Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR)

Transcription

1 OSSINING UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT OSSINING, NEW YORK Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Adopted by the Board of Education July 23, 2014

2 EVALUATION INSTRUMENT: The Ossining Union Free School District will use the Multi-Dimensional Principal Rubric (MPPR) to inform the Local 60% of the composite score. This rubric will provide principals and their evaluators with information regarding the MPPR which is derived from the six ISLLC standards. SCORING METHODOLOGY: The Commissioner s regulations require that each principal be evaluated annually on the NYS ISSLC Standards using the approved Multi-Dimensional Principal Performance (MPPR) rubric as part of the Multiple Measures of Principal Effectiveness. This portion of the principal s evaluation is worth 60% of the composite score, and the District will utilize a weighting methodology in distributing the 60 points for this category. The total raw score value of the 35 components shall be 105 points. The raw score points shall then be converted to a Scaled Score as follows: Highly Effective Raw Score: Scaled Score: Developing Raw Score: Scaled Score: Effective Raw Score: Scaled Score: Ineffective Raw Score: Scaled Score: The total HEDI Rating Categories shall be as follows: Highly Effective: Effective: Developing: Ineffective: = pts. 58 = pts. 56 = 73 pts = pts. 59 = pts. 57 = pts. 55 = 72 pts = pts. 54 = pts = pts. 53 = pts = pts. 52 = pts. 0-9 = 0-11 pts. 51 = pts. 1

3 50 = 63 pts. Over the course of the year, the principal s evaluator and the principal will participate in the following: Supervisory meetings will take place at least every other month to discuss his/her progress within each of the components in the rubric. Unannounced Observation: One visit will take place for each principal. Observation: Throughout the school year, each principal s supervisor will conduct both formal and informal observations. All the evidence collected throughout the year will be used to determine the final ratings. A mid-year conference will be held with each principal. At that time, principals should be made aware of concerns that may lead to a rating of ineffective or developing. If at any time, there are concerns about areas that may be leading to a rating of ineffective or developing, the supervisor shall communicate this in writing to the principal and either party can request a conference. During the year, the principal shall be provided the written evaluation no later than July 20. At the end of the evaluation cycle, the evaluator will rate each component using Multi- Dimensional Principal Performance rubric on a scale from 0 to 3 in the following manner: 3 = Highly Effective 2 = Effective 1 = Developing 0 = Ineffective Principals may provide artifacts that will serve as evidence along with written reflections for each of the MPPR elements noted on the rubric. The artifacts should support the associated MPPR elements and shall be determined collaboratively between the principals, superintendent and members of Central Office. MPPR DOMAINS: DOMAIN 1: DOMAIN 2: DOMAIN 3: DOMAIN 4: DOMAIN 5: DOMAIN 6: DOMAIN 7: Shared Vision of Learning School Culture and Instructional Program Safe, Efficient, Effective Learning Environment Community Integrity, Fairness, Ethics Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural Context Goal Setting 2

4 HEDI SCORING BANDS FOR STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND LOCAL ASSESSMENTS: The point values for the HEDI bands are different for principals in schools with a valueadded measure and for those using comparable growth measures with Student Learning Objectives. When a value-added growth measure applies, the local assessment component is reduced to 15 points. The chart below shows the point values for the effectiveness ratings for the Comparable Growth Measure (20%) and for the Value-Added Measure (25%) Growth Subcomponent Scoring Bands Comparable Growth Measure (SLOs) 20% Value-Added Measure 25% Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective HEDI CRITERIA The District criteria for scoring Student Learning Objectives/Local Measures are as follows: Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective 3

