Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

SEED – CT’s System for Educator and Evaluation and Development April 2013 Wethersfield Public Schools CONNECTICUT ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION Overview of.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "SEED – CT’s System for Educator and Evaluation and Development April 2013 Wethersfield Public Schools CONNECTICUT ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION Overview of."— Presentation transcript:

1 SEED – CT’s System for Educator and Evaluation and Development April 2013 Wethersfield Public Schools CONNECTICUT ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION Overview of SEED 1

2 Administrator Evaluation Student Learning (45%) Teacher Effectiveness (5%) Leadership Practice (40%) Stakeholder Feedback (10%) Outcomes Rating (50%) Practice Rating (50%) Final Rating (100%) 2

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 3

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 4

5 SCHOOL YEAR: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND EVIDENCE COLLECTION JULYOrientation and context setting AUGUSTGoal setting and plan development JANUARYMid-year formative review APRILSelf-assessment MAYPreliminary summative assessment (to be finalized in August) 5

6 1.Orientation and Context Setting Orientation to SEED Review data such as: o Student learning data o SPI rating o Stakeholder survey data o District Improvement Plan (DIP) o School Improvement Plan (SIP) Superintendent communicates student learning priorities School improvement plan, including student learning goals, in place 6

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” 7

8 Administrator Evaluation Student Learning (45%) Teacher Effectiveness (5%) Leadership Practice (40%) Stakeholder Feedback (10%) Outcomes Rating (50%) Practice Rating (50%) Final Rating (100%) 8

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 9

10 Stakeholder Feedback (10%) 1.Select appropriate survey measures aligned to the Connecticut Leadership Standards 2.Review baseline data on selected measures 3.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 stakeholders 5.Aggregate data and determine whether the administrator achieved the target 6.Assign a summative rating, using this scale: ExemplaryProficientDevelopingBelow Standard Substantially exceeded target Met targetMade substantial progress but did not meet target Made little or no progress against target 10

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 11

12 Leadership Practice (40%) Performance Expectations: 1.Vision, Mission & Goals 2.Teaching and Learning 3.Organizational Systems and Safety 4.Families and Stakeholders 5.Ethics and Integrity 6.The Educational System Teaching and Learning PE Other 5 PE Performance Expectations Total Leadership Practice Rating 20% 20%40% 12

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 13

14 Administrator Evaluation Student Learning (45%) Teacher Effectiveness (5%) Leadership Practice (40%) Stakeholder Feedback (10%) Outcomes Rating (50%) Practice Rating (50%) Final Rating (100%) 14

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 15

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 SLOs SPI Progress & Average SPI Subgroup Progress 16

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? 17

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: ExemplaryProficientDevelopingBelow Standard % 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 18

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 goals Surface changes in the context & adjust goals if appropriate 19

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 areas Question: Why self assess in the spring? Answer: Inform the summative rating. 20

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 21

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 22

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) 23

24 6. Summative Rating and Review Practice Related Indicators Rating Exemplary Proficient Developing Below Standard Outcomes Related Indicators Rating Exemplary Exemplary Exemplary Proficient Gather further information Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient Gather further information Developing Proficient Developing Developing Below Standard Below Standard Gather further information Below Standard Below Standard Below Standard 24


Download ppt "SEED – CT’s System for Educator and Evaluation and Development April 2013 Wethersfield Public Schools CONNECTICUT ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION Overview of."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google