19
www.principalsuccess.com
The MPAS Principal’s Professional Growth System (PGS)
Phase III: Moving from Professional Growth Planning to Formative and
Summative Evaluation
Once Professional Growth Planning (PGP) is complete, Formative & Summative Evaluation begins…
• The principal’s priority becomes successfully executing the Plan (PGP).
• The superintendent’s priorities become:
1. Supporting the principal’s efforts (formative evaluation).
2. Confirming the principal’s PGP (Plan) performance (summative evaluation)
3. Determining the principal’s Final Baseline Scores (in preparation for the next cycle)
The MPAS Planning and Tracking ToolThe Tracker…
You’ve used the Tracker to record your original baseline scores and develop your Plan (PGP).
Now you’ll use the Tracker to capture the data needed to complete the remainder of the annual evaluation cycle – all in one clear, easy-to-use document.
The Tracker & ComplianceSec.22.Minnesota Statues 2010, section 123B.147, subdivision 3.
• The law requires “on-the-job observations.” The Tracker’s Notable Observations column supports that requirement.
• The law requires that 35% of the evaluation incorporate “longitudinal data on student academic growth.” The Tracker’s Result/Outcome, Goal Score, and Final Baseline Score columns support that requirement.
• The law requires “formative and summative evaluation.” The Tracker’s Original Baseline Score, Annual Evaluation Goals, Goal Weight, Goal, & Notable Observations columns support that requirement.
The Final Summative Evaluation
The principal’s final summative evaluation rating will be captured in a single word: Unsatisfactory, Developing, Proficient, Accomplished or Distinguished - as defined by MASA, MESPA, MASSP & BOSA in The Evaluation of Minnesota’s School Principals.
The superintendent uses all the data in the Summative Evaluation Phase, the third and final section of the Tracker, to determine which word best describes the principal at the end of the annual review cycle.
The Final Summative Evaluation Rating: Getting There…
• Step 1 - Complete the Goal Score column, and analyze the Weighted Score column.
• Step 2 - Complete the Final Baseline Scores.
• Step 3 - Follow the Final Scoring Guidelines to select the final rating designation that most accurately applies.
The Summative Evaluation: Step 1, Complete Goal Score Columns & Analyze the Final Weighted Score
• Based on the data in column K (Result / Outcome), the superintendentuses columns L/M (Goal Score) to assign the descriptor that best reflects the principal’s performance on each goal.
• When Goal Scores are entered, their corresponding Weighted Score* is automatically calculated and displayed (column N).
• The final Weighted Goal Score (Column N) is the measure of the principal’s performance on the Plan (PGP); thus, it is the most important data point in determining the principal’s final summative evaluation rating designation. In fact, in all but extraordinary circumstances (examples to follow), the Weighted Goal Score IS the final summative evaluation.
*The Weighted Score considers not only the goal score but the goal’s relative importance (see Goal Weight column).
The Summative Evaluation: Step 2 Assigning Final Baseline Scores
The superintendent assigns Final Baseline Scores for each competency based on an analysis of:
• Goal Scores
• Original Baseline Scores
• Notable Observations
A Final Baseline Score composite score will automatically be calculated.
Helpful Scoring Hints: Baseline Scores
• Original Baseline Scores are not evaluations. They are planning data – informed by the superintendent’s, the principal’s, and (where included) the faculty’s assessment of the principal’s readiness for the challenges embedded in the State’s principal licensure competencies. Think of Original Baseline Scores as the principal’s current state or potential at the start of the evaluation process.
• Final Baseline Scores are the superintendent’s assessment of the principal’s future state or Potential at the end of one evaluation cycle and are intended to inform goal setting phase of the next cycle.
The 5-point Original Baseline and Final Baseline scoring rubric was developed by MASA, MASSP, MESPA, & BOSA.
More Helpful Hints
• If one or more of the 7 competencies does not have a goal assigned, assume the Final Baseline Score is identical to the Original Baseline Score –unless there is evidence cited in the Notable Observations column to suggest otherwise.
• DO NOT AVERAGE Weighted Goal Scores and Original Baseline Scores to determine Final Baseline Scores. The objectives of the two data sources are incompatible; thus, averaging not only is mathematically inaccurate, it also unfairly penalizes high achieving principals.
Why Not Average..?
Example During Phase I (pre-assessment), all agree that the principal is beginning the year at the Distinguished (5) level in Instructional Leadership (Competency 2).During Phase II (planning), a school level reading goal (Competency 2) is set at 86. During Phase III (summative evaluation), the reading score result comes in at 86. That equates to Goal Met (3).
Averaging Distinguished (5) and Goal Met (3) yields 4 (Accomplished). So…a principal who met her goal has her rating reduced. How can that be?
In the MPAS system, it not only can’t be, it doesn’t happen. In fact, in the MPASsystem, the only way ratings can go is “UP” when goals are met.
The Way to think about it is that you can average 5 + 3, but you can’t average Goal Met and Distinguished..! The two scales are neither compatible nor equivalent.
If Averaging Doesn’t Work, How Should the Summative Evaluator Think About the Relationship between Goal Performance
and Final Baseline Scores and Ratings?
MPAS Scoring Guidelines
for Decisions about Final Baseline Scores & Ratings
Principal’s Goal Success Score
1
Goal Significantly
Missed
2
Goal Missed
3
Goal Attained
4
Goal Exceeded
5
Goal Significantly
Exceeded
Impact on Final
Baseline Score /
Final Rating
MinimumReduction 1, Maximum 2
MaximumReduction 1
Maximum Increase 1
Maximum Increase 1
Minimum Increase 1,
Maximum 2
MPAS Scoring Guidelines: Three FINAL BASELINE SCORE Examples for Competency 2,
Instructional Leadership
OriginalBaselineScore
Goal Score NotableObservations
MPAS Guideline
Final Baseline Score
Developing Goal Met Teacher Evaluation goal progress satisfactory but needs to be goal again next cycle.
NC or +1 Proficient(+1)
Proficient Goal SignificantlyExceeded
Increased visibility in school community noticed by / appreciated by all.
+1 or +2 Accomplished(+1)
Accomplished Goal Missed Near Miss on reading; repeat next cycle to confirm / validate
NC or -1 Accomplished(NC)
The Summative Evaluation: Step 3 Assigning the Final Rating
The superintendent assigns the Final Rating based on an analysis of:
• Original Baseline Score average & rating
• Final Weighted Goal Score
• Final Baseline Score average
• Notable Observations
Step 3: Helpful Hints
• MPAS Guidelines apply.
• Averaging Isn’t appropriate.
• Ultimately, it’s the superintendent’s judgment
• When selecting the most accurate one-word descriptor is a very close call, remember that the weighted goal score is the most important data point.
Phase III: Three Examples
OriginalBaseline Average
FinalBaselineAverage
WeightedGoalScore
MPAS Guideline
TieBreakers
FinalRating
2.1 Developing
3.9 Accomplished
4.7 +1 or +2Levels
ExceptionalGoal Performance
Accomplished+2 Levels
3.3 Proficient
3.5Proficient
3.06 NC or +1 Solid but not exceptional Goal Performance
ProficientNC in level
4.2Accomplished
4.7Accomplished
4.05 NC or +1 Goal Performance rates increase in level
Distinguished+1 Level
When the Summative Evaluation is complete, the superintendent and
principal meet for their final review.
Good luck, and if you have questions, visit the Members’ Services page at
principalsuccess.com, or contact MPAS at
