Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Principal and-teacher-evaluation-key-ideas-your-role-and-your-school's-leading-and-lagging-indicators


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Principal and-teacher-evaluation-key-ideas-your-role-and-your-school's-leading-and-lagging-indicators

  1. 1. PRINCIPALAND TEACHER EVALUATION Key Ideas, Your Role, and Your School’s Leading and Lagging Indicators Alexis Nordin Research Associate III
  2. 2. Goals for Today • Overview of the Principal Evaluation Components & Timeline • Introduction to the MPES Goal-Setting & Scoring Process • Brief Summary of Teacher Evaluation & SLOs • The Principal-Teacher Connection • Definition of Leading and Lagging Indicators • Counselors’ Role in the New Evaluation Processes
  4. 4. MPES Overview The Mississippi Principal Evaluation System (MPES) is mandatory for all districts this year. • Principal evaluation, including a student growth component, is a requirement of Mississippi’s ESEA flexibility waiver. • Last year 34 districts (219 principals) piloted a principal evaluation, focusing primarily on the VAL-ED component. • Who is required to participate this year? • Head principals of K-12 public schools • Career and technical education directors • Assistant principals & alternative school principals are NOT required to participate this year (local decision)
  5. 5. MPES Components Organizational Goals (2) 20% Language Arts Goal 25% Mathematics Goal 25% 5 Circle Survey 30%
  6. 6. MPES Process and Target Dates 6 AUG: Goal-Setting Conference DEC.-JAN: Formative Conference APR.: Circle Survey Conference JULY: Summative Assessment Conference Student/School Growth Scored Professional Growth Goals Conference
  7. 7. Goal-Setting Conference Language Arts Goal: Form 2A Mathematics Goal: Form 2B Organizational Goals: Form 2C Input Data in Canvas Formative Conference Discuss Progress Toward Goals Adjust Strategies and Add Support Complete Form 3 Input Data in Canvas Circle Survey Conference Certified Staff Complete Survey (Mid-Year) Principal and Supervisor Complete Survey (Mid-Year) Principal and Supervisor Review Circle Survey Results Input Data in Canvas Summative Assessment & PGG Conferences Discuss Goals and Rate Achievement of Goals Complete Form 4 Discuss Professional Growth Goals Complete Professional Growth Goals Form Input Data in Canvas 7
  9. 9. Setting MPES Language Arts and Mathematics Goals (50%) •Schoolwide goals - Based on statewide tests (i.e., MCT2). •Principals and supervisors - Set quantifiable goals and quantifiable ways to measure progress toward each goal at the start of the school year (Sept. 6). 9
  10. 10. Setting MPES Organizational Goals (20%) • Organizational Goals (2) Currently Based On: Leading indicators Lagging indicators These can include student assessments, but the Language Arts and Mathematics goals should not be used again in the Organizational Goals. 10
  11. 11. Goal Quantification All Goals Must Be: • Measurable (numerical targets) • Ranges/degrees of achievement • Mutually exclusive/contiguous • Realistic/based on data • Attainable/achievable • Consistent and fair • Agreed upon by the principal and supervisor at the beginning of the year 11
  12. 12. MPES Goal Scoring A Principal’s Goal Score is Based on a 1-4 Range: 4 – Distinguished (Substantially exceeds goal) 3 – Effective (Approaches or attains goal) 2 – Emerging (Some but not sufficient progress toward goal) 1 – Unsatisfactory (Little or no progress toward goal) 12
  13. 13. MPES Summative Assessment Rating Final Scoring (for Principals) 13
  15. 15. Teacher Evaluation • The process is being gradually implemented over the next 3 years. • You will see full implementation in the 2015- 2016 school year. 15
  16. 16. MS Teacher Evaluation Components 50% 30% 20% Student Growth M-STAR PGG
  17. 17. MS Teacher Evaluation 2015-2016 NON-STATE TESTED TEACHERS • M-STAR (30%) • PGG (20%) • Schoolwide Growth (20%) • SLOs (30%) 20 % 30 % 30 % 20 % STATE TESTED TEACHERS • M-STAR (30%) • PGG (20%) • Schoolwide Growth (20%) • Individual Growth (30%) 20 % 30 % 30 % 20 %
