2Educator Accountability Educator Professional Development and Accountability Act of 2000Established DPAS II for all educatorsRequired that the system have no more than 5 components, with one component addressing student improvement.Required that evaluators be properly trained and credentialed.
3DPAS II PilotRegulations apply only to the two districts piloting DPAS IIAppoquiniminkCaesar RodneyDuring the pilot, any rating received on a Summative Evaluation is not included in the determination of a pattern of ineffective administration.
4Who is an Administrator? For the purposes of DPAS II, an administrator is a professional employee of a school board serving in a supervisory capacity which involves the oversight of an instructional program.
5AdministratorInexperienced – less than three years of service as an administratorExperienced – three or more years of service as an administratorRole Experienced – three or more years of service as an administrator in the role in which employed
6DPAS II for Administrators Four ComponentsEach component weighted equallyTaken together, the components of the DPAS II system provide a strong focus on teaching and learningComponents 2 through 4 directly relate to an administrator’s daily responsibilitiesComponent 1 examines the administrator’s performance in light of national standards for school leaders
7Components Component 1 – Leader Standards Component 2 – Goals and PrioritiesComponent 3 – School or District Improvement PlanComponent 4 – Measures of Student Achievement
8Component 1 – Leader Standards Assesses the administrator’s performance against six national standardsEstablish a context in which administrators focus on components 2, 3, and 4Assessed through an electronic survey
9Component 1 School Leader Survey Provides judgment about 4 components of professional practice for each of six school leader standardsSurvey completed by:Administrator completes a self-assessmentTeachers who are supervised by the administrator complete an anonymous survey by April 1Evaluator completes a survey
10Component 1 School Leader Survey All surveys are forwarded electronically to the evaluator, who develops a composite score of the data from the three surveysEvaluator develops a summary assessment in the spring of the year
11Components 2, 3 and 4Components 2, 3 and 4 are intentionally aligned with the school improvement plan and the district strategic planDesigned to work together to reinforce and support improved student performance and to drive continuous improvementData and evidence collected by administrator as part of the process should be a natural harvest of the administrator’s ongoing work.
12Component 2 – Goals and Priorities Sources of GoalsMost should be linked directly to an administrator’s school or district improvement planShould be focused on improving practice and student performanceMay include a goal based on leader standardsMay focus on unique school or district conditionsMay result from the administrator’s self-reflection
13Component 2 – Goals and Priorities Substance of goals should:Connect to ISLLC Standards for School LeadersBe organizationally groundedEmphasize the direct contributions of the administratorBe anchored in analysis of dataBe limited in numberHave a longitudinal focusBe challengingBe mutually determined
14Component 2 – Goals and Priorities ProcessSpotlights mutual determinationFeatures ongoing dialogue between the administrator and the evaluatorDelineates clearly expected performancesSpecifies evidence that will be providedEstablishes criteria for success
15Component 3 – School or District Improvement Plan Process mirrors that employed in Component 2Evaluator and administrator review school or district improvement plan and identify specific goals and targetsAn agreed upon timeline for achievement of targets will be developed
16Component 4 – Student Improvement Achievement and improvement in 3 broad areas grounds this part of the systemSchool AccountabilityDSTP dataOther measures of student achievement
18Procedures Determine administrators to be evaluated and their status Administrator submits completed goal form prior to August 15, based on the Summative Evaluation conference held during the summer. New administrators should complete the goal form within one month of employment
19ProceduresAdministrator and evaluator meet within one month of summative conference, and no later than September 15 to agree upon goals. For superintendents, conference with the Board will take place prior to June 30Mid-year conference will be held in December or JanuaryWritten summary of mid-year conference prepared by the evaluator
20ProceduresEvaluator and administrator agree on who will complete Leader Standards SurveySurvey completed by April 1Evaluator develops a composite of data from surveyAdministrator compiles student achievement data and progress on goals and submits to evaluator at least one week in advance of summative conference
21Procedures Summative Conference Held during the summer (Superintendent and Board will hold a summative conference no later than June 15)All four components reviewed and discussedInitiate discussion of goals for the upcoming year.Evaluator completes Summative Evaluation Form and forwards to administrator within one week of conference
22Waiver ProcessDPAS II features an annual process, but certain aspects may be waived for experienced educators whose performance is at least satisfactory.One year cycle for inexperienced administratorsTwo year cycle for experienced administrators whose performance is satisfactory
23Waiver YearDuring a waiver year, the goal setting process and conference continueEvaluator and administrator meet at least four times over the two-year cycleSummer or early fall of year 1 for agreement on goalsMid year each year to discuss progressEnd of year 2 to for summative conferenceThe Leader Standards survey is conducted in the spring of year two
24Component Performance Levels Satisfactory PerformanceClear and convincing evidence that the administrator has met established targets;Demonstrated flexibility in adapting to unusual circumstances;School leader know what to do and does it;Administrator understands the concept underlying the component and implements it well
25Component Performance Levels Unsatisfactory PerformanceLittle or no evidence of achievement of established targetsAdministrator does not yet appear to understand the concepts underlying the component and was unable to meet the established targets
26Summative Performance Levels EffectiveFour satisfactory ratings among the four componentsNeeds ImprovementOne unsatisfactory rating among the four componentsIneffectiveTwo or more unsatisfactory ratings among the four components
27Pattern of Ineffective Administration Needs Improvement rating for a third consecutive year results in a pattern of ineffective administrationEffectiveIneffectiveNeeds Improvement
28Improvement Plan Developed when an administrator receives: An overall rating of Needs Improvement or Ineffective on the Summative EvaluationA rating of Unsatisfactory on any component of the Summative Evaluation
29Improvement Plan Must include: Definition of specific deficiencies Measurable goals for improving deficiencies to satisfactory levelEvidence that must be provided or behaviors that must be demonstratedProcedures for evaluating and documenting improvementTimelineRecord of judgment and date completed
30Development of Improvement Plan Expectation of mutual developmentBoth evaluator and administrator complete a preliminary Assistance PlanMeet to bring two preliminary plans together into one final Assistance PlanIf consensus cannot be reached, the evaluator will develop the Plan.
31Appeal ProcessAn administrator may appeal any rating on the Summative Evaluation, either a component rating or the overall ratingMust submit additional information specific to the point pf disagreement in writing within 10 daysIf the differences cannot be resolved, the appeal is forwarded to the supervisor of the evaluator.If the Superintendent is also the evaluator, the appeal is directed to him/herThe decision of the evaluator is final