5 85% of the students achieve or exceed the target determined in the Student Learning Objective. 75% - 84% of the students achieve or exceed the target determined in the Student Learning Objective. The points within each category are distributed as follows: 60% - 74% of the students achieve or exceed the target determined in the Student Learning Objective. Below 60% of the students achieve or exceed the target determined in the Student Learning Objective. 18 pts.: 85% - 89% 19 pts.: 90% - 94% 20 pts.: 95% - 100% 9 pts.: 75% 10 pts.: 76% 11 pts.: 77% 12 pts.: 78% 13 pts.: 79% 14 pts.: 80% 15 pts.: 81% 16 pts.: 82% 17 pts.: 83% - 84% 3 pts.: 60% - 61% 4 pts.: 62% - 63% 5 pts.: 64% - 66% 6 pts.: 67% - 69% 7 pts.: 70% - 72% 8 pts.: 73% - 74% 0 pt.: 0% - 49% 1 pt: 50% - 54% 2 pts.: 55% - 59% STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE (SLO): The Superintendent, the Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Services, and Director of Teaching and Learning will oversee the development of the Student Learning Objectives. The District will use multiple measures: historical achievement and preassessment data to establish the individual/group Student Learning Objectives. Each SLO will be aligned with the Common Core, State or National Standards, as well as any school or district priorities. As per the NYS Education regulations, principal scores will be based upon the degree to which their goals are attained. The SLO will assess the most important learning for the semester/year. Administrators will assign points in accordance with the District HEDI criteria. LOCAL 20% STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT MEASURE: The principals agree to use the following Achievement Measures for the purpose of the Local 20% Student Achievement measure: School Local 20% Park AIMS Web ELA Ready Brookside AIMS Web ELA Ready 4

6 Claremont AIMS Web ELA Ready Roosevelt AIMS Web ELA Ready Anne M. Dorner State ELA and Math (6-8) Ossining High School Global History and Living Environment COMPOSITE SCORE: The principal s final evaluation rating is the total of the three subcomponents of the evaluation system: 1) growth or comparable measures; 2) locally selected measures; and 3) multiple measures of teacher effectiveness. The NYS Commissioner sets the scoring bands for growth/comparable measures, the locally selected measures, and overall composite score; the multiple measures have been locally negotiated. The following scoring bands will be applied to determine the principal s rating for the school year with no approved Value- Added Measure Growth or Comparable Measures 20% Locally Selected Measures 20% Multiple Dimensional 60% Overall Composite Score 100% Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective

7 with an approved Value-Added Measure Growth Comparable Measures 25% Locally Selected Measures 15% Multi- Dimensional 60% Overall Composite Score 100% Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective When NYS Education Department approves the Value-Added system, the District will use the scoring bands noted below: PRINCIPAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (PIP): The Ossining School District plan incorporates the mandate for a "Principal Improvement Plan" (PIP) for principals who have not met the standards for effectiveness as specified by New York State. As a result, any principal who receives a final composite effectiveness rating of "developing" or "ineffective" point range on the 100 point performance review scale will be placed on a PIP. (Section 100.2(o)(b)(4) Regulations of the Commissioner of Education) PIPs are to be developed in collaboration with the principal, and the evaluating administrator(s). The President of the OASS shall be notified that a staff member will be placed on PIP. The purpose of a Principal Improvement Plan (PIP) is to address specific area(s) of the evaluation that were rated as developing or ineffective and/or a principal whose performance, which has been identified as "developing" or "ineffective" at any time during the school year. If at anytime during the school year a supervisor believes improvement or support is needed before the final State effectiveness score has been received, a variety of strategies for improvement will take place. Any principal, tenured or non-tenured, shall require a PIP when the principal's performance is evaluated as "developing" or "ineffective. 6

