1 / 51

Delaware ’ s Performance Evaluation System II for School Administrators

Delaware ’ s Performance Evaluation System II for School Administrators. Jackie O. Wilson, Ed.D. Interim Director Delaware Academy for School Leadership College of Education and Human Development University of Delaware. DPAS II for Administrators Background. Components of SB260

sarai
Download Presentation

Delaware ’ s Performance Evaluation System II for School Administrators

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Delaware’s Performance Evaluation System II for School Administrators Jackie O. Wilson, Ed.D. Interim Director Delaware Academy for School Leadership College of Education and Human Development University of Delaware

  2. DPAS II for AdministratorsBackground • Components of SB260 • Strong focus on student improvement • One element specifically dedicated to student improvement (weighted equally with the others)

  3. DPAS II for AdministratorsBackground Practitioner-Based Committee • 5 principals • 5 central office staff • 1 representative from higher education • 1 Delaware Association for School Administrators • 1 representative from the Department of Education • teacher • consultant

  4. DPAS II for AdministratorsBackground Committee Work • year long deliberation • review of research & existing models • outside expert- • Dr. Joseph Murphy

  5. DPAS II for AdministratorsPrinciples The committee began work in 2000,by constructing a platform of valuesto both guide its work and to measure its outcomes. In order to create a powerful new system of assessment that offered the promise of real improvement in schools and school districts, the committee determined that the integrity of the evaluation design must rest on the following seven principles

  6. DPAS II for AdministratorsPrinciples The Seven Principles • Standards Driven • Focus on Accomplishments • Continuous Improvement • Fairness & Multiple Sources of Data • Dialogue • Effort to Enhance Student Performance • Clear Expectations & Priorities

  7. DPAS II for AdministratorsPrinciples Principle 1: Standards Driven • Follows National Administrator Standards for Instructional Leadership (ISLLC) • A vision of what exemplary leaders must know and do to ensure continuous improvement

  8. DPAS II for AdministratorsPrinciples Principle 2: Focus on Accomplishments • Results Driven • Expressed in Measurable Terms • Consistent with State Accountability

  9. DPAS II for AdministratorsPrinciples Principle 3: Continuous Improvement • Constructive Feedback • Forward Looking • Professional Growth

  10. DPAS II for AdministratorsPrinciples Principle 4: Fairness • Multiple Sources of Data • No Secrets – No Surprises

  11. DPAS II for AdministratorsPrinciples Principle 5: Dialogue • Meaningful • Relevant • Ongoing

  12. DPAS II for AdministratorsPrinciples Principle 6: Leadership Connected to Student Improvement Shift in focus from management to instructional leadership: • Learning • Teaching • School Improvement

  13. DPAS II for AdministratorsPrinciples Principle 7: Clear Expectations • What are the priorities? • What are the targets? • What are the criteria for success?

  14. Who is Included in the Administrator DPAS II? • All licensed and certified administrators who oversee instruction. • It does not include those who supervise non-instructional aspects of school and district operations, such as transportation, maintenance, finance, and personnel.

  15. Standards • The design of DPAS II was driven by the Delaware Administrative Standards, which align with the Interstate School Leaders’ Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards • Aligning the evaluation of school and district administrators with student learning and school improvement. • Grounded in research and an understanding of leader performance in high-achieving schools.

  16. Standards • The DPAS II system provides a strong focus on teaching and learning. • The data and evidence collected as part of the process should be a natural harvest of an administrator’s ongoing work.

  17. Process • DPAS II for Administrators is a continuous improvement model. • The cycle is on--going throughout the employment of the administrator

  18. Components • 1) Vision and Goals • 2) Culture of Learning • 3) Management • 4) Professional Responsibilities • 5) Student Improvement

  19. Goal Setting—Component 1: Vision and Goal Setting • Setting goals for student improvement is an important part of every educator’s work. Clear measurable goals provide a road map for staff, teachers and students. The process includes a Goal-Setting Conference and completion of Part One of the two-part Goal-Setting Form

  20. Component One: Vision and GoalsISLLC Standard One (A Vision of Learning) • Assessing Data • Implementing Vision and Goals • Promoting Vision and Goals • Communicating the Vision and Goals

  21. Assessment of Component 1 • A review of the evidence provided by the administrator • Conferences between the evaluator and the administrator • The use of the Administrator Standard Survey

  22. Component Two: Culture of LearningISLLC Standard Two (School Culture) • Advocating a Culture of Learning • Monitoring the Culture of Learning • Sustaining the Culture of Learning • Maintaining the Culture of Learning

  23. Assessment of Component 2 • A review of the evidence provided by the administrator • Conferences between the evaluator and the administrator • Use of the Administrator Standards Survey Form • Implementing DPAS II in accordance with its intent

  24. Component 5: Student Improvement Current Regulation • The Delaware State Statute, 14 Del. C §1270, which defines the Performance Appraisal System, requires that a portion of the overall evaluation be based on measures of student improvement.

