Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Research: Principal Characteristics Time Out: §3012-d Planning Forest or the Trees? Making a “To-Do”

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Understanding Student Learning Objectives (S.L.O.s)
Advertisements

{ Principal Leadership Evaluation. Research and Development The team: Porter, Murphy, Goldring, Elliott, Polikoff, May, OToole, Cravens Wallace Foundation.
The Role of the Principal Going Forward. What Leon School District is Required to Do Florida Department of Educations Supports that might impact you What.
Alabama Teacher Leaders VAL-ED Instructional Leadership Survey January 2013.
Ongoing Training Day 1. Welcome Back! [re]Orientation Lead Evaluator Training Agenda Review.
Briefing: NYU Education Policy Breakfast on Teacher Quality November 4, 2011 Dennis M. Walcott Chancellor NYC Department of Education.
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Research & Literature From Session 1 Homework Video Exercise Summative Conferences.
Educator Effectiveness Framework Associate Executive Director, AWSA
Round Table Discussion- Evaluating Arts Teachers William Kohut, Principal- Denver School of the Arts Dr. Mark Hudson- Director of Arts- Denver Public Schools.
 Reading School Committee January 23,
Marzano Causal Teacher Evaluation Model
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Research & Literature From Session 1 Homework Video Exercise Mid-Year Conferences.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Preparing and Applying Formative Multiple Measures of Performance Conducting High-Quality Self-Assessments.
Day 3. Agenda [always] Aligning RTTT Growth and Value-Added Update 21 st Century Readiness and APPR Evidence Collection Inter-rater agreement.
Session Materials  Wiki
Session Materials Wireless Wiki
Welcome What’s a pilot?. What’s the purpose of the pilot? Support teachers and administrators with the new evaluation system as we learn together about.
An Administrator Evaluation System Curriculum Leaders Institute Cohort 5 Day 8.
Next Generation Professionals Opportunities, Practice & Outcomes Opportunities, Practice & Outcomes Interim Joint Committee on Education July 12, 2010.
Day 9. Agenda Research Update Evidence Collection SLO Summative Help Summative Evaluation Growth-Producing Feedback The Start of the Second.
February 8, 2012 Session 3: Performance Management Systems 1.
Lead Evaluator Training
Interim Joint Committee on Education June 11, 2012.
Ongoing Training Day 1. Welcome Back! [re]Orientation Lead Evaluator Training Agenda Review.
Session Materials  Wiki 
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation 1.
Education Leadership Lessons Learned by The Wallace Foundation Presentation to: CCSSO National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Jody Spiro Senior Program.
Day 8. Agenda Aligning RTTT Growth and Value-Added Evidence Collection Inter-rater agreement and reliability Growth-Producing Feedback.
Ongoing Training Day 3. Welcome Back! [re]Orientation Lead Evaluator Training Background Agenda Review.
Assessing Learning-Centered Leadership Andrew C. Porter University of Pennsylvania Joseph Murphy, Ellen Goldring, & Stephen N. Elliott Vanderbilt University.
Monitoring through Walk-Throughs Participants are expected to purpose the book: The Three-Minute Classroom Walk-Through: Changing School Supervisory.
Ongoing Training Day 4. Agenda Growth and Value-Added Update 21 st Century Readiness and APPR Evidence Collection Inter-rater agreement and.
Alicia Currin-Moore Executive Director, TLE Oklahoma State Department of Education.
August 28, 2015 Long Island Independent and Peer Evaluation: Making the Work Matter.
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review SLOs: Lessons Learned A Look at Some Evidence Planning School Visits Supporting Principals Closure.
