1. Updated Training for DPAS II for Administrators

2. Educator Accountability
Educator Professional Development and Accountability Act of 2000
Established DPAS II for all educators
Required that the system have no more than 5 components, with one component addressing student improvement.
Required that evaluators be properly trained and credentialed.

3. DPAS II Pilot
Regulations apply only to the two districts piloting DPAS II
Appoquinimink
Caesar Rodney
During the pilot, any rating received on a Summative Evaluation is not included in the determination of a pattern of ineffective administration.

4. Who 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.

5. Administrator
Inexperienced – less than three years of service as an administrator
Experienced – three or more years of service as an administrator
Role Experienced – three or more years of service as an administrator in the role in which employed

6. DPAS II for Administrators
Four Components
Each component weighted equally
Taken together, the components of the DPAS II system provide a strong focus on teaching and learning
Components 2 through 4 directly relate to an administrator’s daily responsibilities
Component 1 examines the administrator’s performance in light of national standards for school leaders

7. Components Component 1 – Leader Standards
Component 2 – Goals and Priorities
Component 3 – School or District Improvement Plan
Component 4 – Measures of Student Achievement

8. Component 1 – Leader Standards
Assesses the administrator’s performance against six national standards
Establish a context in which administrators focus on components 2, 3, and 4
Assessed through an electronic survey

9. Component 1 School Leader Survey
Provides judgment about 4 components of professional practice for each of six school leader standards
Survey completed by:
Administrator completes a self-assessment
Teachers who are supervised by the administrator complete an anonymous survey by April 1
Evaluator completes a survey

10. Component 1 School Leader Survey
All surveys are forwarded electronically to the evaluator, who develops a composite score of the data from the three surveys
Evaluator develops a summary assessment in the spring of the year

11. Components 2, 3 and 4
Components 2, 3 and 4 are intentionally aligned with the school improvement plan and the district strategic plan
Designed to work together to reinforce and support improved student performance and to drive continuous improvement
Data and evidence collected by administrator as part of the process should be a natural harvest of the administrator’s ongoing work.

12. Component 2 – Goals and Priorities
Sources of Goals
Most should be linked directly to an administrator’s school or district improvement plan
Should be focused on improving practice and student performance
May include a goal based on leader standards
May focus on unique school or district conditions
May result from the administrator’s self-reflection

13. Component 2 – Goals and Priorities
Substance of goals should:
Connect to ISLLC Standards for School Leaders
Be organizationally grounded
Emphasize the direct contributions of the administrator
Be anchored in analysis of data
Be limited in number
Have a longitudinal focus
Be challenging
Be mutually determined

14. Component 2 – Goals and Priorities
Process
Spotlights mutual determination
Features ongoing dialogue between the administrator and the evaluator
Delineates clearly expected performances
Specifies evidence that will be provided
Establishes criteria for success

15. Component 3 – School or District Improvement Plan
Process mirrors that employed in Component 2
Evaluator and administrator review school or district improvement plan and identify specific goals and targets
An agreed upon timeline for achievement of targets will be developed

16. Component 4 – Student Improvement
Achievement and improvement in 3 broad areas grounds this part of the system
School Accountability
DSTP data
Other measures of student achievement

17. Process

18. Procedures 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

19. Procedures
Administrator 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 30
Mid-year conference will be held in December or January
Written summary of mid-year conference prepared by the evaluator

20. Procedures
Evaluator and administrator agree on who will complete Leader Standards Survey
Survey completed by April 1
Evaluator develops a composite of data from survey
Administrator compiles student achievement data and progress on goals and submits to evaluator at least one week in advance of summative conference

21. Procedures Summative Conference
Held during the summer (Superintendent and Board will hold a summative conference no later than June 15)
All four components reviewed and discussed
Initiate discussion of goals for the upcoming year.
Evaluator completes Summative Evaluation Form and forwards to administrator within one week of conference

22. Waiver Process
DPAS 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 administrators
Two year cycle for experienced administrators whose performance is satisfactory

23. Waiver Year
During a waiver year, the goal setting process and conference continue
Evaluator and administrator meet at least four times over the two-year cycle
Summer or early fall of year 1 for agreement on goals
Mid year each year to discuss progress
End of year 2 to for summative conference
The Leader Standards survey is conducted in the spring of year two

24. Component Performance Levels
Satisfactory Performance
Clear 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

25. Component Performance Levels
Unsatisfactory Performance
Little or no evidence of achievement of established targets
Administrator does not yet appear to understand the concepts underlying the component and was unable to meet the established targets

26. Summative Performance Levels
Effective
Four satisfactory ratings among the four components
Needs Improvement
One unsatisfactory rating among the four components
Ineffective
Two or more unsatisfactory ratings among the four components

27. Pattern of Ineffective Administration
Needs Improvement rating for a third consecutive year results in a pattern of ineffective administration
Effective
Ineffective
Needs Improvement

28. Improvement Plan Developed when an administrator receives:
An overall rating of Needs Improvement or Ineffective on the Summative Evaluation
A rating of Unsatisfactory on any component of the Summative Evaluation

29. Improvement Plan Must include: Definition of specific deficiencies
Measurable goals for improving deficiencies to satisfactory level
Evidence that must be provided or behaviors that must be demonstrated
Procedures for evaluating and documenting improvement
Timeline
Record of judgment and date completed

30. Development of Improvement Plan
Expectation of mutual development
Both evaluator and administrator complete a preliminary Assistance Plan
Meet to bring two preliminary plans together into one final Assistance Plan
If consensus cannot be reached, the evaluator will develop the Plan.

31. Appeal Process
An administrator may appeal any rating on the Summative Evaluation, either a component rating or the overall rating
Must submit additional information specific to the point pf disagreement in writing within 10 days
If 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/her
The decision of the evaluator is final