Employee Performance System. Michigan Principal Evaluation and Educator Effectiveness Guide

Similar documents
Self Assessment. Introduction and Purpose of the Self Assessment Welcome to the AdvancED Self Assessment.

Support Services Evaluation Handbook

Performance Evaluation System Protocol. Licensed Executive Professionals

Framework for Leadership

Performance Evaluation System. Marshall Public Schools

School & Program Guide. A Family Centered Public Cyber Charter School

GaPSC Teacher Leadership Program Standards

date by June Key initiatives included: Paraprofessionals and Academic specialists

CASS Practice Standards: Reflective Tool and Rubric

North Carolina INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRAL OFFICE STAFF EVALUATION PROCESS

NEW YORK STATE TEACHER CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS

Collier County Public Schools Superintendent s Self Evaluation Aligned to Strategic Plan Performance Indicators

2013 Marzano School Leader Evaluation Model Rubric

Comprehensive Reading Plan K-12 A Supplement to the North Carolina Literacy Plan. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

ENROLLED SENATE BILL No. 103

James Rumsey Technical Institute Employee Performance and Effectiveness Evaluation Procedure

Self-Assessment Duval County School System. Level 3. Level 3. Level 3. Level 4

MCCORMICK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT JOB DESCRIPTION

Executive Summary. Ohio Virtual Academy. Dr. Kristin Stewart, Superintendent 1655 Holland Rd Maumee, OH 43537

College of Education. Department of Leadership, Educational Psychology and Foundations. MS.Ed in Educational Administration.

Principal has shared the school vision and goals with the staff. A process for developing a school vision and goals is not evident.

The Ohio Resident Educator Program Standards Planning Tool Final

Legislative Council, State of Michigan Courtesy of

Oak Park School District. Administrator Evaluation Program

Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System

Louisiana s Schoolwide Reform Guidance

Gwinnett Teacher Effectiveness System. Frequently Asked Questions. General Questions

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TEACHER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM, TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACTION PLAN Student Achievement English Language Arts

Utah Educational Leadership Standards, Performance Expectations and Indicators

MARZANO SCHOOL LEADERSHIP EVALUATION MODEL

Core Goal: Teacher and Leader Effectiveness

Public Act 101 of 2011: Amendments to the Michigan Teacher Tenure Law

Understanding District-Determined Measures

Bridging Theory and Practice: Lessons from Clinical Teacher Education programs in the U.S. Jesse Solomon Executive Director BPE

Organizational Effectiveness

School Psychologist Professional Practice Rubric

Alabama Standards for Instructional Leaders

Park Community Charter School Kaukauna Area School District. Information Technology Plan. (July 1, 2011 June 30, 2014)

Section Three: Ohio Standards for Principals

Chapter 2: Creating a coaching program

ACS WASC Accreditation Status Determination Worksheet

Field Experience and Student Teaching Competencies

Self Assessment Tool for Principals and Vice-Principals

Indiana Content Standards for Educators

*This is a sample only actual evaluations must completed and submitted in PeopleSoft*

Essential Principles of Effective Evaluation

TEAM PLANNING AND REPORTING

Administrative Evaluation System

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS. EduStat Case Study. Denver Public Schools: Making Meaning of Data to Enable School Leaders to Make Human Capital Decisions

Executive Summary. Florida Connections Academy. Ms. Marcie Trombino 5401 S. Kirkman Road Suite 550 Orlando, FL 32819

To expand teachers use of a variety of resources to improve instruction

Hawaii Teacher Standards Board Teacher Leader Work Group Report

Tulsa Public Schools Teacher Observation and Evaluation System: Its Research Base and Validation Studies

Using Student Achievement Data to Support Instructional Decision Making

Superintendent Effectiveness Rubric*

2014 School Counselor Performance Appraisal Rubric SAU 21

Board of Cooperative Educational Services Rensselaer-Columbia-Greene Counties Annual Professional Performance Review

TEACHER EVALUATION FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Possible examples of how the Framework For Teaching could apply to Instructional Coaches

Model for Practitioner Evaluation Manual SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST. Approved by Board of Education August 28, 2002

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Principal Hiring Scorecard 1

Professionals Responsible for Campus Turnaround Plan Development: Name:

Instructional Management Plan

Appendix A: Annotated Table of Activities & Tools

Principal Performance Review

Rubric for Evaluating North Carolina s Instructional Technology Facilitators

CALIFORNIA PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE CREDENTIAL EXAMINATION (CPACE)

Health Education Leadership Program Application PDF View for Application Preparation

1. Attend the Resident Educator Orientation Session. Date:

Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Principals

Masters Comprehensive Exam and Rubric (Rev. July 17, 2014)

Pittsburgh Public Schools. We Dream Big. We Work Hard. We Promise. Promise-Readiness Corps

Fair dismissal district means any common or union high school district or education service district.

