Awsp Seattle Hilton May 2013

  • 198 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
198
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. gemalone@wsu.edu
  • 2. Topics for this session:• Background and history• Principal/AP evaluation - current status – recommendations• Calibration of elements to arrive at summative score for each of theeight criterion – how are districts handling this issue?• Evidence collection for student growth areas – Criterion 3, 5 and 8
  • 3. COLLABORATION IS KEY!
  • 4. • 8 Teacher Evaluation Criteria• 8 Principal Evaluation Criteria• 4-Tiered Rating SystemE2SSB6696(2010)• 3 Criteria must include student growth• Up to 3 instructional and leadershipframeworks• Experienced teachers and principals cannot bebasic• Evaluations will be used in HR decisionsSB 5895(2012)• Summative Scoring Formula• Separate analysis of Student GrowthCriteria• Matrix for analyzing summative and studentgrowth scores• Options for low student growth scoresNCLBWaiver(Summer2012)
  • 5. Assessment as AutopsyAssessment as Diagnostic Tools toImprove Leadership & InstructionData AccessUtilizing Data forImproving InstructionEducator Quality Educator EffectivenessReflection for Improved IndividualTeaching and Leadership PracticeReflection for ImprovedCollective Teaching andLeadership Practice
  • 6. Evaluation Systems
  • 7. Evaluation Systems
  • 8. SatisfactoryUnsatisfactoryDistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactoryDid I make the grade? How can I grow?
  • 9. The AWSPLeadershipFrameworkTo Support Principal DevelopmentUnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished
  • 10. Intent of the AWSP Framework• Promotes a growth model linked to professional development• Provides for public and professional accountability• Allows for greater participation in joint goal setting, meaningfuldiscussions, increased collaboration, planning, teamwork andrelationship building• Provides clarity around common language and expectations
  • 11. Intent of the AWSP Framework• Is technically, professionally and legally defensible• Allows for reflection in professional practice• Leads to improvements in staff and student outcomes• Addresses variations in school context• Is valid and reliable• Moves from evaluation “to them” to evaluation “with them.”
  • 12. TPEP Criteria Themes
  • 13. Leadership FrameworkPresentationResearch BackgroundAWSP Framework Intent
  • 14. Research Background on PrincipalEvaluation1. Rigorous empirical evidence regarding best practices inprincipal evaluation is extremely thin with regard to theinfluence on important school outcomes.2. The quality of the conduct of principal evaluation may be moreimportant than its content; strong, trusting and collaborativerelationships between principals and their district officeevaluators is especially critical to the success of the evaluationprocess.
  • 15. Research Background on PrincipalEvaluation3. Establishing a balance between the formative and summativefunctions of evaluation appears to result in greater principaland evaluator ownership and motivation regarding theevaluation process.4. Principal evaluation systems appear to be most effective whenthey are based upon clear standards and expectations ofperformance and aligned with key goals and needs ofprincipals, schools, districts and the community.Davis, S., Kearney, K., Sanders, N., Thomas, C. & Leon, R. (2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation:Executive summary. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
  • 16. AWSP Leadership FrameworkContentsHistory and Introduction8 Criteria(Culture, Safety, Data, Curriculum, Evaluation, Resources, Community, Gap)Reflection ConsiderationsRubricsResearchResourcesCertification (ISLLC) and Evaluation (AWSP Criteria)Comparison
  • 17. Criterion 1 Research | Creating a Culture
  • 18. Criterion 1 Research | Creating a Culture
  • 19. Use of Student Growth DataStudent growth data must be a substantial factor in evaluatingprincipals for at least three of the eight evaluation criteria.• Criterion 3 – Planning with Data (3.4)• Criterion 5 – Improving Instruction (5.2)• Criterion 8 – Closing the Gap (8.3)
