1. School Administrator Performance Evaluation System
Facilitated by Sherri Torkelson and Kaye Henrickson
CESA #4
November 18, 2014

2. The purpose of the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System is to help educators grow as professionals in order to increase student learning.
Mindset is important. If this is about jumping through hoops a great opportunity will be lost. This is about connecting to our passion to do great things for the students we serve. This is a getting-started year; it is not a year where anyone is expected to be perfect. Teachers will be learning how to use the system and principals will too.

3. OUTCOMES PRACTICES 100% of Educator Practices Score 5% of score
Compiled across 3-year cycle
Compiled across 3-year cycle
DPI calculates
100% of Educator Practices Score
Scores on 6 EP Standards
95% of Student Outcomes Score
5% of score
Student or Program Growth
Observations
Artifacts/Data
Artifacts
Quality of
Process P O
School-wide VA Reading or Graduation
SLOs (completed annually by everyone)

4. Resource Documents and Videos
All of the resources referenced today can be accessed using this link
SAPES Workshop Resources
This symbol means you have the handout in your packet!

5. Today’s Key Questions What is the data saying?
What are the tiers and foundational components of the EP© model?
How do Central Office and District Administrator Evaluation Systems fit into EP©?
How will school administrator performance be documented? What does this mean for me – the evaluator?
How will school administrator performance be rated?
Using MyLearningPlan
Explain logistics of folders

6. What’s the data saying? Key Question
Let’s first look at the basis of the school administrators’ evaluation.

7. Data Highlights

8. What are the tiers and foundational components of the EP© model?
Key Question
What are the tiers and foundational components of the EP© model?
Let’s first look at the basis of the school administrators’ evaluation.

9. Goal of the CESA 6 Effectiveness Project©
Improve Student Learning by enhancing the effectiveness of all educators and providing each school district with ..
an effective teacher in every classroom,
an effective administrator in every school,
an effective leader(s) in every district, and
an effective educational system in every community .
To reiterate, the Goal of the CESA 6 Effectiveness Project is to:
Improve Student Learning by enhancing the effectiveness of all educators and providing each school district with ..
an effective teacher in every classroom,
an effective administrator in every school,
an effective leader(s) in every district, and
an effective educational system in every community .

10. Evaluate ALL Certified Educators
Classroom Teacher
Eval.
(TPES)
Ed.
Specialist
Eval.
(ESPES)
School
Admin.
Eval.
(SAPES)
Central Office Admin.
Eval.
(COPES)
Dist. Adm./
Supt.
Eval.
(DAPES)
In considering that systemic, 5 tier approach, it is our belief that all certified staff grow and benefit from an evaluation system. That is why we have included Classroom Teachers, Educational Specialists, Principals, Central Office Administrators, and District Administrators in the Effectiveness Project.
Evaluate ALL Certified Educators

11. Implementation of DAPES & COPES will assist districts to fulfill State Statute 121.02(1)(Q)
Each School Board shall evaluate in writing all certified school personnel in the first year and at least every three years.
While ACT 166 requires an evaluation system for all teachers and principals, State Statute requires all school boards to ensure evaluation of all certified school personnel in the first year and at least every three years. it is our belief that the success of a school district is dependent upon the effectiveness of all layers of the organization.

12. 5-Tiered Professional Evaluation System
SUPERINTENDENTS
CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINS
Business
C&I
Facilities HR
PS/SP Ed
Tech
As one of the 5 tiers, The Central Office evaluation system is actually 6 systems in one comprised of a number of Central Office Staff as indicated here
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
EDUCATIONAL SPECIALISTS
CLASSROOM TEACHERS

13. Each of the tiers in the Effectiveness Project Evaluation System require sources of evidence. You will note consistencies of evidence components in the graphic on this slide. Common components include self assessment, observations, documentation logs, surveys, reports, and Student or School Learning Outcomes. For the purpose of this webinar, we will focus on the evidence collected in the District Administrator and Central Office Evaluation System.