QUALITY COMPENSATION FOR TEACHERS OR Q COMP. Minn. Stat. 122A Enacted by the 2005 Minnesota Legislature and Signed by Governor Tim Pawlenty

TAP Implementation Manual

Corrective Action Plan for Michael R. White STEM School

Managers Self- Assessment Questionnaire. HWDSB Managers Self-Assessment: September

Domain 1: Strategic/Cultural Leadership

Ph.D. in School Psychology Academic Assessment Plan

Michigan Department of Education Office of Field Services Section 31a Program for At-Risk Pupils Allowable Uses of Funds

Framework and Guidelines for Principal Preparation Programs

University of Central Florida. College of Education

Model for Practitioner Evaluation Manual SCHOOL COUNSELOR. Approved by Board of Education August 28, 2002

TEACHER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

TBL Certification Requirements

PRO-NET A Publication of Building Professional Development Partnerships for Adult Educators Project. April 2002

ELPS 606 INTERNSHIP PORTFOLIO PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

HR COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT OFFERINGS

North Carolina TEACHER. evaluation process. Public Schools of North Carolina State Board of Education Department of Public Instruction

SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER JOB DESCRIPTION

Delaware Performance Appraisal System

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS POLICY. Purpose: To provide feedback, coaching and development plans for employees on a regularly scheduled basis.

School Levels of Support. By Dr. Kristine Harms

Rubric for Evaluating Colorado s Specialized Service Professionals: School Psychologists Definition of an Effective School Psychologist

Administrative Assessment and Evaluation Rubric

Core Leadership Competencies

... and. Uses data to help schools identify needs for prevention and intervention programs.

Succession Planning Process

Transcription:

2016-2017 Employee Performance System Michigan Principal Evaluation and Educator Effectiveness Guide National Heritage Academies 2016-2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW EVALUATIONS The process... 1 Principal rubric... 1 Calibration... 1 Evaluation guidelines for principals... 2 Competencies... 2 Performance rating levels and evaluation scale... 3 Quality of student learning... 3 Administrator reliability and validity process plan... 3 Training... 3 EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS What it is... 4 Ratings... 4 What the ratings mean... 4 How the ratings are calculated... 4

OVERVIEW By 2020, National Heritage Academies (NHA) goal is to have 90% of students who have been with NHA for three or more years meeting (or exceeding) the college readiness thresholds in both Math and Reading. There are three preconditions to meet this goal: 1) achieve high student attendance, 2) achieve high teacher attendance and 3) hire and retain teachers, deans, and principals above the talent threshold. This manual provides principal evaluation and educator effectiveness requirements of both NHA and the state of Michigan. The first section includes processes, guidelines, and tools for evaluations. The second section includes requirements for educator effectiveness ratings, as well as how ratings are calculated and what they mean. EVALUATIONS The process All NHA principals receive an annual evaluation. The locally developed evaluation tool uses components from Robert J. Marzano, Kim Marshall and Patrick Lencioni, internationally recognized experts in the area of administrator effectiveness and specializing in the design of administrator evaluations. Our principal evaluation tool facilitates conversation around clear expectations for performance and fosters continuous development. The evaluation is just one component of a larger process that occurs throughout the year. This process includes: One-on-one meetings (O3s) Feedback from students, parents and teachers Professional development: goal setting and progress monitoring (including professional development plans) Conversations around continual improvement End-of-year evaluations Information from the evaluation system contributes to decisions regarding promotion, compensation and employment decisions, in addition to providing a platform for ongoing conversation between directors of school quality and principals. Although only direct supervisors can complete evaluations for their employees, principals are strongly encouraged, and have access, to review and approve evaluations for all staff in their school. The evaluation also informs professional development for all employees. Principal rubric Positions assigned to the Principal Rubric include, but are not limited to, the following: Principal Interim Principal Calibration Calibration is important for all evaluators at your school. School leaders review the evaluation rubrics together to ensure that each rating on the rubric means the same thing to everyone. This increases rater reliability and consistency, and helps drive performance results. Prior to the start of school, principals also receive training on the evaluation rubric by approved trainers through NHA. All approved trainers are educators that have received in-depth training on NHA s evaluation rubrics.