  • 20. AWSP Leadership FrameworkContentsHistory and Introduction8 Criteria(Culture, Safety, Data, Curriculum, Evaluation, Resources, Community, Gap)Reflection ConsiderationsRubricsResearchResourcesCertification (ISLLC) and Evaluation (AWSP Criteria)Comparison
  • 21. Criterion 1 Rubric | Creating a CultureCreating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff.1.1 Develops andsustains focus on ashared mission andclear vision forimprovement oflearning/ teaching1.2 Engages inessentialconversations forongoingimprovement1.3 Facilitatescollaborativeprocesses leadingtoward continuousimprovement1.4 Createsopportunities forsharedleadershipELEMENTSMultimedia(Video, audio)From the Field(Strategies frompracticingprincipals)ProfessionalDevelopmentForms & Surveys(Templates,protocols, samplegoals)Books &Research
  • 22. PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PLANSchool name, logo, mission sttatement, etc.District: School:School Year: Principal/Assistant Principal:Evaluator: Date:Criterion 1: Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff.Element SMART Goal Strategies Evidence andArtifactsAction Steps/TimelineProgress MonitoringDate Comments/Feedback/RevisionsPrincipal Signature:Supervisor Signature:
  • 23. Success at the Core: Resources and AlignmentEvolution of New Policy Mandates: Student Growth MeasuresTeacher/ Principal Evaluation & ImplementationInstructionLeadership Modules:Leadership Teams and Quality InstructionInstructional ExpertiseInstructionTeacher Development Strategies:Active and Exploratory InstructionAilene M. Baxter, EdD, 2012-2013FJH SIP 2012-2013“We UseAssessment DataKeeping Students atthe Centerto ImproveInstructionStrengthening theInstructional Coreand Close theAchievement Gap”1Improved PerformanceAcross ALL Student GroupsAssessmentLeadership Modules:Using Data EffectivelyCommon Formative AssessmentTeacher Development Strategies:Authentic and Student-CenteredAssessmentAchievement GapLeadership Modules:Professional DevelopmentTeacher Development Strategies:Support Structures to Help AllStudents SucceedSuccess at the Core: Leadership Modules and Teacher Development StrategiesTeachers and Principals MUST have a way of improving and elevating practice through ongoing,authentic, engaging, and collaborative professional learning.TEACHER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIESASSESSMENT INSTRUCTION ACHIEVEMENT GAPAuthentic and Student-Centered Assessment Active and Exploratory Instruction Support Structures to Help All Students Succeed• Checking for Understanding • Analyzing Data • Differentiating Instruction• Guiding Self-Assessment • Categorizing Ideas • Scaffolding a Lesson• Reviewing Homework • Conducting Investigations • Using Multiple Approaches• Structuring Peer Assessment • Cooperative Learning• Using Rubrics • Facilitating Student-Centered Discussion• Hands-On Learning• Promoting Inquiry• Teaching as Facilitation• Using Models• Writing with Detail1 Dr. Gene Sharratt, AWSP 2012
  • 24. ROADMAP1. Self-Assessment2. Goal Setting•Professional•Student Growth3. First FormalEvidence Gathering4. Student GrowthCheck-in5. Second FormalEvidence Gathering6. Student GrowthCheck-in7. Summative•Criteria•Student GrowthSeptemberOctoberNovemberJanuaryFebruaryAprilMay
  • 25. Cashmere School DistrictPrincipal/Teacher Evaluation Roadmap1. Self-Assessment2. Goal Setting•Professional•Student Growth3. First FormalEvidence Gathering4. Student GrowthCheck-in5. Second FormalEvidence Gathering6. Student GrowthCheck-in7. Summative•Criteria•Student GrowthSeptemberOctoberNovemberJanuaryFebruaryAprilMay
