Rhode Island ModelEdition II, Module 1
Personnel Evaluating Building Administrators
2RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Housekeeping
• Equity of voice• Active listening • Safety to share different perspectives• Confidentiality• Respectful use of technology• Parking Lot• Others?
Norms
ResourcesRIDE website: http://www.ride.ri.gov/ Evaluation email: [email protected]
*RIDE staff members will respond to your context-specific questions.
3RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Framing the Work: Edition II High Quality Full Implementation Support Full Implementation Support
Summer 2012 Fall 2012 Winter 2012 Spring
2013
Teacher Model
Evaluator Academies FFTPS
Preparing for the MYCModule 1
(Nov – Jan)
Preparing for the EOYC
Module 2(April – May)
Building Administrator Model
Ongoing Support and Resources:
• Context-specific ISP support• Assistant Superintendent SLO workshop • Updated guidance• Online library of teaching videos (FFTPS and FFTES) • Webinars and regional workshops• Dedicated email for evaluation
4RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Framing the Work: Module 1 for Personnel Evaluating Building Administrators
MODULE OBJECTIVES & AGENDA
1. Prepare evaluators for Mid-Year Conferences with an emphasis on priority feedback
2. Understand mid-year SLO revisions for the Teacher Evaluation and Support System
3. Establish next steps regarding the implementation of the evaluation systems
SECTION 1: Preparing for Mid-Year Conferences
6RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
BOYC MYC EOYC
Mid-Year Conference
Professional Practice
Professional Foundation
s
Student Learning
ObjectivesEvaluators will:• Discuss and agree upon how to sort and score Professional Practice
and Professional Foundations evidence• Understand when revisions are necessary for a Building Administrator
student learning objective • Craft specific and actionable feedback that will inform a Mid-Year
Conference
Evaluation Criteria Support System
7RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Deepening Our Understanding of the Rubrics
GATHER evidence SORT evidence
INTERPRET evidence and assign score
Prioritize and DEVELOP
FEEDBACK
Professional Practice Professional Foundations 4 Domains 2 Domains
11 Components 6 Components
All components are holistically scored
Rubric starts on p. 66 Rubric starts on p. 91
8RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Professional Practice: Quick Sort
p. 67
GATHER evidence SORT evidence
INTERPRET evidence and assign score
Prioritize and DEVELOP
FEEDBACK
THE RUBRIC AT A GLANCEDOMAIN 1: MISSION, VISION, AND GOALS
DOMAIN 2: TEACHING AND LEARNING
DOMAIN 3: ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS
DOMAIN 4: COMMUNITY
1a: Establishes and maintains a school mission, vision and goals that set clear and measurable high expectations for all students, educators, and stakeholders School mission and visions
statements School goals Staff/student/family surveys Depictions of progress toward
school goals1b: Continuously improves the school through effective planning and prioritizing, managing change, using research and best practices, monitor progress, and allocating resources Data notebooks/walls or other
data collection systems Progress monitoring tools and
methods School improvement plans
2a: Develops a strong collaborative culture focused on student learning and the development of professional competencies, which leads to quality instruction Staff surveys Professional development
opportunities Development plans School visits2b: Ensure the implementation of effective, research-based instructional practices aligned with Rhode Island and national standards School visits/classroom
observations Staff surveys Student achievement data2c: Implements appropriate school strategies and practices for assessment, evaluation, performance management, and accountability to monitor and evaluate progress toward the mission, vision, and goals Data tracker Development plans
3a: Addresses real and potential challenges to the physical and emotional safety of the school community Attendance data School schedule School visits3b: Establishes an infrastructure for personnel decisions that operates in support of improving teaching and learning Hiring calendar and process Human Resources records Staff development plans School site visits Staff surveys3c: Employs and improves an evaluation and support system that drives staff and student growth Evaluation Conferences Classroom observations and
feedback Student Learning Objectives Summative ratings Professional development
offerings Staff feedback for evaluator Site visits3d: Establishes an infrastructure for finance that operates in support of improving learning and teaching School budget Grant requests Title expenditure reports
4a: Partners with families and community members to develop and evaluate programs, services, and staff outreach to improve student learning School hours and openness to
the public Public services supported by or
available in the school School grounds and facilities Community opinion of the school
and its staff Staff relationships with
community members Family engagement in school-
based activities
4b: Responds and reacts to the community’s needs by providing the best possible resources to students, families, and the surrounding community School visits Community surveys Community engagement plans
9RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
GATHER evidence SORT evidence
INTERPRET evidence and assign score
Prioritize and DEVELOP
FEEDBACK
Professional Practice: Quick Sort
Quick Sort Directions:
• Read the evidence• Review p. 67 Rubric at a Glance• Select a Professional Practice Domain where you
would place this evidence
10RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
EVIDENCE DOMAIN
The principal provided a copy of the School Improvement Plan which had been recently modified. He also provided copies of the agendas from the last three meetings. The principal stated that after the group analyzed the NECAP scores there were concerns about math and gaps in subgroups.