14. Key Question
How do Central Office and District Administrator Evaluation Systems fit into EP©?
Let’s first look at the basis of the school administrators’ evaluation.

15. 5-Tiered Professional Evaluation System
SUPERINTENDENTS
CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINS
Business
C&I
Facilities HR
PS/SP Ed
Tech
As one of the 5 tiers, The Central Office evaluation system is actually 6 systems in one comprised of a number of Central Office Staff as indicated here
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
EDUCATIONAL SPECIALISTS
CLASSROOM TEACHERS

16. CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS: District employees designated as administrators who provide leadership and services to other administrators, teachers, staff, parents and students. Central office administrators supervise other staff members, a program or a department.
CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINS
Business
C&I
Facilities HR
PS/SpEd
Tech
Refer to Standard 4 handout
*6 COMMON Performance Standards
*UNIQUE Indicator Options for
each Professional Category

17. The CESA 6 Effectiveness Project©
Performance Evaluation Standards Overview
Teachers
Educational Specialists
School Administrators
Central Office Administrators
District Administrators
Professional Knowledge
Leadership for Student Learning
Mission, Vision &
Goals
Strategic Leadership
Instructional Planning
Communication& Collaboration
School Climate
Planning & Analysis
Instructional Leadership
Instructional Delivery
Assessment
Human Resources Leadership
Human Resources / Instructional Leadership
Assessment FOR/OF Learning
Program Planning & Management
Organizational Management
Operations and Resource Management
Learning Environment
Program Delivery
Communication & Community Relationships
Communication &
Community Relationships
Professionalism
See handout:
EP Performance Standards for All Systems
Refer to handout that has all the standards and the description of the standard.

18. COPES Training: CESA #4: January 15, 2015
Copes training is designed for evaluators of central office administrators and central office administrators themselves. CESA 6 will hold differentiated training options for both experienced EP users and new users with a half and full-day training respectively.

19. What is the basis of school administrators’ evaluation?
Key Question
What is the basis of school administrators’ evaluation?
Let’s first look at the basis of the school administrators’ evaluation.

20. Influences on Student Achievement: Explained Variance
The variability of student achievement can be explained by various factors as shown on this slide. Students control a great deal of the variability of their own learning. But of the factors within the school’s control, teachers, by far, have the most influence on how much and how well students learn. Note that the “School” portion of the pie chart – 5-10% ‒ is largely attributed to the principal.
Additionally, think about the following point: Who plays a major role in hiring, developing, evaluating, and supporting teachers? Of course, it is the principal. This means that the principal’s influence on student achievement goes well beyond the 5-10% that Hattie identified.
Hattie (2003):

21. School Administrator Performance Standards
Enhancing Teacher Quality: Questioning
School Administrator Performance Standards
1. Leadership for Student Learning
2. School Climate
3. Human Resources Leadership
4. Organizational Management
These are the six performance standards. We will talk about each one individually. The previous activity we did identified the indicators for these standards. Review those listed that are up around the room if you have not done so already.
5. Communication and Community Relations
6. Professionalism
TQR Teacher Quality Resources, LLC (c) 2005

22. Alignment to ISLLC Standards: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards*
SAPES
ISLLC
Standard 1: Vision for Learning
Standard 2: School
Climate
Standard 3: Effective
Management
Standard 4 Collaboration and Communication
Standard 5: Acting w/Integrity Ethnically
Standard 6: Understanding Political Legal Influences
1. Leadership for Student Learning X
2. School Climate
3. Human Resources Leadership
4. Organizational Management
5. Communication and Community Relations
6. Professionalism
The Standards are aligned to the ISLLC standards.
*EP Leaders are updating this Alignment to reflect the 2014 ISLLC Standards REFRESH.