  • 26. Comprehensive Evaluation CycleEverett School District | 2012-2013August Presentation•Strategic Plan•Annual Operating Plan•Work Priorities•State of the School Review Components•School Improvement Plan Models•Updated State Data InformationState of the School Review•Targeted Data Analysis•School Improvement Actions and Interventions•Developing High Performing Teams•Support Needed and Debriefing•Classroom VisitsSecond Formal Visit•Review of Goals(Criterion 3, 5 and 8 Required)•Review of other District Priorities•Review of Teacher Observation Reports•Classroom Visits•School SafetyFirst Formal Visit•Self-Assessment against State Criteria•Goal Setting(Criterion 3, 5 and 8 Required)•Classroom Visits•School SafetyFinal Evaluation•Summary of Goals Attainment•Summary of Evidence and Artifacts•Summary of other District Priorities School ImprovementPlanning SupportAugust Support Visits•Enrollment•Staffing•Other NeedsContinuous GrowthReflective PracticeFormative Feedback
  • 27. AWSP Leadership FrameworkContentsHistory and Introduction8 Criteria(Culture, Safety, Data, Curriculum, Evaluation, Resources, Community, Gap)Reflection ConsiderationsRubricsResearchResourcesCertification (ISLLC) and Evaluation (AWSP Criteria)Comparison
  • 28. Evaluation Summative Scoring ProcessCriteria 2Criteria 1Criteria 3Criteria 4Criteria 5Criteria 6Criteria 7Criteria 8Frameworks+StudentGrowthRubricsObservationArtifactsOtherevidencerelevant totheframeworksStudent GrowthMeasures(From 3 specific criteria)StatedeterminedprocessDistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactoryStudent GrowthImpact Ratings:Low, Average, HighDistrictdeterminedprocessDistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactory
  • 29. The RAW Score ModelPrincipal Criteria* Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubricsOverallCriterionScoresCriterion 1: Influence, establish and sustain a school culture conducive to continuous improvement 4Criterion 2: Lead the development and annual update of a comprehensive safe schools plan 4*Criterion 3: Lead the development, implementation and evaluation of a data-driven plan for improvement 3Criterion 4: Assist instructional staff in aligning curriculum, instruction and assessment with state and local goals 4Criterion 5: Monitor, assist and evaluate staff implementation of the school improvement plan and instruction 3*Criterion 6: Manage human and fiscal resources to accomplish student achievement goals 4Criterion 7: Communicate and partner with school community members to promote student learning 4*Criterion 8: Demonstrate a commitment to closing the achievement gap 3Total Summative Score 29Evaluators place principals into preliminary summative ratingcategories based on score bands. As illustrated above, thisprincipal would receive a preliminary overall summativerating of Distinguished.8-14 15-21 22-28 29-321Unsatisfactory2Basic3Proficient4Distinguished
  • 30. Criteria 2Criteria 1Criteria 3Criteria 4Criteria 5Criteria 6Criteria 7Criteria 8Frameworks+StudentGrowthRubricsObservationArtifactsOtherevidencerelevant totheframeworksStudent GrowthMeasures(From 3 specific criteria)StatedeterminedprocessDistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactoryStudent GrowthImpact Ratings:Low, Average, HighDistrictdeterminedprocessDistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactory
  • 31. Student Growth Rubric and RatingStudent Growth Student Growth* Score Basedon RubricCriterion 3.4 2**Criterion 5.2 2**Criterion 8.3 1**Student Growth Score 5*Must include a minimum of two student growth measures (i.e., state-,district-, school-, and classroom-based measures).** A student growth score of “1” in any of the student growth rubrics willresult in a Low growth rating.Evaluators place principals into summative rating categories based onscore bands. As illustrated below, this principal would receive a lowstudent growth rating3-5 6-9 10-12Low Average High
  • 32. SummativeRatingDistinguished Proficient Rating1 Year Growth PlanDistinguished RatingProficient Proficient Rating1 Year Growth PlanProficient RatingBasic Basic RatingUnsatisfactory Unsatisfactory RatingPlan of ImprovementLow Average HighImpact on Student LearningBasic Rating1 Year Growth Plan
  • 33. Defining Key Terms• Student Achievement:The status of subject-matter knowledge,understandings, and skills at one point in time.• Student Growth (Learning):The growth in subject-matter knowledge,understandings, and skill over time.