8 A written PIP developed as specified above shall contain: Identify areas of improvement/domain components Goals and objectives Strategies to attain goals and objectives Timeline for progress Anticipated outcomes Evidence of outcomes Progress monitoring meetings (See Appendix) It is the supervisor s responsibility to provide the corresponding professional development and resources to support the principal s identified areas of improvement/domain components. Copies of the PIP signed by the principal and supervisor will be supplied to the principal and to the district personnel office. If the principal s final composite score reflects the need for the principal to be placed on PIP, the District shall immediately notify the individual. The PIP will be completed and implemented no later than 10 days from the opening of classes in the school year following the school year for which such principal s performance is being measured. CONFIDENTIALITY: The Principal s Improvement Plan process noted above, as it relates to specific individuals, will be confidential. Both the principal and the evaluator must earnestly commit themselves to a cooperative improvement process with the goal of professional growth. PRINCIPAL S APPEAL PROCEDURES: Section 3012-c of the Education Law establishes a comprehensive annual evaluation system for building principals, as well as the issuance and implementation of improvement plans for principals whose performance is assessed as either Developing or Ineffective. To the extent that a principal wishes to challenge a performance review and/or improvement plan under the new evaluation system, the law requires the establishment of an appeals procedure, the specifics of which are to be locally negotiated pursuant to article XIV of the Civil Service Law. This model appeal procedure addresses a principal s due process rights while ensuring that appeals are resolved in an expeditious manner. 7

9 BURDEN OF PROOF: In an appeal, the principal has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief. FORMAL PROCESS: Level 1: 1. The evaluation will be provided to the principal five (5) days before the year-end evaluation meeting. The immediate supervisor will provide his/her decision regarding whether he/she has agreed to make any changes in the evaluation within five (5) business days of the meeting noted above. Following receiving the final evaluation the principal has 15 business days to file an appeal in writing to the Superintendent. Overall performance ratings of ineffective and developing are the only ratings subject to appeal. Principals who receive a rating of highly effective or effective shall not be permitted to appeal their rating. 2. The appeal to the Superintendent must articulate the specific basis for the appeal. The appeal may only raise those issues set forth in Section 3012-c of Education Law: Level 2 The substance of the annual professional performance review; The school district s adherence to the standards and methodologies required for such reviews pursuant to Section 3012-c of Education Law; The school district s adherence to the regulations of the commissioners and compliance with any applicable locally negotiated procedures; and The school district s issuance and/or implementation of the terms of the principal improvement plan (PIP). 3. Within five (5) school days of receipt of the Level 1 determination, the principal must submit the appeal of this determination to a bipartisan panel comprised of two (2) administrator representatives (to be determined by the OASS) and one (1) administrator (to be determined by the Superintendent). The panel will be provided the entire appeals record. The anonymity of the panel members will be protected to the extent possible throughout this procedure. 8

10 4. The bi-partisan committee will provide a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools within five (5) school days. Thereafter, the Superintendent shall issue a final and binding written determination of the appeal within six (6) school days of receipt of the recommendation from the committee. 5. Within six (6) business days of receipt of the appeal, the Superintendent shall issue a final and binding written determination of the appeal. A principal may not resort to any other contractual grievance procedure for the resolution of challenges and appeals related to a professional performance review and/or improvement plan, except as otherwise authorized by law. TRAINING: The District will ensure that the Superintendent and his/her designees are trained as Lead Evaluators and are certified as such. The Superintendent will certify Lead Evaluators upon receipt of proper documentation that the individual has fully completed the requisite training. The Superintendent will maintain records of certification of Lead Evaluators. Lead Evaluators will be recertified on a periodic basis to be determined by the District. The District will establish a process to maintain inter-rater reliability of Lead Evaluators over time in accordance with NYSED guidance and protocols recommended in training for Lead Evaluators. The District anticipates that these protocols will include measures such as: data analysis; periodic comparisons of assessments; and/or annual calibration sessions across such evaluators. This training of Lead Evaluators will include the following requirements: New York State Teaching Standards and ISSLC Standards Evidence-based observation o Application and use of Student Growth Percentile and Value Added Growth Model data Application and use of the State-approved principal rubrics Application and use of any assessment tools used to evaluate teachers and principals Application and use of State-approved locally selected measures of student achievement Use of Statewide instructional Reporting System Scoring methodology used to evaluate teachers and principals 9