Idaho Principal Evaluation Process & Principal Observation Lisa Colón, Idaho State Department of Education Matt Clifford, Ph.D., American Institutes for.
Evidence-Based Observations Training for Observers of Teachers Module 5 Dr. Marijo Pearson Dr. Mike Doughty Mr. John Schiess Spring 2012.
Ongoing Training Day 3. Welcome Back! [re]Orientation Lead Evaluator Training Background Agenda Review.
Ongoing Training Day 2. Welcome Back! [re]Orientation Lead Evaluator Training Agenda Review.
Intro to TPEP. A new evaluation system should be a model for professional growth, supporting collaboration between teachers and principals in pursuit.
Ongoing Training Day 2. Welcome Back! [re]Orientation Lead Evaluator Training Agenda Review.
Day 3. Here We Are: 9 Components 1.New York State Teaching Standards and Leadership Standards 2.Evidence-based observation 3.Application and.
Materials for today’s session  Shared website – Wiki   Wireless.
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Principal Evaluation: Different? One Year Later Coaching Principals Collect evidence Support your local.
Session Materials  Wiki
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Research Review Taking Stock Collect evidence Principal Practices & the Rubric End-of-the-Year Looking.
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Messaging Research & Literature Article Read Planning Visits (and HW) Artifact Review Support your local.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Program Introduction to Principal Evaluation in Washington 1 June 2015.
“A Truthful Evaluation Of Yourself Gives Feedback For Growth and Success” Brenda Johnson Padgett Brenda Johnson Padgett.
 Development of a model evaluation instrument based on professional performance standards (Danielson Framework for Teaching)  Develop multiple measures.
PlusDelta Panelist -- dynamic, great, like the variety of speakers, good delivery, experienced, related to audience Focus on “what is known, not what is.
Day 9. Agenda Research Update Evidence Collection SLO Summative Help Summative Evaluation Growth-Producing Feedback The Start of the Second.
OCM BOCES Day 2 Principal Evaluator Training 1. Back to the beginning: 2 Nine Components.
Florida Charter School Conference Orlando, Florida November, 2009 Clark Dorman Project Leader Florida Statewide Problem-Solving/RtI Project University.
Day 4. Here We Are: 9 Components 1.New York State Teaching Standards and Leadership Standards 2.Evidence-based observation 3.Application and.
Teacher Evaluation Systems 2.0: What Have We Learned? EdWeek Webinar March 14, 2013 Laura Goe, Ph.D. Research Scientist, ETS Sr. Research and Technical.
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Principal Evaluation: So far Revised resources Collect evidence from a “faculty meeting” Debrief Planning.
Goal Setting in Educator Evaluation Sept. 11 th,
Teacher Observations Summative or Formative? ( Glickman et. al.)
Forum on Evaluating Educator Effectiveness: Critical Considerations for Including Students with Disabilities Lynn Holdheide Vanderbilt University, National.
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Linking ISLLC and your Principal Rubrics to a Case.
Principal Observation May 2014 Copyright © 2014 American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved. Growing Leadership to Provide Teacher Feedback Matthew.
National Summit for Principal Supervisors Building an Effective Evaluation System May 11-13, 2016 Jackie O. Wilson, Interim Director, Professional Development.
Outcomes By the end of our sessions, participants will have…  an understanding of how VAL-ED is used as a data point in developing professional development.
Professional Development: Imagine Difference Shapes and Sizes
Ongoing Lead Evaluator
Lead Evaluator for Principals Part I, Series 1
State Board of Education Progress Update
Presentation transcript:

Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Research: Principal Characteristics Time Out: §3012-d Planning Forest or the Trees? Making a “To-Do” List

Nine Required Components 1.New York State Teaching Standards and Leadership Standards 2.Evidence-based observation 3.Application and use of Student Growth Percentile and VA Growth Model data 4.Application and use of the State-approved teacher or principal rubrics 5.Application and use of any assessment tools used to evaluate teachers and principals 1.New York State Teaching Standards and Leadership Standards 2.Evidence-based observation 3.Application and use of Student Growth Percentile method 4.Application and use of the State-approved teacher or principal rubrics 5.Application of assessment tools the district employs 3012-c3012-d

Nine Required Components 6.Application and use of State-approved locally selected measures of student achievement 7.Use of the Statewide Instructional Reporting System 8.Scoring methodology used to evaluate teachers and principals 9.Specific considerations in evaluating teachers and principals of ELLs and students with disabilities 6.Application and use of State-approved locally selected measures of student growth 7.Use of the Statewide Instructional Reporting System 8.Scoring methodology used by the state and the district 9.Specific considerations in evaluating teachers and principals of ELLs and students with disabilities 3012-c3012-d

Back Again : 9+ Components 10.Effective supervisory visits and feedback 11.Principal contribution to teacher effectiveness 12.Increasing the likelihood that it makes a difference

Resources Are Archived

Research & Literature Review

Principal Characteristics Osborne-Lampkin, L., Folsom, J. S., and Herrington, C. D. (2015). A systematic review of the relationships between principal characteristics and student achievement (REL 2016–091). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from

Principal Characteristics What do you think this research showed? Jot a few things down in the top box of the organizer Discuss at your table

Principal Characteristics What do you think this research showed? Jot a few things down in the top box of the organizer Discuss at your table Jot down what the research identified

Principal Characteristics Experience and student achievement: 9-17 years of teaching experience before administration better than 17 Overall years of experience in education has no relationship Not clear that experience as assistant principal matters (a little, at first) Some but not all studies show principal experience has an impact

Principal Characteristics Principal Preparation programs: Programs make a difference Being based on ISLLC is better Programs and certification does have a positive correlation

Principal Characteristics Leadership behaviors with an impact on student learning: Monitoring and providing feedback to teachers and students Having a vison for learning Providing support and participating in and PD to teachers (formal and informal)* Using data to inform decisions

Principal Characteristics Relationship factors: High expectations of teachers and students Emphasis on social capital* Building community Developing a rapport with teachers and students

Principal Characteristics Organizational management: Does matter, in addition to instructional leadership

Principal Characteristics What do you think this research showed? Jot a few things down in the top box of the organizer Discuss at your table Jot down what the research identified Compare the two lists

Three-Minute Pause

School Visits What Makes Them Good

School Visits At your table, talk about a recent school visit you made that was a good one What happened? What made it good?

Time-Out: § 3012-d Planning and Sharing

Already “d” Hear what the d-approved districts: Other than the required SLOs, what are you using for assessments

“d” Changes Break up in groups and discuss where you are in terms of “d” planning, whether it is the plan or the supplement: “d” districts Smaller Medium Larger

Forest or the Trees?

What We’ve Learned About Principal Evaluation Principal evaluation systems lack depth and focus on the right things (Goldring, Xiu, Murphy, Elliott, Carson, & Porter, 2008; Seashore-Louis, et al., 2010; Mitgang, Gill, & Cummins, 2013)

What We’ve Learned About Principal Evaluation Principals perceive performance evaluation as having limited usefulness in the areas of feedback, professional learning, or accountability to school improvement (Portin, Feldman, & Knapp, 2006)

What We’ve Learned About Principal Evaluation Principal evaluation systems contain vague performance expectations and/or lack clear norms or performance standards (Goldring, Xiu, Murphy, Elliott, Carson, & Porter, 2008; Reeves, 2009)

What We’ve Learned About Principal Evaluation Principal evaluation systems have not been implemented in ways that promote accurate judgments of principal effectiveness (Clifford & Ross, 2011; Davis, Kearney, Sanders, Thomas, & Leon, 2011)

What We’ve Learned About Principal Evaluation Principal evaluation systems are typically one-size-fits all systems that don't differentiate for different school contexts (Clifford & Ross, 2011; Davis, Kearney, Sanders, Thomas, & Leon, 2011; Mitgang, Gill, & Cummins, 2013)

What We’ve Learned About Principal Evaluation Principal evaluation systems have not been tested for critical psychometric properties and are not based on the latest research on principal leadership practices (Clifford, Menon, Gangi, Condon, & Hornung, 2012; Davis, Kearney, Sanders, Thomas, & Leon, 2011)

What We’ve Learned About Principal Evaluation Principal evaluation systems are not unlike many other educational initiatives that are poorly implemented (Kimball, Milanowski, & McKinney, 2009)

What Are We Supposed to Do? The Model Principal Supervisor Standards make some suggestions (eight, to be specific): Standards Dispositions Actions

What Are We Supposed to Do? Learning More: Read 1 of the 8 Standards Highlight important things Move to “like” group Compare highlights Add “to-do” items to the poster prepared for you Report out

Three-Minute Pause

Next Session April 13 th : 12:00p - 3:00p Agenda will include: Updates Research Summative under “transition” More