Evaluation guidelines for principals Use the words on the rubric to determine evaluation ratings, NOT hunches or feelings. Hold all employees to consistent performance expectations. Calibrating all evaluators will drive consistency. Use a totality of the evidence available to inform performance evaluation ratings (student and employee surveys, O3 notes, team meetings, parent feedback, etc.) If an employee is between ratings (meaning some performance measures fall under two different ratings), provide the lower rating. The employee should meet each performance measure within that level before moving up. NOTE: An employee does NOT automatically go on a performance improvement plan (PIP) if he/she receives Ineffective or Developing ratings within his/her performance evaluation. The manager of the employee will determine the best way to address the growth opportunity. Competencies The NHA evaluation system for principals has seven competencies: (1) School Culture, (2) Teaching and Learning, (3) Staff Development, (4) Operations and Systems, (5) Leadership, (6) Professional Accountabilities, and (7) Quality of Student Learning. This system allows for a fluid discussion around performance and informs professional development goals and opportunities for principals. The end-of-year evaluation will include: End of Year Evaluation: Competencies Indicators School Culture Build Trust Manage Conflict Gain Commitment Enhance Accountability Focus on Results Teaching and Learning Monitor & Support Effective Instructional Strategy Monitor & Support Effective Teaching Practice Monitor & Support Effective Assessment of Student Learning Monitor & Support Systematic Intervention Staff Development Hiring and Placement Mentoring Dean Leadership Teacher Leadership Development Teacher Professional Development Operations & Systems School Improvement Planning Monitoring Improvement Progress Organization & Use of Time Use of Resources Leadership Learning Mindset Initiative and Focus Self-Awareness Stakeholder Engagement Professional Accountabilities Dependability Core Values Communication Teamwork Quality of Student Learning Positive Impact on Student Learning 2

Performance rating levels and evaluation scale All principals use the following performance rating levels: Ineffective Below expected performance level Developing Approaching expected performance level Effective Meets expected performance level Exemplary Model to other staff and shares knowledge The Principal Evaluation Rubric has criterion-referenced progressions of performance expectations. Directors of school quality, when evaluating principals, will individually consider each principal and review the rubric beginning at the left Ineffective column and progressing to the right Exemplary column. Principals need to fulfill each performance measure in its entirety before progressing to the next level. Evaluators will provide a rating of either Ineffective, Developing, Effective, or Exemplary in each of the 26 indicators above. The Employee Performance System (EPS) will calculate an overall end-of-year evaluation rating, which consists of a straight average of all indicators, into one overall rating for the principal. The evaluation scale for the ratings is as follows: Ineffective: 1.00-1.89 Developing: 1.90-2.49 Effective: 2.50-3.49 Exemplary: 3.50-4.00 Quality of Student Learning NHA measures Quality of Student Learning for principals by providing a subjective rating based on state provided schoolwide Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs). Administrator reliability and validity process plan Beginning in 2015-2016, NHA began to develop a plan that demonstrates the reliability and validity of administrator evaluations. NHA developed a performance rubric for administrators built around a researchbased model with core tenets from Robert J. Marzano, Kim Marshall and Patrick Lencioni. To ensure reliability and validity of implementation of the tool, all principal evaluators are required to participate in training and calibration at least once per year. This increases rater reliability and consistency, and drives performance results. Training NHA offers many opportunities for professional development to help attract, retain and grow our staff. All new principals participate in School Leadership Academy, a multiday immersion program designed to ensure buy-in to the school s mission and vision, address specific curricular and instructional needs and provide training on the evaluation tool. Roberto Martinez, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Jaclyn Jeffrey, School Leadership Development Program Manager, Elisa Gibbs, Curriculum and Instruction Manager and Melissa VanKlompenburg, School Leadership Development Specialist provide session trainings. Ongoing coaching and additional training throughout the year actively supports principals. NHA has developed a collection of effective, industry-leading practices and incorporated them into its 2020 Plan (see above). NHA partner schools implement these practices to build a common approach designed to generate outstanding academic results. To supplement formal trainings, principals participate in additional school-based staff-development days provided by school level leaders and Curriculum and Instruction associates. 3

EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS What it is Many states, including Michigan, have implemented annual educator effectiveness ratings. The purpose of the ratings are to ensure that school districts review administrator performance on a regular basis, allowing schools to refocus resources. In accordance with Michigan law, the ratings include two components: 1) student assessment and growth data, and 2) administrator performance evaluation rating. The state publishes aggregate ratings for schools yearly, including the percent of administrators who received each rating, as well as an overall school rating. Ratings The state of Michigan rates educator effectiveness using the following rating levels: Highly Effective Effective Minimally Effective Ineffective NOTE: NHA s internal evaluation ratings of Exemplary, Effective, Developing, and Ineffective are in alignment with state standards. What the ratings mean Current Michigan law states that if an administrator receives an overall ineffective or minimally effective rating, he/she must receive an individual improvement plan. The state also mandates termination of an administrator if they receive an overall ineffective rating on three consecutive year-end evaluations. This requirement does not dismiss the district s policy regarding at-will employment. How the ratings are calculated Michigan law requires that student growth and assessment data account for 25% of the educator effectiveness rating for the 2016-17 school year. NHA will use 2014-15 and 2015-16 M-STEP schoolwide data when measuring student growth. NOTE: Data may change due to NHA and state legislative updates. The remaining portion (75%) of the educator effectiveness rating is based on the end-of-year overall evaluation rating. NHA will provide each administrator with his/her annual educator effectiveness rating. Each year, NHA reviews our calculation for educator effectiveness to ensure it meets any updated state legislative or internal requirements. 4