is assessed

What sources of evidence are used

essential organizational elements of principal evaluation system
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

considerations of who is assessed
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

purposes of the evaluation
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.

how much emphasis does your state give to each of the 3 purposes of leader evaluation
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
poll results
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%)
what is assessed
What is assessed?

Leadership Development

School, community, district and state context

leadership practices
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

teacher and organizational capacity and effectiveness
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
student and other outcomes
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

context
Context

Resources

Challenges

Parent and community expectations

Other district and state policies

what types of evidence is collected
What types of evidence is collected?

Observations

Documentation

Principal reports

Perceptions of actions and behaviors

Perceptions of working conditions, school climate

Student performance data

whose judgments
Whose judgments?

Principal

Subordinate staff (teachers, other professionals, support staff)

Peers (other principals)

Supervisors (central office and superintendent)

Students

Families

Community partners

considerations in selecting types of evidence to include
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
when measures are made and how interpreted
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?
how measures are valued
How measures are valued:

See: Principal Score Card (Milanowski, 2009)

evaluating the evaluation system
Evaluating the evaluation system
  • New field
  • Test out:
    • Measures
    • Tools
    • Processes
    • Implementation
  • Evaluate the underlying theory of action
making evaluation system design decisions
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

jean satterfield

Jean Satterfield

Assistant State Superintendent for the Maryland Division of Certification and Accreditation

7 md pilots model teacher principal evaluation system
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
pilots underway
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
md district pilots
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
pilots continued
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.

pilots continued1
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
slide37
Sarah Brown Wessling

National Teacher of the Year 2010

English Teacher, Johnston High School,

Johnston, Iowa

evaluation discussion group
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

upcoming webinars
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
30 minute q a
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

using the chat
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 [email protected]

For technical assistance find William Bentgen in the Chat box or email him at [email protected]

chat with other scee members
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.

chat with other scee members1
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.

chat with other scee members2
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.

thank you

Thank You

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

resources
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.

resources cont
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.

ad