  • 34. Criteria 1Criteria 3Criteria 4Criteria 5Criteria 6Criteria 7Criteria 8FrameworkComponents+StudentGrowthRubrics(3, 5, 8)ObservationArtifactsOtherevidencerelevant totheframeworksStudent GrowthMeasuresDistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactoryCriteria 6One Criterionis chosen andapproved byevaluatorFocused Evaluation Summative Scoring Process
  • 35. Criterion1Criterion2Criterion3Criterion4Criterion5Criterion6Criterion7Criterion8
  • 36. Criterion1Criterion2Criterion3Criterion4Criterion5Criterion6Criterion7Criterion8
  • 37. It is student growth, not student achievement,that is relevant in demonstrating impactsteacher and principals have on students.Formal Tests inCore Subjects OnlyKnowledge andLearning that can beMeasuredAll ClassroomLearning
  • 38. 59Student Growth DataExamples• State-Based Tools (with proposed changes)– e.g., MSP, HSPE, EOCs, SMARTER BalancedAssessment Consortium (SBAC)• District-Based Tools– e.g., MAP, AIMS Web, SBAC interim• School-Based Tools– e.g., content area, grade-level or other schoolteam assessments• Classroom-Based Tools– Applies to all teachers59
  • 39. Substantial factorStudent growth data must bea substantial factor inevaluating principals for atleast three of the eightevaluation criteria.P.7 (ESSB 5895 PL)Multiple MeasuresStudent growth data must bebased on multiple measuresthat include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools.P. 8 (ESSB 5895 PL)Student growth means thechange in studentachievement between twopoints in time.P.8 (ESSB 5895 PL)3.4 Planning with data5.2 Improving Instruction8.3 Closing the gap3.4 Planning with data5.2 Improving Instruction8.3 Closing the gap3.4 Planning with data5.2 Improving Instruction8.3 Closing the gap3.4 Planning with data5.2 Improving Instruction8.3 Closing the gapDISTRICT DECISION-MAKING MATRIXProgress ElementarySchoolsTwo Points in TimeLeadership GoalsHardy Middle SchoolSuccess High SchoolAchievementAlternative School
  • 40. Substantial factorStudent growth data must be asubstantial factor in evaluatingprincipals for at least three ofthe eight evaluation criteria.P.7 (ESSB 5895 PL)Multiple MeasuresStudent growth data must bebased on multiple measures thatinclude classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools.P. 8 (ESSB 5895 PL)Two Points in TimeStudent growth means thechange in studentachievement between twopoints in time.P.8 (ESSB 5895 PL)3.4 Assists staff to use data to guide,modify and improve classroomteaching and learning.5.2 Assists staff in developingrequired student growth plan andidentifying valid, reliable sources ofevidence of effectiveness.8.3 provides evidence of growth instudent learning.State-based tools, e.g., MSP, HSPE,EOCs, SMARTER Balanced AssessmentConsortium (SBAC)District-based tools, e.g., MAP, AIMS,Web, SBAC interimSchool-based tools., e.g., content area,grade-level or other school teamassessmentsClassroom-based tools (applies to allteachers)Dynamic Indicators of BasicEarly Literacy Skills (DIBELS)Lexile ScoresData Walls : (explanation:http://web.nmusd.us/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1264862614295 )3.4 Planning with data5.2 Improving Instruction8.3 Closing the gap3.4 Assists staff to use data to guide,modify and improve classroomteaching and learning.5.2 Assists staff in developingrequired student growth plan andidentifying valid, reliable sources ofevidence of effectiveness.8.3 provides evidence of growth instudent learning.State-based tools, e.g., HSPE,EOCs, WELPA, SMARTER BalancedAssessment Consortium (SBAC)District-based tools, e.g., MAP,AIMS, Web, SBAC interimSchool-based tools., e.g., contentarea, grade-level or other schoolteam assessmentsDistrict Reading/writing scoresScholastic Reading Inventory(SRI) is a reading assessmentprogram which providesimmediate, actionable data onstudents reading levels andgrowth over time.3.4 By April 1, each commoncontent area team will hold adata talk with a buildingadministrator discussing theresults of a common formativeor summative assessment. Thisinformation will be used to planinterventions and inform thenext steps of instruction.DISTRICT DECISION-MAKING MATRIXElementarySchoolsLeadership GoalsMiddle SchoolHigh School
  • 41. Rater Agreement Background• The TPEP project has relied heavily on thegrowing body of research, the framework authorsand the practical input from practitioners in thepilot sites to create a “working definition” of rateragreement for the 2012-13 school year.• The new law requires that evaluators ofboth teachers and principals “mustengage in professional developmentdesigned to implement the revisedsystems and maximize rater agreement.”