23. Performance Indicators Performance Appraisal Rubric
Enhancing Teacher Quality: Questioning
Main Components
Performance Standard
Standard 4: Organizational Management
The school administrator fosters the success of all students by supporting, managing, and overseeing the school’s organization, operation, and use of resources.
Sample Performance Indicators
Examples may include, but are not limited to:
The school administrator:
4.1 Demonstrates and communicates a working knowledge and understanding of the state’s public education rules, regulations and laws, and school district policies and procedures.
4.2 Establishes and enforces rules and procedures to ensure a safe, secure, efficient, and orderly facility and grounds.
4.3 Monitors and provides supervision for all instructional programs, building space usage, and activities.
Performance Indicators
Performance Appraisal Rubric
Distinguished*
In addition to meeting the requirements for Effective…
Effective
Effective is the expected level of performance.
Developing
Needs Improvement
Unacceptable
The school administrator is highly effective at organizational management, demonstrating proactive decision-making, coordinating efficient operations and maximizing available resources.
The school administrator fosters the success of all students by supporting, managing and overseeing the school’s organization, operation, and use of resources.
The school administrator inconsistently supports, manages, or oversees the school’s organization, operation and/or use of resources.
The school administrator ineffectively supports, manages, or oversees the school’s organization, operation or use of resources.
There are three main components of the School Administrator Performance Evaluation System.
Performance standards define the criteria expected when school administrators perform their major duties. There are six performance standards for administrators. When school administrators are evaluated, they are evaluated against the performance standards.
Next are performance indicators. They provide examples of observable, tangible behavior that indicate the degree to which administrators are meeting each standard. We often call these the “look-fors.” They are the kinds of things one would look for if the administrator was successfully performing the standards. In the School Administrator Performance Evaluation System, we do not use the performance indicators as a checklist. In other words, the evaluator should not look at the list of indicators and say “I only saw two of the five indicators; therefore, the administrator must be unacceptable.” School districts may modify the indicators if they wish. In addition, they may chose to add indicators to emphasize a particular focus area for the district. Performance ratings are made at the performance standard level, NOT at the performance indicator level.
The third main component is the performance appraisal rubric. We will talk more about them shortly. During the summative evaluation, the evaluator will use a “preponderance of evidence” to judge where the administrator should be rated. Note that the rubric description under the effective level is the exact wording of the performance standard. This is because effective is the expected level of performance.
TQR Teacher Quality Resources, LLC (c) 2005

24. Visiting the SAPES Guidebook
Available online at
EP-Resources.cesa6.org
Let’s do a walk-through of the School Administrator’s Guidebook…
Kaye, you and I can tag team this – same as what we did for the ESPES – just a walk through to refresh them on the high points….

25. Activity: Looking Deeper at the Standards
Each person take one of the performance standards and indicators – p of SAPES Guidebook. Summarize it in one sentence.
Review the SAPES Rubric. Give an example of what Effective might look like for your Standard.

26. How will school administrator performance be documented?
Key Questions
How will school administrator performance be documented?
What does this mean for me – the evaluator?
Now let’s take a look at how school administrator performance will be documented.

27. Multiple Data Sources School Administrator Evaluation Surveys
Professional Goal Setting
Surveys
Observations
Doc Log
Evaluation is based on multiple data sources and a preponderance of evidence

28. Observation/School Site Visits
Provide information on the wide range of responsibilities of school administrators
May range from watching school administrators’ interactions to observing programs and shadowing the administrator
Evaluators discuss various aspects of the job via formal interview or less structured discussion
Applied in a variety of settings
Evaluators discuss various aspects of the job via formal interview or less structured discussion
Provides insight into how administrator is addressing standards; provide further areas for evaluators to explore
Helps administrator think through potential artifacts
Allows administrator opportunity to discuss successes/challenges
Evaluator provides feedback to administrator
Data Collection Procedure
Forms to be Completed
Evaluator
School Administrator
Observation/
School Site Visits
Observation Forms 