Professional Practice: Quick Sort
1: Mission
, Vision,
and Goals
11RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
EVIDENCE DOMAIN
Six teachers were asked about their evaluation process – two of the six had beginning of the year conferences to date and none had been observed.
Professional Practice: Quick Sort
3: Organizationa
l Systems
12RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
EVIDENCE DOMAIN
Principal attended a 2nd grade meeting. The reading teacher was also in attendance. Teachers were analyzing the reading data wall based on the newest assessment.
Professional Practice: Quick Sort
2: Teaching
and Learning
13RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
EVIDENCE DOMAIN
The principal communicated that the mission statement was revised at the end of last year with input from the faculty and parents. The faculty defined their vision and goals for their students, developed three mission statements based on them and sent out a survey to parents.
Professional Practice: Quick Sort
4: Community
;
1: Mission,
Vision, and Goals
14RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Refer colleagues to rubric language;
Mark up your textHighlight key verbs
Professional Practice: Close Analysis of Domain 2: Teaching & Learning
COUNT OFF in your group (2a,
2b, and 2c)
Independently REVIEW your
component
Within your group name and
DISCUSS the performance
level distinctions
GATHER SORT INTERPRET evidence and assign score
Prioritize and DEVELOP FEEDBACK
p. 91
15RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Professional Practice: Close Analysis of Domain 2: Teaching & Learning
Connect and Plan: 1. Will these performance level distinctions impact how you
collect evidence? If so, how?
16RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Professional Foundations: Rubric- At-A-Glance
p. 91
3 Exceeds
2 Meets
1Does not
meet
Performance Levels
17RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Interpreting Evidence: A Principal Case Study
REVIEW the evidence from two site visits
DISCUSS where
evidence falls (by
performance level)
REACH CONSENSUS
on a formative mid-year
component score based on the evidence
10 min. 15 min. 15 min.
Rubrics start on p. 66 and 91
18RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
BOYC MYC EOYC
Mid-Year Conference
Professional Practice
Professional Foundation
s
Student Learning
Student Learning Objectives at the Mid-Year
• Building administrators should not have a need to revise their SLOs mid-year.
• Only extenuating circumstances would allow for revision, the evaluator would make the final decision.
Evaluation Criteria Support System
19RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
BOYC MYC EOYC
Mid-Year Conference
Professional Practice
Professional Foundation
s
Student Learning
Mid-Year Conference Tips:
• Objective and data-based• Responsive to teacher’s developmental needs• Based on Rhode Island Model Rubric• Actionable and prioritized • Delivered in an approachable voice• Assumes good intentions• Utilize the suggested agenda (p. 58)
Evaluation Criteria Support System
20RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Mid-Year Conference: Completing the Mid-Year Conference Form
21RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Connect and Plan:
1. What is one piece of positive feedback that you would provide to this educator at the Mid-Year Conference regarding their Professional Practice and Professional Foundations?
2. What is one area of priority feedback that you would want to articulate to this educator during a Mid-Year Conference?
