Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluating School Principal Effectiveness
Why We Need to Evaluate Principals and Use Principal Evaluation as a Tool for
Professional Improvement
October 4, 2011
Webinar Logistics
Everyone is muted
Use the chat function to make a comment or ask a question
You may chat privately with individuals on your team
If you have problems, you may send William Bentgen a message via the chat function or an email at [email protected]
EVALUATION
Welcome
Janice Poda, CCSSO
Initiative Director Education Workforce
4
Moderator
Mary Canole
School Leadership Consultant, Council of Chief State School Officers
5
Purpose
To provide an objective, research-based overview of what an effective principal evaluation system should include.
To provide SCEE Teams a Framework for Principal Evaluation Tool.
Framework for Principal Evaluation
7
Framework for Principal Evaluation: Key evaluation elements and considerations Developed by Margaret Terry Orr, Bank Street College of Education, New York ([email protected]), October 4, 2011
Elements Considerations Current state policy Decisions to be made Who is assessed Principals only, or to include other
school and district leaders Differentiation based on years of
experience, level and responsibilities Differentiated based on context
The purposes of assessment
Personnel management to make consequential decisions
Leadership development for growth and improved practice
Organizational change
What is assessed Leadership practices Teacher effectiveness and
organizational conditions Student outcomes Context
What sources of evidence are used
Judgments Observations, classroom visits and site
visits Documents and other evidence Portfolios and artifacts
How the assessment is conducted
Frequency and timing Use of surveys, interviews or focus
groups
Presenters
Margaret Terry Orr
Bank Street College of Education
Jean Satterfield
Assistant State Superintendent for the Maryland Division of Certification and Accreditation
Sarah Brown Wessling
National Teacher of the Year 2010, English Teacher, Johnston High School, Johnston, Iowa
Research on conventional practice for principal evaluation
Wide variation in principal evaluation scope, instruments, and practices
Few psychometrically rigorous evaluation rubrics or rating systems
Movement:
away from assessing leadership traits
toward use standards
toward the relationship between leadership practices and student achievement
Essential content elements of principal evaluation system:
Who is assessed
The purposes of assessment
What is assessed
What sources of evidence are used
Essential organizational elements of principal evaluation system:
How the assessment is conducted
How evidence is valued
Psychometric qualities
Implementation, organization, and support of evaluation
Evaluation of the system’s effectiveness
Considerations of who is assessed
How “principal” is defined
To include all school building leaders, or just principals
To include district leaders or not
To differentiate based on years of experience, time in current building assignment, and levels of responsibility
Purposes of the evaluation
Summative—for consequential decisions
Formative—for professional growth
Organizational change—cohesive system
Evaluation systems differ based on which purposes are incorporated and to what degree.
Poll
How much emphasis does your state give to each of the three purposes of leader evaluation?
Summativea) No emphasis b) Minimal emphasis c) Moderate emphasis d) Great emphasis
Formative a) No emphasis b) Minimal emphasis c) Moderate emphasis d) Great emphasis
Organizational changea) No emphasis b) Minimal emphasis c) Moderate emphasis d) Great emphasis
15
What is assessed?
Leadership practices
Teacher capacity and effectiveness
Student achievement
gains
Other student outcomes
Organizational capacity and effectiveness
Other school outcomes
School, community, district and state context
Leadership Development
Leadership practices
National standards
District priorities for practice (e.g. teacher evaluation practices)
Span of authority and control in whether leaders can perform the practices
Teacher and organizational capacity and effectiveness
Indirect influence on student achievement through influence on:
teacher instructional practices
distributed leadership
school culture and climate
teacher and school use of data
community engagement
working conditions
school wide improvement goals
Student and other outcomes
Student achievement progress
Progress on other student outcomes, such as graduation rates and reduced dropout rates
Progress on other broader school effectiveness goals, such as improved learning for ELLs and special education students
Improved safety and security
Context
Resources
Challenges
Parent and community expectations
Other district and state policies
What types of evidence is collected?
Observations
Documentation
Principal reports
Perceptions of actions and behaviors
Perceptions of working conditions, school climate
Student performance data
Whose judgments?
Principal
Subordinate staff (teachers, other professionals, support staff)
Peers (other principals)
Supervisors (central office and superintendent)
Students
Families
Community partners
Considerations in selecting types of evidence to include
Psychometric considerations
Validity of measures
Validity of combining measures
Representation of scope and depth of principal work
Reliability
Balance between direct observation of principal practice, evidence and impact
Evaluator skill
Time
When measures are made and how interpreted?
How often is measurement made? Initial-interim-final? or Annual only?
How are results interpreted? What is used to make judgments? Rubrics
and rating forms? Are results disaggregated? Who makes the judgments in reviewing the
evidence?
