Date post: | 01-Apr-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | karina-collingwood |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
1
SEED – CT’s System for Educator and Evaluation and Development
April 2013 Wethersfield Public Schools
CONNECTICUT ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION
Overview of SEED
2
Administrator Evaluation
Student Learning (45%)
Teacher Effectiveness (5%)
Leadership Practice (40%)
Stakeholder Feedback (10%)
Outcomes Rating (50%)
Practice Rating (50%)
Final Rating (100%)
3
Why should Connecticut focus on the evaluation of school and district leaders?
A proficient administrator is one who:• Meets expectations as an instructional leader• Meets expectations in at least three other areas of practice• Meets one target related to stakeholder feedback• Meets state accountability growth targets on tests of core
academic subjects• Meets and makes progress on 3 student learning objectives
aligned to school and district priorities• Having more than 60% of teachers proficient on the student
growth portion of their evaluation
4
Evaluate All Administrators
Anyone with an 092 license: Principals Assistant Principals Instructional Supervisors Other school-based staff who
have primarily administrative duties
Central Office Administrators
Teachers Superintendents Anyone else not on the other list
5
Follow the Cycle
SCHOOL YEAR: PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONAND EVIDENCE COLLECTION
JULY Orientation and context setting
AUGUST Goal setting and plan development
JANUARY Mid-year formative review
APRIL Self-assessment
MAY Preliminary summative assessment (to be finalized in August)
6
1. Orientation and Context Setting
• Orientation to SEED• Review data such as:
o Student learning datao SPI ratingo Stakeholder survey datao District Improvement Plan (DIP) o School Improvement Plan (SIP)
• Superintendent communicates student learning priorities
• School improvement plan, including student learning goals, in place
7
2. Goal Setting and Plan Development
Available Data:• Superintendent’s Priorities• School Improvement Plan• Prior Evaluation Results • SPI• Parent Survey • Staff Survey
1 - Survey Goal
2 - Focus areas (using Leadership Evaluation Rubric)
3 - Goals related to student achievement
“1-2-3 Goal Setting”
8
Administrator Evaluation
Student Learning (45%)
Teacher Effectiveness (5%)
Leadership Practice (40%)
Stakeholder Feedback (10%)
Outcomes Rating (50%)
Practice Rating (50%)
Final Rating (100%)
9
2. Goal Setting and Plan Development
One (1) Stakeholder Feedback Target (10%)
• Must be based on feedback from at least teachers and parents
• Should be based on growth, except: - When ratings are already high - When administrator is new to the role
10
Stakeholder Feedback (10%)
1. Select appropriate survey measures aligned to the Connecticut Leadership Standards
2. Review baseline data on selected measures3. Set one target for growth on selected measures (or performance
on selected measures when growth is not feasible to assess)4. Later in the school year, administer surveys to relevant
stakeholders5. Aggregate data and determine whether the administrator achieved
the target6. Assign a summative rating, using this scale:
Exemplary Proficient Developing Below Standard
Substantially exceeded target
Met target Made substantial progress but did not
meet target
Made little or no progress against
target
11
2. Goal Setting and Plan Development
Two (2) Practice Focus Areas
• At least one focused on instructional leadership
• Aligned to District Improvement Plan and School Improvement Plan
• Form the basis for the professional conversation between administrator and evaluator
12
Leadership Practice (40%)
Performance Expectations: 1. Vision, Mission & Goals2. Teaching and Learning 3. Organizational Systems and Safety4. Families and Stakeholders5. Ethics and Integrity6. The Educational System
Teaching and
Learning PE
Other 5 PE Performance Expectations
Total Leadership
Practice Rating
20% 20% 40%
13
Plan Implementation/Evidence Collection
Minimum of:
• Two observations (school visits for principals)
• Four observations for assistant principals and for any administrator new to their district, school, the profession, or who has received ratings of developing or below standard
School visits: Frequent & Purposeful
14
Administrator Evaluation
Student Learning (45%)
Teacher Effectiveness (5%)
Leadership Practice (40%)
Stakeholder Feedback (10%)
Outcomes Rating (50%)
Practice Rating (50%)
Final Rating (100%)
15
2. Goal Setting and Plan Development
Three (3) Student Learning Objectives (SLO) 45%
• Aligned to the CT subject matter standards/CCSS
• At least one focused on non-tested subjects and/or grades
• At least one focused on cohort and extended graduation (HS only)
• Written as a SMART Goal
16
Student Learning (45%)
State-tested Academic Learning:
Progress and Results
Total Student Learning Rating
Locally – Determined Measures:
Progress and Results
Currently there is no student growth measure in place statewide in CT. When one is available, it should be 50-70% of a principal’s rating here.