Professional Practice and Professional Foundations
SECTION 2: Understanding mid-year SLO revisions for the Teacher Evaluation and Support System
23RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
BOYC MYC EOYC
Mid-Year Conference
Professional Practice
Student Learning
Professional Foundation
s
ObjectivesEvaluators will: • Determine if an SLO needs or does not need revision mid-year• Reflect on ways to support teachers in regard to student
learning• Craft specific and actionable feedback about SLO progress that
will inform a mid-year conference
Evaluation Criteria Support System
24RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
BOYC MYC EOYC
Student Learning Objectives: Leading up to the MYC
Most teachers will be making progress with their SLOs and the Mid-Year Conference will be an opportunity to formally check-in.
Some teachers may voice concerns if students are not “on track” to meet their targets. This should trigger a more in-depth conversation, in which the evaluator decides whether or not the SLO needs revision.
Teacher:•Shares available
evidence of progress
Evaluator:• Delivers feedback• Provides
guidanceTogether:
• Review the set of SLOs• Discuss progress to date
• Discuss any areas of concern
Teachers continuously monitor student learning, adjust instructional practices as needed, and document student progress. They communicate and problem-solve regularly with colleagues and evaluators to ensure all students are on track to succeed.
September June
25RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Student Learning Objectives: Mid-Year OptionsIf a Student Learning Objective needs attention at the Mid-Year Conference the evaluator has two options:
1
SLO DOES NOT NEED REVISION
2
SLO NEEDS REVISION
In either case, the evaluator provides feedback, guidance,
and support, as necessary.
NOTE: Just not being “on track” to meeting an SLO is not adequate as the only criteria for revision
26RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
SLO needs REVISION
Teaching schedule or assignment have changed significantly
The composition of the class has
changed significantly
New, more reliable
sources of evidence are
available
New information gathered since they were set, objectives fail to address the
most important learning challenges
in the classroom/school
NOTE: Just not being “on track” to meeting an SLO is not adequate as the only criteria for revision
1. Revisions should be rare
2. There may be extenuating circumstances that do not fit these four categories in which the evaluator must use professional judgment
Student Learning Objectives: Identifying an SLO that Needs Revision
p. 43
27RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Student Learning Objectives: Process for SLOs that Require Action
Discuss SLO progress and any areas of concern at MYC
Evaluator will determine if the SLO should be maintained or revised and offer feedback
SLO DOES NOT NEED REVISION
1.Evaluator and educator discuss reasons for not revising and how the original SLO can be met
2.Evaluator and teacher discuss options for supports throughout the remainder of the year, if necessary, and determine next steps
SLO needs REVISION1.Evaluator and educator discuss
reasons for revising the SLO2.Evaluator provides feedback on how to
revise SLO3.Evaluator unlocks SLO in EPSS;
teacher revises and resubmits4.Evaluator approves or sends back with
feedback for additional revision5.Evaluator and teacher discuss options
for supports throughout the remainder of the year, if necessary, and determine next steps
28RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Student Learning Objectives: The Connection to Professional Practice
Student Learning Objectives articulateWHAT
students will learn
Professional Practice components highlight
HOWeducators effectively teach
students
At the mid-year, if students are not making appropriate progress, it is important for teachers and evaluators to investigate WHY this is occurring with a sense of urgency to help students get back on track for success.
One place to look is Professional Practice of a teacher. Are there areas that need focused support in order to impact student learning?
29RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Student Learning Objectives: Teacher Support
In all cases emphasize:• A solution-focused approach• Collaboration with teachers and administrators• Teacher initiative• Utilizing resources and people already at your
disposal
30RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Student Learning Objectives: Survey Start
Please enter the address below into you web browser and complete page one of the survey, which asks for basic information.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RYH2HB2
31RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Examining Mid-Year Scenarios: Guided Practice
Mr. Dewey wrote an SLO with a tiered target for his 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade Visual Art classes, based on his original schedule, which allowed him to meet with the groups twice per week for 60 minutes. However, in late October, the 1st and 2nd grade Visual Art teacher unexpectedly quit. The schedule was reorganized so that the younger students could continue taking art. Now Mr. Dewey meets with the 1st-5th graders once per week for 60 minutes. Mr. Dewey has earned all 3s and 4s in observations so far, but when asked about his SLO, he reports that the older students are substantially behind his original mid-year benchmarks because of the schedule change and would like to revise his targets. 1
SLO DOES NOT NEED REVISION
2
SLO needs REVISION
32RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Examining Mid-Year Scenarios: Providing feedback Mr. Dewey: SLO needs REVISION1. Explain your reasoning for approving a revision: An adjustment would be appropriate because the amount of instructional time Mr. Dewey had with the 3rd-5th graders was reduced by half, which is significant. His targets might be unreasonable given the interval of instruction. His teaching assignment has also changed, so he might want to include the 1st-2nd graders in his SLO, if appropriate. 2. Provide feedback on how to revise SLO (be specific as to which
elements require revision):In this case Mr. Dewey should revise the targets to be appropriate to the revised interval of instruction. If he wants, he could also incorporate the 1-2nd graders into the SLO, with tiered targets for them.
3. Provide options for supports, as necessary:If possible, hiring another art teacher to replace the one who leftwould be ideal.
33RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Examining Mid-Year Scenarios: Example 3
Ms. Ober has been teaching 6th grade mathematics for eight years. At the beginning of the year, when first drafting her SLOs, she reviewed the end-of-year performance of last year’s 6th grade class. But when she began teaching this year, she found that many of her students did not have the foundational mathematical skills that her students had in the past. After examining student’s performance on September tasks she tried to set SLO targets accordingly. However, by November it became apparent to her that students’ gaps were wider than she initially thought and she needed to do quite a bit more remediation in order to get students prepared to access the 6th grade material. She reports that 75% of students are on track to meet their goals and would like to adjust her targets to account for her students’ lack of foundational knowledge and the re-teaching she has had to do.
1
SLO DOES NOT NEED REVISION
2
SLO needs REVISION
34RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Mr. Palazola set his SLOs in October but needed knee surgery and had to take medical leave for the months of November and December. Before he left he created clear lesson plans, with materials and assessments for the permanent substitute teacher and met with him to discuss the students and the upcoming units. When he returned in January he was disappointed to find his students far behind where they should have been. After talking with students and viewing their collected work it is clear to him that the substitute did not adhere to the plans and pacing. He feels he will not be able to meet the targets he initially set now and has requested to adjust them.
Examining Mid-Year Scenarios: Example 4
1
SLO DOES NOT NEED REVISION
2
SLO needs REVISION
35RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Examining Mid-Year Scenarios: Scenario 5
Mr. Washington has created an SLO for his three sections of 8th grade ELA. He thought out the targets carefully but when you meet with him at the mid-year conference he is discouraged by the fact that only 69% of students are on track to meet the targets based on the midterm. When asked to explain, he shows his class attendance records, which indicate that 16 of his 66 students (24%) miss school approximately once per week, and 4 students (6%) miss class approximately twice per week. All but three of the students who failed the midterm fall into one of these groups of frequently absent students. He expresses his belief that he would be able to get most students to meet the learning objective if he had more time with them.
1
SLO DOES NOT NEED REVISION
2
SLO needs REVISION
SECTION 3: Evaluation System Implementation
37RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
BOYC MYC EOYC
Mid-Year Conference
Professional Practice
Professional Foundation
s
Student Learning
ObjectivesEvaluators will:
• Review component 3c • Discuss and strategize with colleagues next steps
Evaluation Criteria Support System
38RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Implementing the Building Administrator Model: Component 3cEstablishing Next Steps:
1. What are the data collection implications of this component?
2. Is there anything that you may do differently this year based upon this component? If so, what?
3. Are there any decisions that you could make to further support the local implementation of the teacher model? If so, what?
39RHODE ISLAND MODEL FOR PERSONNEL EVALUATING BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Resources• RIDE website: http://www.ride.ri.gov/ • Evaluation email: [email protected]
*RIDE staff members will respond to your context-specific questions.
Please complete the online survey at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RYH2HB2
Edition II, Module 1 for Personnel Evaluating Building Administrators