11 10

12 MPPR-Multidimensional Professional Performance Review (60 Points) Principal: School: Date: DOMAIN 1 SHARED VISION OF LEARNING An education leader promotes the success of every student by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by all stakeholders. A. Collaboratively develops and implements a shared vision and mission B. School vision and mission are linked to District goals C. School vision and mission are linked to school programs and policies D. Process and structure are in place for continuous improvement Evidence: H E D I *DOMAIN 2 SCHOOL CULTURE AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM An education leader promotes the success of every student by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. A. Promotes teaming and common planning to help teachers improve their teaching practice B. Develops a culture of collaboration, encouraging staff to work together to improve learning C. Creates a learning environment that involves students in meaningful relevant learning connected to their experiences D. Creates a comprehensive, rigorous, and coherent curricular program E. Supervises instruction F. Minimizes disruption to instruction time 11 H E D I

13 G. Develops the instructional and leadership capacity of staff H. Promotes the use of the most effective technology I. Develops assessments to monitor student progress J. Gathers input to monitor and evaluate the impact of the instructional program Evidence: DOMAIN 3 SAFE, EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT An education leader promotes the success of every student by ensuring management of the organization, operation, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. A. Obtains, allocates, aligns and utilizes human, fiscal and technological resources B. Develops the capacity for distributed leadership C. Protects the welfare and safety of students and staff D. Monitors, evaluates, and revises management and operational systems E. Ensures teacher and organizational time is focused to support student learning Evidence: H E D I DOMAIN 4 COMMUNITY An education leader promotes the success of every student by collaborating with faculty and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources. A. Collects and analyzes data and uses it to make related improvements H E D I B. Promotes understanding, appreciation, and use of the community s diverse cultural, social, and intellectual resources C. Builds and sustains positive relationships with families and caregivers 12

14 Evidence: DOMAIN5 INTEGRITY, FAIRNESS, ETHICS An education leader promotes the success of every student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner. H E D I A. Ensures a system of accountability for each student s academic and social success B. Considers and evaluates the potential moral and legal consequences of decision making C. Thoughtfully considers and upholds mandates to preserve the integrity of the school D. Models principles of self awareness, reflective practice, and ethical behavior E. Safeguards the values of democracy, equity, and diversity F. Promotes social justice and ensures that student needs inform all aspects of schooling Evidence: DOMAIN 6 POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, LEGAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT An education leader promotes the success of every student by understanding, responding to, and influencing the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. A. Acts to influence local, district, state, and national decisions affecting student learning B. Assesses, analyzes, and anticipates trends in order to adapt leadership strategies C. Advocates for children, families, and caregivers Evidence: H E D I 13

15 *DOMAIN 7 GOAL * SETTING AND ATTAINMENT H E D I A. Uncovering Goals Align, Define B. Strategic Planning Prioritize, Strategize C. Taking Action Mobilize, Monitor, Refine D. Evaluating Attainment Document Insights, Accomplishments, New questions, Implications for Moving Forward, Next Steps Evidence: RAW SCORE = Growth Factor or SLO (25 OR 20) Local Measure (20 OR 15) MPPR Score (60) Overall Composite Score I have reviewed this document: Date: Evaluation conducted by 14

16 OSSINING UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent PRINCIPAL S IMPROVEMENT PLAN Principal s Name Composite Score School Supervisor Date: Identify Areas of Improvement/ Domain Components Goals and Objectives Strategies to Attain Goals and Objectives Timeline For Progress Anticipated Outcomes Evidence of Outcomes Supervisor s Signature Date: Principal s Signature Date: A copy of this improvement plan has been reviewed with this Principal. My signature means I have been advised of my performance and does not necessarily imply that I agree or disagree with this improvement plan. 6/26/12/Committees/APPR/Principals/PIP Grid/426 15