  25. Multiple Outcomes Achievement and improvement in three broad areas should be the basis of this part of the administrator’s evaluation: • School Accountability • State Accountability Test • Other measures of student achievement. (SAT, AP, school data)

  26. Criteria Component 5 • Showing Student Improvement • Measuring Student Improvement • Implementing Strategies for Student Improvement • Reflecting on Student Improvement

  27. Assessment The evidence for Component Five is comprised of a review of the administrator’s • progress toward attaining the goals established at the beginning of the cycle, as provided to the evaluator on the Goal-Setting Form (Parts 1 and 2), and an analysis of the data associated with the goals.

  28. Assessment • In this component, the administrator will be judged on the measures of • student performance and the progress made by students. • how the data are used to inform the administrator’s goal-setting • how the administrator communicates those data and their implications to staff to lead the improvement initiatives in the leader’s setting

  29. Frequency of Appraisal Process Inexperienced Administrators • Inexperienced administrators and administrators whose performance appraisals state, “Needs Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory” must participate in an annual appraisal cycle. Experienced Administrators • Experienced administrators whose performance is “Effective” may be appraised over a two-year period.

  30. Frequency of Conferences Inexperienced administrator conferences will typically occur three times over the one-year evaluation cycle • In the late summer or early fall for agreement on goals • Mid-year for progress discussions followed by completion of a Formative Feedback Form • Late spring or early summer for a summative conference, followed by a completed Summative Evaluation Form

  31. Frequency of Conferences • Experienced administrator conferences will typically occur at least four times over the two-year evaluation cycle • During the summer or early fall of the first year for agreement on goals • Mid-year each year to discuss progress • During the summer of the first year to review progress on goals and establish goals for the upcoming year • At the end of the second year to discuss results and complete the summative evaluation

  32. Component Ratings Each of the five (5) components of DPAS II for Administrators is weighted equally and assigned a rating of Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory on the Summative Evaluation

  33. Satisfactory Performance – The administrator demonstrates • acceptable performance by meeting at least three (3) of the four (4) criteria outlined in each of the five (5) components of DPAS II for Administrators. Unsatisfactory Performance – The administrator demonstrates • unacceptable performance on two (2) or more of the four (4) criteria outlined in each of the five (5) components of DPAS II for Administrators

  34. Principal EffectivenessSummative Ratings

  35. PATTERN OF INEFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE PERFORMANCE

  36. IMPROVEMENT PLAN An Improvement Plan shall be developed for an administrator who receives an overall rating of Needs Improvement or Ineffective on the Summative Evaluation or a rating of Unsatisfactory on any component on the Summative Evaluation regardless of the overall rating.

  37. DPAS II for Administrators • Challenge Process An administrator may challenge any rating on the Summative Evaluation, either a Component Rating or the Overall Rating, or an administrator may challenge the conclusions of the Formative Process.

  38. DPAS II for Administrators • Two-year pilot in two school districts --2005-2007 • Outside evaluation of the system, annually • Changes were made based on pilot results and outside evaluation • Statewide implementation 2007-2008 • Current Statewide system of evaluation 2008-2011 • Changes to Component 5 and Summative Ratings for all educators July 2011

  39. Changes July 2011 Under Delaware’s recently revised regulations, beginning in July 2011, a satisfactory rating for the fifth component (student improvement), mean that the teacher has met the standard for student growth. That standard, to be approved by Secretary Lowery before July 2011, will represent an appropriate level of change in achievement data for an individual student between two points in time, as well as any other measures that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across classroom….also having an impact on Component 5 of the Administrator Evaluation

  40. Changes July 2011 Currently, assessments can result in summative ratings of “effective,”“needs improvement,” or “ineffective.”Under the revised regulations, Delaware will add a fourth summative rating of “highly effective” in July 2011. Educators will be required to demonstrate satisfactory levels of student growth to receive an “effective” rating, and more than a year of student growth to receive a “highly effective” rating.

  41. Changes July 2011 • For administrators’ changes, DSEA, DASA and other parties have been consulted. State staff are working to align the new ISLLC standards in components 1 to 4 then consult with the committee representing administrators (in progress) • For component five, Secretary Lowery will approve measures, models and menus as recommended by stakeholder workgroups and consultants (in progress) • The first year will be a development year.

More Related