  • 42. Rater Agreement DefinitionThe extent to which the scores between theraters have consistency and accuracy againstpredetermined standards. The predeterminedstandards are the instructional and leadershipframeworks and rubrics that define the basis forsummative criterion level scores.
  • 43. Stages of Rater Agreement
  • 44. Topics for this session: What I hope you heard.• How research supports the framework• Research base is provided for each criterion and each indicator under thecriteria.• How Washington’s eight principal evaluation criteria are addressed• Seven of the eight Washington criteria came directly from the AWSPFramework.• There is now a strong match between the framework and the eight criteria.• Key strengths of the framework• This is a Washington state framework designed by and for Washingtonadministrators, responsive to Washington state statutes.• The role of evidence gathering when putting the framework into practice• The intent behind the framework is professional growth. Evidence relatedto the various components will not only assist in assigning scores on therubric, it will lay the foundation for professional growth.
  • 45. To be continued….Gene Sharrattgsharratt@wsu.edu
  • 46. Recommendationsand Suggestions for EffectivePrincipal EvaluationsPutting the Pieces Together
  • 47. 1. Evaluation should stimulate and guide a principal’sprofessional development.
  • 48. 2. Evaluation protocols should be aligned withimportant school and student outcomes(e.g., student achievement and effective instruction).
  • 49. 3. Evaluators should acquire appropriate feedbackfrom multiple stakeholders.
  • 50. 4. Evaluations are enriched and strengthened whenevidence is collected through multiple methods (e.g.portfolios, self-assessments, 360-degree feedback, andoutcome-based assessments).
  • 51. 5. Evaluation systems should be flexible enough toaccount for variations in school contexts andenvironments.
  • 52. 6. Principals should be engaged partners in the processof establishing evaluation goals and objectives andassessing their own performance.
  • 53. 7. The quality of the conduct of principal evaluation may be moreimportant than its content; strong, trusting and collaborativerelationships between principals and their district officeevaluators is especially critical to the success of the evaluationprocess.
  • 54. 8. Evaluation procedures and tools should be reliableand valid.
  • 55. 9. Evaluation systems shouldbe based on established standards of administrativepractice and on objective and measurableperformance objectives.
  • 56. 10. School district leaders should regularly assess the alignmentbetween the district’s principal evaluation system and thecritical goals and needs of principals, the schools, the districtand the community.
  • 57. 10. School district leaders should regularly assess the alignmentbetween the district’s principal evaluation system and thecritical goals and needs of principals, the schools, the districtand the community.
  • 58. 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17Provisional TeachersFirst Year Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive ComprehensiveProvisional TeachersSecond Year Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive ComprehensiveProvisional TeachersThird Year Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive ComprehensiveProbationaryClassroom Teachers Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive ComprehensiveNon-Provisional orNon-ProbationaryClassroom Teachers(4 years ofsatisfactoryevaluations)25% on Comp75% on Focused25% on Comp75% on Focused25% on Comp75% on Focused25% on Comp75% on FocusedFour Year Implementation Plan
  • 59. 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17ProvisionalTeachersFirst Year17 FTERequired: Comp15 FTERequired: Comp10 FTERequired: Comp15 FTERequired: CompProvisionalTeachersSecond Year16 FTERequired: Comp17 FTERequired: Comp15 FTERequired: Comp10 FTERequired: CompProvisional TeachersThird Year8 FTERequired: Comp16 FTERequired: Comp17 FTERequired: Comp15 FTERequired: CompTotal Provisional 41 FTE 48 FTE 42 FTE 40 FTEProbationaryClassroom Teachers1 FTERequired: Comp3 FTERequired: Comp4 FTERequired: Comp3 FTERequired: CompNon-Provisional orNon-ProbationaryClassroom Teachers(4 years ofsatisfactoryevaluations)Total: 378 FTEComp: 75Focused: 303Total: 369 FTEComp: 110Focused: 259Total: 374 FTEComp: 125Focused: 249Total: 377 FTEComp: 94Focused: 283Total teachers on aComprehensive:117 161 171 137Total teachers on aFocused:303 279 259 293Sample District: Total Number of Classroom Teachers: 420 TotalStudent FTE: 8,423
  • 60. Cougar Greats!