29. Examples of Observations
HS principal in parent meeting – informal observation form
Committee or Staff Meeting – formal or informal observation
Watching while MS principal deals with a student behavior issue at the volleyball game – informal observation
Tagging along on a Building Walk Through – formal or informal observation
Other central office people (certified administrators) can do some of the observations and document them in MLP
Principal evaluator is typically the superintendent
Evaluator must hold an active administrator license PI 8

30. Summary of Observations
New/In Need of Improvement Admin
Summary Year Admin
Non Summary Year Admin
Formal (includes pre- and post- conference and 45 minutes of observation)
One by December 15
One by end of year
Informal (15-20 minutes)
One by January 30
Two  by End of Year
One by End of Year
(Three informal during the evaluation cycle)
NOTE: Because this is the first year of implementation those administrators in a summary year must have three informal observations and an informal. In the future, one of the three informal observations can be scheduled in a non-summary year.

31. Documentation Log
Artifacts provide evidence of meeting selected performance standards
Demonstrates an administrator’s skills, talents, and accomplishments through an organized collection of work
No REQUIRED artifacts for School Administrators
Emphasis is on quality, not quantity
Data Collection Procedure
Forms to be Completed
Evaluator
School Administrator
Document Log
Documentation Log 
Provides school administrator with opportunity to demonstrate quality work
Examples of Artifacts for the Documentation Log are listed in the SAPES Guidebook and are located on the form in MLP.

32. Let’s talk about Artifacts:
What is the difference between an Artifact and Evidence?
Review the “CESA 4Possible Artifacts for Principals” document. For your standard, highlight possible artifacts your principals already have/do.

33. Surveys
Gathers client data regarding their perceptions of the school administrator’s performance.
Provides feedback for professional growth and development; helps administrators set goals for continuous improvement (formative evaluation)
Options: staff, community, family survey
Survey administered once annually during third nine weeks prior to April 15
Sample forms are in the guidebook
Actual survey responses seen only by school administrator
School climate surveys are an important data collection tool used to gather client (in this instance, teacher/staff) data regarding their perceptions of the school administrator’s performance. 
One of the benefits of using climate surveys is the collected information may help the school administrator set goals for continuous improvement (i.e., for formative evaluation) ‒ in other words, to provide feedback directly to the school administrator for professional growth and development. Survey summaries also may be used to provide information to evaluators that may not be accurately obtained through other types of documentation.
Climate surveys for staff and students are at the WINNS site listed below. The climate survey asks teachers/staff and students to report on items and issues that they have directly experienced. The surveys are located at
School administrators should administer annual teacher/staff surveys and student surveys during the third nine weeks prior to April 15. The school administrator will retain sole access to the teacher/staff and student surveys; however, the school administrator will provide a summary of the surveys to the evaluator as part of the Document Log. The Survey Summary Form that should be used is located in the SAPES handbook.
Data Collection Procedure
Forms to be Completed
Evaluator
School Administrator
Surveys
Survey Summary Form 

34. Professional Goal Setting Plan
Complete the SLO Process first and consider how you might link to your (PPG) Professional Practice Goal.
Year 1
Complete 1 SLO
Complete full Self Assessment of Professional Practice
Set PPG
Year 2
From Self-Assessment of Professional Practice data focus in on one or two standards & complete PPG
Year 3 Summary Year
Sample 3 year evaluation cycle
Data Collection Procedure
Forms to be Completed
Evaluator
School Administrator
Professional Goal Setting Plan
Professional Goal Setting Form
Mid – Year SLO Review
End of the Year – SLO Review
Score Report 
Summary Year Scoring Only