  18. 18. M-STAR Overview Five domains (weighted equally) • Planning • Assessment • Instruction • Learning Environment • Professional Responsibilities 20 standards included within the domains
  19. 19. M-STAR Observation Process FALL: Formative Observation: including pre/post conference FALL- SPRING: 5 Walk- Throughs feedback SPRING: Summative Observations: including pre/post conference
  20. 20. PGG/M-STAR Annual Cycle Begin School Year with 2 PGG Teacher works on approved PD activities Formative Observation FEEDBACK Walk Through Observations FEEDBACK Teacher works on approved PD activities Summative Observation Summative Conference PGG Developed
  21. 21. Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) • Can more accurately be described as ―student growth targets‖ • Applicable to teachers of non-tested grades/subjects • CTE population is piloting SLOs this year • Pre-Post Test • Pre-assessment scores set a baseline • Post-assessment determines growth • Individual student growth targets will be calculated for each student based on a baseline • Statewide goal is that students will show at least 60% of their potential growth on the end-of-course assessment. • Statewide goal is that at least 70% of a teacher’s students will meet growth.
  22. 22. SLO Calculation Scores 20 Potential 100 Pre-Test Early Fall Post-Test Spring Target 60% Student Growth Could Improve 80 points Growth 60% 60% x 80 = 48 20 + 48 = 68 This Student’s Post-Test Target
  23. 23. Teacher’s Report Student Pre-Test Growth Target Post-Test Met Growth Mike 20 68.0 70 YES Julie 15 66.0 64 NO Pam 10 64.0 75 YES Sean 10 64.0 80 YES Brad 30 72.0 70 NO Amanda 40 76.0 80 YES Bill 10 64.0 69 YES Kristen 12 64.8 69 YES Marilyn 22 68.8 69 YES Jean 32 72.8 69 NO Number Met 7 Number Not Met 3 % Student Meeting Target 70%
  24. 24. Quantification Evaluation Rating 4 3 2 1 SGT Met (%) >= 90% 70%-89% 50%-69% < 50% Quantification is required to convert the GOAL to a score that aligns with the teacher rating system. Scoring Rubric Example: 70% of Teacher’s Students Met Growth 70% = 3
  25. 25. Teacher Evaluation Ratings  Level 4 Distinguished: Indicates that the teacher’s performance consistently exceeds expectations – exemplary; cream of the crop!  Level 3 Effective: Indicates that the teacher’s performance meets expectations. Learning is evident and Best Practices are frequent and intentional!  Level 2 Emerging: Indicates that the teacher’s performance inconsistently meets expectations. PD is needed as teacher continues to learn about the science of teaching and learning.  Level 1 Unsatisfactory: Indicates that the teacher’s performance does not meet expectations. An immediate plan of improvement should be designed by the administrator and teacher.
  27. 27. The Principal-Teacher Link: • Principals and teachers must build partnerships in order for each party to be successful. • Principals will be evaluated on schoolwide student growth, which requires instructional support in the classroom. • Teachers will be evaluated on individual and schoolwide student growth, which requires support from school administrators. • Each party will have input in the other’s evaluation process. Neither party can do it alone!
  28. 28. All Parties Must Work To Achieve: • Honest and open feedback • Trust and team building • Leadership • Buy-In • Goals that complement one another (teachers must reinforce their principal’s goals and vice versa) Does the above description fit your school? Counselors are a great resource!
  29. 29. Stephen Covey ―A cardinal principle of Total Quality escapes too many managers: you cannot continuously improve interdependent systems and processes until you progressively perfect interdependent, interpersonal relationships.‖
  31. 31. What Are ―Leading‖ Indicators? • Monitored throughout the year • Can be altered during the year to impact end-of- year outcomes • For example, drop-out rate during the year is a ―leading‖ indicator because it can be monitored and intervention is possible throughout the school year. • As another example, hand-washing is a leading indicator of sickness.
