1

SEED – CT’s System for Educator and Evaluation and Development

April 2013 Wethersfield Public Schools

CONNECTICUT ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION

Overview of SEED

2

Administrator Evaluation

Student Learning (45%)

Teacher Effectiveness (5%)

Leadership Practice (40%)

Stakeholder Feedback (10%)

Outcomes Rating (50%)

Practice Rating (50%)

Final Rating (100%)

3

Why should Connecticut focus on the evaluation of school and district leaders?

A proficient administrator is one who:• Meets expectations as an instructional leader• Meets expectations in at least three other areas of practice• Meets one target related to stakeholder feedback• Meets state accountability growth targets on tests of core

academic subjects• Meets and makes progress on 3 student learning objectives

aligned to school and district priorities• Having more than 60% of teachers proficient on the student

growth portion of their evaluation

4

Evaluate All Administrators

Anyone with an 092 license: Principals Assistant Principals Instructional Supervisors Other school-based staff who

have primarily administrative duties

Central Office Administrators

Teachers Superintendents Anyone else not on the other list

5

Follow the Cycle

SCHOOL YEAR: PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONAND EVIDENCE COLLECTION

JULY Orientation and context setting

AUGUST Goal setting and plan development

JANUARY Mid-year formative review

APRIL Self-assessment

MAY Preliminary summative assessment (to be finalized in August)

6

1. Orientation and Context Setting

• Orientation to SEED• Review data such as:

o Student learning datao SPI ratingo Stakeholder survey datao District Improvement Plan (DIP) o School Improvement Plan (SIP)

• Superintendent communicates student learning priorities

• School improvement plan, including student learning goals, in place

7

2. Goal Setting and Plan Development

Available Data:• Superintendent’s Priorities• School Improvement Plan• Prior Evaluation Results • SPI• Parent Survey • Staff Survey

1 - Survey Goal

2 - Focus areas (using Leadership Evaluation Rubric)

3 - Goals related to student achievement

“1-2-3 Goal Setting”

8

Administrator Evaluation

Student Learning (45%)

Teacher Effectiveness (5%)

Leadership Practice (40%)

Stakeholder Feedback (10%)

Outcomes Rating (50%)

Practice Rating (50%)

Final Rating (100%)

9

2. Goal Setting and Plan Development

One (1) Stakeholder Feedback Target (10%)

• Must be based on feedback from at least teachers and parents

• Should be based on growth, except: - When ratings are already high - When administrator is new to the role

10

Stakeholder Feedback (10%)

1. Select appropriate survey measures aligned to the Connecticut Leadership Standards

2. Review baseline data on selected measures3. Set one target for growth on selected measures (or performance

on selected measures when growth is not feasible to assess)4. Later in the school year, administer surveys to relevant

stakeholders5. Aggregate data and determine whether the administrator achieved

the target6. Assign a summative rating, using this scale:

Exemplary Proficient Developing Below Standard

Substantially exceeded target

Met target Made substantial progress but did not

meet target

Made little or no progress against

target

11

2. Goal Setting and Plan Development

Two (2) Practice Focus Areas

• At least one focused on instructional leadership

• Aligned to District Improvement Plan and School Improvement Plan

• Form the basis for the professional conversation between administrator and evaluator

12

Leadership Practice (40%)

Performance Expectations: 1. Vision, Mission & Goals2. Teaching and Learning 3. Organizational Systems and Safety4. Families and Stakeholders5. Ethics and Integrity6. The Educational System

Teaching and

Learning PE

Other 5 PE Performance Expectations

Total Leadership

Practice Rating

20% 20% 40%

13

Plan Implementation/Evidence Collection

Minimum of:

• Two observations (school visits for principals)

• Four observations for assistant principals and for any administrator new to their district, school, the profession, or who has received ratings of developing or below standard

School visits: Frequent & Purposeful

14

Administrator Evaluation

Student Learning (45%)

Teacher Effectiveness (5%)

Leadership Practice (40%)

Stakeholder Feedback (10%)

Outcomes Rating (50%)

Practice Rating (50%)

Final Rating (100%)

15

2. Goal Setting and Plan Development

Three (3) Student Learning Objectives (SLO) 45%

• Aligned to the CT subject matter standards/CCSS

• At least one focused on non-tested subjects and/or grades

• At least one focused on cohort and extended graduation (HS only)

• Written as a SMART Goal

16

Student Learning (45%)

State-tested Academic Learning:

Progress and Results

Total Student Learning Rating

Locally – Determined Measures:

Progress and Results

Currently there is no student growth measure in place statewide in CT. When one is available, it should be 50-70% of a principal’s rating here.

22.5% 22.5% 45%

3 SLOsSPI Progress & Average SPI Subgroup Progress

17

2. Goal Setting and Plan Development

Set the goals (Administrator)

Meet and Discuss

Agree on the Plan

1 Stakeholder feedback target (1)

2 Practice focus areas (2)

3 Student learning objectives (3 SLOs)

Any important assumptions about specific goals?

Anything that depends on things beyond the administrator’s control?

What sources of evidence will be used to assess performance?

Are the goals ambitious and attainable?

Is there alignment between district priorities and administrator goals?

Do the practice focus areas address growth needs for the administrator?

18

Teacher Effectiveness (5%)

• Teacher effectiveness is measured by an aggregation of teachers’ student learning objectives (SLOs)

• Administrators will receive a rating following the table below:

Exemplary Proficient Developing Below Standard

81-100% of teachers are rated

proficient or exemplary on the student growth portion of their

evaluation

61-80% of teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the

student growth portion of their

evaluation

41-60% of teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the

student growth portion of their

evaluation

0-40% of teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the

student growth portion of their

evaluation

19

3. Mid-Year Formative Review

Before meeting:

• Administrator: Analyze available student achievement data

• Evaluator: Review observation(s) and feedback forms

At meeting:

• Discussion of 1-2-3 goals

• Surface changes in the context & adjust goals if appropriate

20

4. Self-Assessment

Administrator assesses own practice against the six performance expectations, determining if he/she:

• Needs to grow and improve practice on this element• Has some strengths on this element but needs to continue to grow

and improve• Is consistently effective on this element, OR• Can empower others to be effective on this element

Administrator reviews progress on focus areasQuestion: Why self assess in the spring?Answer: Inform the summative rating.

21

5. Summative Rating and Review

Meet and Discuss

Adjust as Needed

Assign Rating

Review strengths

Review growth areas

Convey probable rating

Four levels

Use all available information

Likely new information:

SPI Rating

Teacher SLOs

22

5. Summative Rating & Review

• Substantially exceeding indicators of performance• Could serve as a model for other leaders

• Meeting indicators of performance• The expectation for experienced administrators

• Not meeting indicators of performance

• Meeting some indicators of performance but not all• Expected for new administrators• Multiple years at this level a concern for experienced administrators

Exemplary

Below Standard

Developing

Proficient

23

6. Summative Rating & Review

Student Learning (45%)

Teacher Effectiveness (5%)

Leadership Practice (40%)

Stakeholder Feedback (10%)

Outcomes Rating (50%)

Practice Rating (50%)

Final Rating (100%)(Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant)

6. Summative Rating and Review

    Practice Related Indicators Rating 

    Exemplary

Proficient

Developing

Below Standard

Outcomes Related IndicatorsRating

Exemplary

Exemplary

Exemplary

Proficient

Gatherfurther

information 

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

Gatherfurther

information

Developing

Proficient

Developing

Developing

Below Standard 

Below

Standard

Gatherfurther

information

Below Standard

 

Below Standard

 

Below Standard