35. Professional Goal Setting Plan
Complete the SLO Process first and consider how you might link to your (PPG) Professional Practice Goal.
Year 1
Complete 1 SLO
Complete full Self Assessment of Professional Practice
Set PPG
Year 2 Summary Year
From Self-Assessment of Professional Practice data focus in on one or two standards & complete PPG
Sample 2 year evaluation cycle
Data Collection Procedure
Forms to be Completed
Evaluator
School Administrator
Professional Goal Setting Plan
Professional Goal Setting Form
Mid – Year SLO Review
End of the Year – SLO Review
Score Report 
Summary Year Scoring Only

36. Activity: The Principal Professional Goal Setting Plan
Watch Anne Clooney, Middle School Principal, as she meets with her superintendent about her Professional Goal Setting Plan

37. Turn and Talk:
What similarities are there between the conference you just observed and previous conferences you’ve had with principals/your superintendent?
What differences?

38. Thinking of your district:
Have you had any Goal Setting Conferences with your Principals yet?
What reflections do you have from them – what went well? Are there things you would do differently? What might make them even more informative to both of you?
If you haven’t had any, how will you structure them using the new form?

39. Summary of Data Sources for School Administrators
Enhancing Teacher Quality: Questioning
Summary of Data Sources for School Administrators
Observations/ School Site Visits
Provide information on wide-range of contributions made by school administrators
May range from watching school administrators’ interactions to observing programs and shadowing the administrator
Documentation
Log
Artifacts provide evidence of meeting selected performance standards
Provides school administrator with opportunity to demonstrate quality work
Surveys
Once annually. Options: staff, community, family survey
Actual survey responses seen only by school administrator
--- Complete a Survey Summary Form.
The School Administrator Performance Evaluation System uses multiple sources to evaluate administrator performance. These are the data sources used to evaluation administrator performance. We will talk about each data source in a later session.
Self-Evaluation: Reveals school administrators’ perceptions of their job performance. Results of a self-evaluation should inform school administrators’ personal goals for professional development.
Informal Observation/School Site Visits: Are applied in a variety of settings and provide information on a wide range of contributions made by school administrators. Informal observations/school site visits may range from watching how a school administrator interacts with others, to observing programs and shadowing the administrator.
Document Log: Provides documentation generated by school administrators as evidence of meeting the six performance standards.
School Climate Surveys: Provide information to school administrators about perceptions of job performance. The actual survey responses are seen only by the school administrator who prepares a survey summary for inclusion in the document log.
Goal Setting: School administrators, in conjunction with their evaluators, set goals for professional growth and school improvement. Student Academic Progress Goal Setting will be covered during a later training session.
Professional Goal Setting Plan
A plan documented in My Learning Plan that
lists the school learning objective, professional practice goals, and professional growth strategies.
TQR Teacher Quality Resources, LLC (c) 2005

40. Summary of Data Collection Responsibilities
Data Collection Procedure
Form(s) to be Completed
Evaluator
School Administrator
Professional Goal Setting Plan
Professional Goal Setting Form
Mid – Year SLO Review
End of the Year – SLO Review
Score Report 
Summary Year Scoring Only
Observation/
School Site Visits
Observation Forms
Document Log
Documentation Log
Surveys
Survey Summary Form
Data collection is a shared responsibility between school administrators and evaluators. You’ll note that administrators reflect on their practice throughout the evaluation process by reflecting on items they place into the Document Log and they reflect on the results of the student survey.

41. Roles and Responsibilities
Implementation Leader
Supporter of Evaluators
Evaluator
Roles and Responsibilities of the Superintendent in the Effectiveness Project and Educator Effectiveness, in general.

