Awsp Seattle Hilton May 2013

Topics for this session:
• Background and history
• Principal/AP evaluation - current status – recommendations
• Calibration of elements to arrive at summative score for each of the
eight criterion – how are districts handling this issue?
• Evidence collection for student growth areas – Criterion 3, 5 and 8

• 8 Teacher Evaluation Criteria
• 8 Principal Evaluation Criteria
• 4-Tiered Rating System
E2SSB
6696
(2010)
• 3 Criteria must include student growth
• Up to 3 instructional and leadership
frameworks
• Experienced teachers and principals cannot be
basic
• Evaluations will be used in HR decisions
SB 5895
(2012)
• Summative Scoring Formula
• Separate analysis of Student Growth
Criteria
• Matrix for analyzing summative and student
growth scores
• Options for low student growth scores
NCLB
Waiver
(Summer
2012)

Assessment as Autopsy
Assessment as Diagnostic Tools to
Improve Leadership & Instruction
Data Access
Utilizing Data for
Improving Instruction
Educator Quality Educator Effectiveness
Reflection for Improved Individual
Teaching and Leadership Practice
Reflection for Improved
Collective Teaching and
Leadership Practice

Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Did I make the grade? How can I grow?

The AWSP
Leadership
Framework
To Support Principal Development
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Proficient
Distinguished

Intent of the AWSP Framework
• Promotes a growth model linked to professional development
• Provides for public and professional accountability
• Allows for greater participation in joint goal setting, meaningful
discussions, increased collaboration, planning, teamwork and
relationship building
• Provides clarity around common language and expectations

Intent of the AWSP Framework
• Is technically, professionally and legally defensible
• Allows for reflection in professional practice
• Leads to improvements in staff and student outcomes
• Addresses variations in school context
• Is valid and reliable
• Moves from evaluation “to them” to evaluation “with them.”

Leadership Framework
Presentation
Research Background
AWSP Framework Intent

Research Background on Principal
Evaluation
1. Rigorous empirical evidence regarding best practices in
principal evaluation is extremely thin with regard to the
influence on important school outcomes.
2. The quality of the conduct of principal evaluation may be more
important than its content; strong, trusting and collaborative
relationships between principals and their district office
evaluators is especially critical to the success of the evaluation
process.

Research Background on Principal
Evaluation
3. Establishing a balance between the formative and summative
functions of evaluation appears to result in greater principal
and evaluator ownership and motivation regarding the
evaluation process.
4. Principal evaluation systems appear to be most effective when
they are based upon clear standards and expectations of
performance and aligned with key goals and needs of
principals, schools, districts and the community.
Davis, S., Kearney, K., Sanders, N., Thomas, C. & Leon, R. (2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation:
Executive summary. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

AWSP Leadership Framework
Contents
History and Introduction
8 Criteria
(Culture, Safety, Data, Curriculum, Evaluation, Resources, Community, Gap)
Reflection Considerations
Rubrics
Research
Resources
Certification (ISLLC) and Evaluation (AWSP Criteria)
Comparison

Criterion 1 Research | Creating a Culture

Use of Student Growth Data
Student growth data must be a substantial factor in evaluating
principals for at least three of the eight evaluation criteria.
• Criterion 3 – Planning with Data (3.4)
• Criterion 5 – Improving Instruction (5.2)
• Criterion 8 – Closing the Gap (8.3)

Criterion 1 Rubric | Creating a Culture
Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff.
1.1 Develops and
sustains focus on a
shared mission and
clear vision for
improvement of
learning/ teaching
1.2 Engages in
essential
conversations for
ongoing
improvement
1.3 Facilitates
collaborative
processes leading
toward continuous
improvement
1.4 Creates
opportunities for
shared
leadership
ELEMENTS
Multimedia
(Video, audio)
From the Field
(Strategies from
practicing
principals)
Professional
Development
Forms & Surveys
(Templates,
protocols, sample
goals)
Books &
Research

PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PLAN
School name, logo, mission sttatement, etc.
District: School:
School Year: Principal/Assistant Principal:
Evaluator: Date:
Criterion 1: Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff.
Element SMART Goal Strategies Evidence and
Artifacts
Action Steps/Timeline
Progress Monitoring
Date Comments/Feedback/Revisions
Principal Signature:
Supervisor Signature:

Success at the Core: Resources and Alignment
Evolution of New Policy Mandates: Student Growth Measures
Teacher/ Principal Evaluation & Implementation
Instruction
Leadership Modules:
Leadership Teams and Quality Instruction
Instructional Expertise
Instruction
Teacher Development Strategies:
Active and Exploratory Instruction
Ailene M. Baxter, EdD, 2012-2013
FJH SIP 2012-2013
“We Use
Assessment Data
Keeping Students at
the Center
to Improve
Instruction
Strengthening the
Instructional Core
and Close the
Achievement Gap”1
Improved Performance
Across ALL Student Groups
Assessment
Leadership Modules:
Using Data Effectively
Common Formative Assessment
Authentic and Student-Centered
Assessment
Achievement Gap
Leadership Modules:
Professional Development
Support Structures to Help All
Students Succeed
Success at the Core: Leadership Modules and Teacher Development Strategies
Teachers and Principals MUST have a way of improving and elevating practice through ongoing,
authentic, engaging, and collaborative professional learning.
TEACHER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTION ACHIEVEMENT GAP
Authentic and Student-Centered Assessment Active and Exploratory Instruction Support Structures to Help All Students Succeed
• Checking for Understanding • Analyzing Data • Differentiating Instruction
• Guiding Self-Assessment • Categorizing Ideas • Scaffolding a Lesson
• Reviewing Homework • Conducting Investigations • Using Multiple Approaches
• Structuring Peer Assessment • Cooperative Learning
• Using Rubrics • Facilitating Student-Centered Discussion
• Hands-On Learning
• Promoting Inquiry
• Teaching as Facilitation
• Using Models
• Writing with Detail
1 Dr. Gene Sharratt, AWSP 2012