22.5% 22.5% 45%
3 SLOsSPI Progress & Average SPI Subgroup Progress
17
2. Goal Setting and Plan Development
Set the goals (Administrator)
Meet and Discuss
Agree on the Plan
1 Stakeholder feedback target (1)
2 Practice focus areas (2)
3 Student learning objectives (3 SLOs)
Any important assumptions about specific goals?
Anything that depends on things beyond the administrator’s control?
What sources of evidence will be used to assess performance?
Are the goals ambitious and attainable?
Is there alignment between district priorities and administrator goals?
Do the practice focus areas address growth needs for the administrator?
18
Teacher Effectiveness (5%)
• Teacher effectiveness is measured by an aggregation of teachers’ student learning objectives (SLOs)
• Administrators will receive a rating following the table below:
Exemplary Proficient Developing Below Standard
81-100% of teachers are rated
proficient or exemplary on the student growth portion of their
evaluation
61-80% of teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the
student growth portion of their
evaluation
41-60% of teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the
student growth portion of their
evaluation
0-40% of teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the
student growth portion of their
evaluation
19
3. Mid-Year Formative Review
Before meeting:
• Administrator: Analyze available student achievement data
• Evaluator: Review observation(s) and feedback forms
At meeting:
• Discussion of 1-2-3 goals
• Surface changes in the context & adjust goals if appropriate
20
4. Self-Assessment
Administrator assesses own practice against the six performance expectations, determining if he/she:
• Needs to grow and improve practice on this element• Has some strengths on this element but needs to continue to grow
and improve• Is consistently effective on this element, OR• Can empower others to be effective on this element
Administrator reviews progress on focus areasQuestion: Why self assess in the spring?Answer: Inform the summative rating.
21
5. Summative Rating and Review
Meet and Discuss
Adjust as Needed
Assign Rating
Review strengths
Review growth areas
Convey probable rating
Four levels
Use all available information
Likely new information:
SPI Rating
Teacher SLOs
22
5. Summative Rating & Review
• Substantially exceeding indicators of performance• Could serve as a model for other leaders
• Meeting indicators of performance• The expectation for experienced administrators
• Not meeting indicators of performance
• Meeting some indicators of performance but not all• Expected for new administrators• Multiple years at this level a concern for experienced administrators
Exemplary
Below Standard
Developing
Proficient
23
6. Summative Rating & Review
Student Learning (45%)
Teacher Effectiveness (5%)
Leadership Practice (40%)
Stakeholder Feedback (10%)
Outcomes Rating (50%)
Practice Rating (50%)
Final Rating (100%)(Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant)
6. Summative Rating and Review
Practice Related Indicators Rating
Exemplary
Proficient
Developing
Below Standard
Outcomes Related IndicatorsRating
Exemplary
Exemplary
Exemplary
Proficient
Gatherfurther
information
Proficient
Proficient
Proficient
Proficient
Gatherfurther
information
Developing
Proficient
Developing
Developing
Below Standard
Below
Standard
Gatherfurther
information
Below Standard
Below Standard
Below Standard