How measures are valued:
Dimension Rating Weight Score
Development 3 20% .60
Behavior 4 20% .80
Intermediate outcomes
3 30% .90
School outcomes
2 30% .60
Total 2.90
See: Principal Score Card (Milanowski, 2009)
Evaluating the evaluation system
New field
Test out:
Measures
Tools
Processes
Implementation
Evaluate the underlying theory of action
Theory of action of principal evaluation as a lever of change
Student and
school outcomes
Teacher and organizational effectiveness
Leader practices
• Principal Evaluation System
Making evaluation system design decisions
Start with purpose
Build in an evaluation of the system from the start
Involve critical stakeholders to engage, educate and create buy-in
Keep it simple, easy to use, and easy to understand
Framework for Principal Evaluation: Key evaluation elements and considerationsElements Considerations Current state
policyDecisions to be
made
The purposes of assessmentWho is assessed
What is assessed
What sources of evidence are usedHow the assessment is conductedHow evidence is valued
What psychometric qualities are maintainedHow the assessment system is implemented and operates
29
Assistant State Superintendent for the Maryland Division of
Certification and Accreditation
Jean Satterfield
30
7 MD Pilots Model Teacher & Principal Evaluation System
2011-2012: 7 Districts run pilot to identify ways to measure student growth in all subject areas and for all teachers
Student growth will account for 50% of a teacher and principal evaluations
2012-2013: Statewide pilot using results and feedback from pilot year to inform the no-fault, statewide pilot.
Fall 2013: Mode fully operational statewide
31
Pilots Underway…
Baltimore City
8 principal volunteers with 300+ teachers in 8 schools begin 1st cycle in December
32
Baltimore County
Instrument aligns to the Danielson Model
11 principals self selected to participate [with 80+ teachers]
Data systems and measures in place
MD District Pilots
Charles County: 7 pilot school principals & 56 teachers now working with teacher leaders to complete a pilot evaluation tool.
Kent County: All 7 schools (2 teachers per school)
Completed internal restructuring
Migrated to a new student data management system
33
Pilots (continued)
Prince Georges County: Aligned with the Danielson model – All principals & 100 teachers in 38 schools. Data systems and measures are progressing.
Queen Anne’s County: 7 principals & 126 teachers are exploring cost effective methods for aligning data, validating student growth measures and delivering PD.
34
Pilots (continued)
St. Mary’s County:
Five principals,11 assistant principals, 235 teachers
Implemented the Danielson model for the past 10 years
35
Data collection system in place to identify PD needs of teachers, principals and the system
Sarah Brown WesslingNational Teacher of the Year 2010
English Teacher, Johnston High School,
Johnston, Iowa36
Evaluation Discussion Group
Join the Evaluation Discussion Group
http://scee.groupsite.com/page/teacher-evaluation
On the Collaboration Site Home Page select Evaluation
If you are not already a member, request an invitation
37
Upcoming Webinars
NEW DATE: November 1, 2:00 EDT
Continuing the Conversation About Educator Evaluation: Next Steps After the SCEE Topical Meeting
Save the date for our December webinar
December 13, 2:00 EDT
38
30 Minute Q&A
Participants respond to questions regarding the framework tool—we’ll pose three questions
Participants ask questions of the experts
We will post the Q&A on the webinars page at the conclusion of this event
http://scee.groupsite.com/page/webinars
39
Using the Chat
Find the Chat in the bottom right side of your screen.
To make the Chat appear larger on your screen, click on the triangle next to the Participants list to minimize it.
Questions and comments sent to All Participants are visible to everyone.
To offer an anonymous question or comment privately, click on Circe Stumbo’s name in the list of Chat recipients or email her at [email protected].
For technical assistance find William Bentgen in the Chat box or email him at [email protected].
40
Chat with other SCEE members…
1. Which elements of the Framework for Principal Evaluation generated the most discussion with your team?
Example:
In Maryland, framework elements most discussed: The difference between how to measure highly effective and effective.
41
Chat with other SCEE members…
2. If you have a Principal Evaluation Model in place, who are you evaluating (“Who is assessed”)?
Example:
In Maryland, principals are included in the evaluation/assessment – We are discussing whether the same model could be used for all levels of administrators, e.g., assistant principals and supervisors.
42
Chat with other SCEE members…
3. Which elements of the Framework for Principal Evaluation should be the highest priority for SCEE to attend to with future technical assistance (TA)?
Example:
In MD, we would like TA to address validity, reliability, and how to use student growth data.
43
Please complete the webinar evaluation that you will receive
by email.
Thank You
44
Resources
Brown-Sims, M. (2010). Evaluating School Principals. Tips & Tools. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Calabrese, R. L., & Zepeda, S. J. (1999). Decision-making assessment: Improving principal performance. The International Journal of Educational Management, 13(1), 6.
Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2006). What are principals expected to do? congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 221-237.
Goldring, E., Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2007). Assessing learner-centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards and current practices. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Hessel, K., & Holloway, J. (2001). School leaders and standards: a vision for leadership. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational administration quarterly, 44(4), 496-528.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervison and Curriculum Development.
Resources (cont.)
McREL. (2010). McREL's Principal Evaluation System.
Milanowski, A., & Schuermann, P. (2009). Principal evaluation (powerpoint slides), Teacher Incentive Fund Grantee Meeting. Bethesda, MD: Center for Educator Compensation Reform.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Porter, A. C., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2006). A framework for the assessment of learning-centered leadership. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Portin, B., Feldman, S., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Purposes, Uses, and Practices of Leadership Assessment in Education Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Reeves, D. B. (2004). Assessing educational leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press.
Rhode Island Department of Education. (November 9, 2010 ). Working draft. Rhode Island Model. building administrator professional practice framework. Providence, RI: Rhode Island Department of Education.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational administration quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