  32. 32. Other Leading Indicators • Length of instructional day/year • Student participation rate on State assessments in language arts and mathematics • Student/teacher attendance rates • Number/percent of students completing advanced coursework (AP/IB), early-college high schools, or dual- enrollment classes • Disciplinary incidents • Truancy • Teachers’ performance level on a teacher evaluation system
  33. 33. What Are ―Lagging‖ Indicators? • Measured at the end of the academic year (―after the fact‖) • For example, graduation rate is a ―lagging‖ indicator because it is calculated per 4-year cohort after the students have already passed through the educational system. • To return to the hand-washing example, sickness is a lagging indicator because, once it is evident, prevention is no longer an option.
  34. 34. Other Lagging Indicators • Student achievement proficiency • Student academic growth • Achievement gaps in both proficiency and growth among student subgroups • Percent of seniors who take the ACT and their average score • College enrollment rates • Graduation rates • School improvement status and AMOs met and missed • Percent of English learners who reach English proficiency
  35. 35. Sample Leading Indicator Goal (Justification) 35
  36. 36. Sample Leading Indicator Goal (Goal Statement) 36
  38. 38. MPES Circle Survey (30%) • All certified staff participate in the survey • Concise, secure survey (usually takes less than 30 min.) • MDE will establish survey criteria (tools must be valid, reliable, and research-based) and give districts a choice in which survey to use • One choice is being developed by the Research and Curriculum Unit at MSU for MDE and will be free of charge to schools • Survey comprises 30% of Summative Assessment Score for principal • Survey includes 3 components:  Certified Staff (10%), Principal (10%), and Supervisor (10%) 38
  39. 39. Circle Survey • Anonymous staff component  Survey completed online  Each principal will have an assigned ID number that staff members will enter to match their feedback to the correct principal  Secure login information will be provided to certified staff members.  Certified staff will complete the survey by entering the principal ID number and their randomly assigned participant ID number. • Survey may be completed at each participant’s convenience or in a lab setting • Alignment of the survey score with the MPES 1-4 rating system 39
  40. 40. Circle Survey • How will the participant IDs be randomly assigned to certified staff? Usually accomplished in one of two ways: 1. Fishbowl method—participant IDs are randomly selected by each qualified survey participant. 2. Survey IDs are randomly generated and given to an elected certified staff member in the school (who does not participate in the survey for that year) to distribute to qualified survey participants. The principal and the MDE officials assessing survey results will have no way to link a specific participant ID to a specific certified staff member within a school. 40
  41. 41. Sample Key Processes of Circle Survey • High Standards for Student Learning • Rigorous Curriculum • Quality Instruction • Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior • Connections to External Communities • Performance Accountability Examples above based on the VAL-ED survey developed by Vanderbilt University. 41
  42. 42. Sample Survey Question 1 ―The principal fosters effective human resources leadership by assisting with selection and induction, and by supporting, evaluating, and retaining quality instructional and support personnel.‖ Survey participant ranks principal on 1-4 scale or ―No evidence.‖ Example above based on James Stronge’s Principal Evaluation. 42
  43. 43. Sample Survey Question 2 ―The principal fosters the success of all students by demonstrating professional standards and ethics, engaging in continuous professional development, and contributing to the profession.‖ Survey participant ranks principal on 1-4 scale or ―No evidence.‖ Example above based on James Stronge’s Principal Evaluation. 43
  44. 44. CONCLUSION
  45. 45. Recap • Principal evaluation and teacher evaluation are changing across the nation due to federal requirements. Counselor evaluation is up next—see Lois Kappler’s presentation this afternoon. • Mississippi’s principal evaluation system has already been reviewed favorably by the federal government. • Teacher evaluation and SLOs are now being piloted by CTE populations. • Teamwork and buy-in from all stakeholders are critical to our success. • Patience is a virtue as we all assume new roles and responsibilities!
  46. 46. THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING. QUESTIONS? Alexis Nordin 662-325-1191