42. Implementation Leader
Implementation Planning Tools
2 Year Evaluation Cycle
3 Year Evaluation Cycle
EPIC Resources: EPIC and Liaison Res- ponsibilites, EPIC Checklist
EP Readiness Audit

45. Supporter of Evaluators
Professional Development for Administrators
Monthly Check Ins at Admin meetings on EP Implementation
Calibration two times a year
Checklists
Standards and Indicators Deep Dive
Just In Time Support
Mini Modules
Support Sessions – MLP, SLOs, Surveys, Coaching, Mid Interval Conferences, PIP, others?
Resources and Tools
EP Resource Page

46. Evaluator
Checklist – Superintendent as Evaluator

47. SAPES Timeline Timeline School Administrator Responsibilities
Evaluator Responsibilities
September
Review school data to identify area(s) of need for SLO.
Identify targeted student populations and evidence sources
September early October
Administer appropriate baseline measure of student knowledge and set growth targets for SLO
By October 15
Complete Professional Practice Goal Setting Plan
By October 30
Review SLO with new/in need of improvement and summary year school administrators
By December 15
Conduct 1 announced site visit with pre-observation & post-observation conferences for new/in need of improvement school administrators

48. Continued SAPES Timeline
By January 15
Complete interim evaluation of new school/in need of improvement administrators including review of mid-year SLO section of the professional goal setting review form
Review SLO data and complete the mid-year section of professional goal setting review form
By January 30
Conduct an SLO review conference with summary year school administrators regarding the mid-year section of the professional goal setting review form
Complete 1 informal school site visit (about minutes long) for new/in needs of improvement and summary year school administrators
By April 15
Conduct school climate survey and complete the survey summary form
Review survey summary form
By May 15
Complete documentation log
Review documentation log for new/in need of improvement/summary year school administrators
Two weeks prior to end of year
Review SLO data and complete the end of year review section and PPG review on the professional goal setting review form
By End of School Year
Review SLO data with educator for new/in need of improvement and summary year school administrators
Score the SLO
Holistically score SLO for new/in need of improvement and summary year educators
Conduct 1 announced site visit with pre-observation & post-observation conferences for summary year school administrators
Conduct 2 additional informal site visits (about minutes each) for new/in need of improvement and 1 additional for summary school administrators
Conduct 1 informal site visit (about minutes) for non-summary school administrators
Complete summative evaluations/ hold summative conferences
June 30 (DPI Mandated)
Deadline for entering summary scores into My LearningPlan

49. Sample Evaluation Planning Spreadsheet

50. How will school administrator performance be rated?
Question 5
How will school administrator performance be rated?
Now let’s take a look at how school administrator performance will be rated.

51. Terms used in Rating Scale
Enhancing Teacher Quality: Questioning
Terms used in Rating Scale
Category
Description
Definition
Distinguished
The school administrator maintains performance, accomplishments, and behaviors that consistently and considerably surpass the established standard.
Sustains high performance over evaluation cycle
Behaviors have strong positive impact on student academic progress and school climate
Serves as role model to others
Effective
The school administrator meets the standard in a manner that is consistent with the school’s mission and goals.
Meets the requirements contained in job description as expressed in evaluation criteria
Behaviors have positive impact on student academic progress and school climate
Willing to learn and apply new skills
Developing/ Needs Improvement
The school administrator is inconsistent in meeting standards and/or in working toward the school’s missions and goals.
Requires support in meeting the standards
Results in less than expected quality of student academic progress
Leads to professional growth being jointly identified and planned between school administrator and evaluator
Note: Detailed explanation of each level included in guidebook.
These are the terms used in the rating scale. School administrators only receive an actual rating using these terms during the summative evaluation.
Administrators who are distinguished consistently surpass the performance standard. These administrators serve as role models to others.
Administrators who are effective are high quality administrators. They consistently meet the standard.
Administrators who are developing/need improvement are inconsistent meeting the standards. The administrator may be starting to exhibit desirable traits related to the standard, but has not yet reached the full level of proficiency expected (i.e., developing) or the school administrator’s performance is lacking in a particular area (i.e., needs improvement).
Administrators who are unacceptable consistently perform below the standard.
Unacceptable
The school administrator consistently performs below the established standards or in a manner that is inconsistent with the school’s missions and goals.
Does not meet requirements contained in job description as expressed in evaluation criteria
Results in minimal student academic progress
May contribute to recommendation for school administrator not being considered for continued employment
TQR Teacher Quality Resources, LLC (c) 2005

52. SAPES Rubric
Review handout on rubrics. Have participants work in table groups to answer the question
What actions would pull you away from EFFECTIVE for each of the six standards? What does the rubric mean?

53. Activity: SAPES Rubrics
Review the Rubrics for each standard on the handout What’s in a Rubric?
In table groups, discuss:
What the rubrics mean
What actions would pull an administrator away from EFFECTIVE for each of the six standards?
Questions you have or items that you would like more clarity on

54. Summative Scoring Rules
Performance Level Rating
Score Range
Distinguished
21-24
Effective
16-20
Developing/
Needs Improvement
12-15
Unacceptable
6-11
Review Summative Scoring rules.

55. Summative Scoring Rules
Ratings on standards of
Means an Overall Rating of
3 or more Developing
Developing/Needs Improvement
2 or more Needs Improvement
1 or more Unacceptable
Unacceptable
A Performance Improvement Plan will be required if:
1 or more Unacceptable ratings on the standards
2 or more Needs Improvement ratings on the standards
3 or more Developing ratings on the standards
Or any time, as needed, to benefit from additional support
Clarify the difference between Developing and Needs Improvement if we haven’t already…

56. Scoring Example Scores Shared with DPI directly from MyLearningPlan
Standard 1
Standard 2
Standard 3
Standard 4
Standard 5
Standard 6
Summative Score by Evaluator
Holistic SLO Score by Evaluator 3 1
??????
1,2,3 or 4
Scoring Example
Points total to 17 which puts this school administrator in the effective range; however, with a score of 1 in Professionalism the administrator should be rated at 1 for unacceptable.

57. Discuss how there will be two scores in the SUMMARY Year.
Practices and an Outcomes.
In EP, we will have STRAIGHT numbers for the Practices Side.

58. Summative Reporting Federal: Locally:
Visually/graphically report all data in most meaningful ways
Only between educator and their evaluator(s)
Federal:
USDE has approved this scoring process
USDE has provided initial approval for state-­llevel reporting ONLY (for coming year)
The DPI has reported that for the coming year this is the summative reporting guidelines
Read slide

59. Scores Reported to DPI
Scores Shared with DPI directly from MyLearningPlan
Standard 1
Standard 2
Standard 3
Standard 4
Standard 5
Standard 6
Summative Score by Evaluator
Holistic SLO Score by Evaluator
1,2,3 or 4
Talk about score reporting to DPI ---
Scores on each standard, summary score, SLO score go to DPI.

60. Questions on the School Administrators Performance Evaluation System?

61. MLP for SAPES
Log onto My Learning Plan and look at the SAPES forms, Self Assessment, SLO’s site visits, etc.

62. MyLearningPlan http://bit.ly/MLPSuperintendent
All Handouts are also on the CESA #4 EE Effectiveness webpage at SAPES Workshop Resources
Trainer can log in the Superintendent DEMO account – contains Sample Professional Goal Setting plan and a completed informal observation
cesasupt( )
Contents of the AM MLP: Log in and the Getting Started Guide
Process View - Status of the Form
Icons for the Forms in Process View
Scheduling Forms
Assigning an non-scheduled Form
and Calendar Views
Completing a Form
Form Submission Buttons
Collecting Evidence - Scratch Pad
Collecting Evidence - Evidence Collection Tool

63. Principals MATTER!!

64. CESA #4 Educator Effectiveness Support
Refining Your SLO-Bangor
CESA #4 Educator Effectiveness Support
Billie Finco
Sherri Torkelson
Kaye Henrickson
We are here to answer questions and provide information. We will use the Google community to share updates and information as it becomes available. Encourage teachers to write down our contact information!
Torkelson & Finco
Torkelson & Finco

65. Thanks for your time today!!!!
Please complete the online Exit Ticket at