ROADMAP
1. Self-Assessment
2. Goal Setting
•Professional
•Student Growth
3. First Formal
Evidence Gathering
4. Student Growth
Check-in
5. Second Formal
Evidence Gathering
6. Student Growth
Check-in
7. Summative
•Criteria
•Student Growth
September
October
November
JanuaryFebruary
April
May

Cashmere School District
Principal/Teacher Evaluation Roadmap
1. Self-Assessment
2. Goal Setting
•Professional
•Student Growth
3. First Formal
Evidence Gathering
4. Student Growth
Check-in
5. Second Formal
Evidence Gathering
6. Student Growth
Check-in
7. Summative
•Criteria
•Student Growth
September
October
November
JanuaryFebruary
April
May

Comprehensive Evaluation Cycle
Everett School District | 2012-2013
August Presentation
•Strategic Plan
•Annual Operating Plan
•Work Priorities
•State of the School Review Components
•School Improvement Plan Models
•Updated State Data Information
State of the School Review
•Targeted Data Analysis
•School Improvement Actions and Interventions
•Developing High Performing Teams
•Support Needed and Debriefing
•Classroom Visits
Second Formal Visit
•Review of Goals
(Criterion 3, 5 and 8 Required)
•Review of other District Priorities
•Review of Teacher Observation Reports
•Classroom Visits
•School Safety
First Formal Visit
•Self-Assessment against State Criteria
•Goal Setting
(Criterion 3, 5 and 8 Required)
•Classroom Visits
•School Safety
Final Evaluation
•Summary of Goals Attainment
•Summary of Evidence and Artifacts
•Summary of other District Priorities School Improvement
Planning Support
August Support Visits
•Enrollment
•Staffing
•Other Needs
Continuous Growth
Reflective Practice
Formative Feedback

Evaluation Summative Scoring Process
Criteria 2
Criteria 1
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Criteria 5
Criteria 6
Criteria 7
Criteria 8
Frameworks
+
Student
Growth
Rubrics
Observation
Artifacts
Other
evidence
relevant to
the
frameworks
Student Growth
Measures
(From 3 specific criteria)
State
determined
process
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Student Growth
Impact Ratings:
Low, Average, High
District
determined
process
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory

The RAW Score Model
Principal Criteria
* Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubrics
Overall
Criterion
Scores
Criterion 1: Influence, establish and sustain a school culture conducive to continuous improvement 4
Criterion 2: Lead the development and annual update of a comprehensive safe schools plan 4
*Criterion 3: Lead the development, implementation and evaluation of a data-driven plan for improvement 3
Criterion 4: Assist instructional staff in aligning curriculum, instruction and assessment with state and local goals 4
Criterion 5: Monitor, assist and evaluate staff implementation of the school improvement plan and instruction 3
*Criterion 6: Manage human and fiscal resources to accomplish student achievement goals 4
Criterion 7: Communicate and partner with school community members to promote student learning 4
*Criterion 8: Demonstrate a commitment to closing the achievement gap 3
Total Summative Score 29
Evaluators place principals into preliminary summative rating
categories based on score bands. As illustrated above, this
principal would receive a preliminary overall summative
rating of Distinguished.
8-14 15-21 22-28 29-32
1
Unsatisfactory
2
Basic
3
Proficient
4
Distinguished

Criteria 2
Criteria 1
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Criteria 5
Criteria 6
Criteria 7
Criteria 8
Frameworks
+
Student
Growth
Rubrics
Observation
Artifacts
Other
evidence
relevant to
the
frameworks
Student Growth
Measures
(From 3 specific criteria)
State
determined
process
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Student Growth
Impact Ratings:
Low, Average, High
District
determined
process
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory

Student Growth Rubric and Rating
Student Growth Student Growth* Score Based
on Rubric
Criterion 3.4 2**
Criterion 5.2 2**
Criterion 8.3 1**
Student Growth Score 5
*Must include a minimum of two student growth measures (i.e., state-,
district-, school-, and classroom-based measures).
** A student growth score of “1” in any of the student growth rubrics will
result in a Low growth rating.
Evaluators place principals into summative rating categories based on
score bands. As illustrated below, this principal would receive a low
student growth rating
3-5 6-9 10-12
Low Average High

SummativeRating
Distinguished Proficient Rating
1 Year Growth Plan
Distinguished Rating
Proficient Proficient Rating
1 Year Growth Plan
Proficient Rating
Basic Basic Rating
Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Rating
Plan of Improvement
Low Average High
Impact on Student Learning
Basic Rating
1 Year Growth Plan

Defining Key Terms
• Student Achievement:
The status of subject-matter knowledge,
understandings, and skills at one point in time.
• Student Growth (Learning):
The growth in subject-matter knowledge,
understandings, and skill over time.

Criteria 1
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Criteria 5
Criteria 6
Criteria 7
Criteria 8
Framework
Components
+
Student
Growth
Rubrics
(3, 5, 8)
Observation
Artifacts
Other
evidence
relevant to
the
frameworks
Student Growth
Measures
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Criteria 6
One Criterion
is chosen and
approved by
evaluator
Focused Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

Criterion
1
Criterion
2
Criterion
3
Criterion
4
Criterion
5
Criterion
6
Criterion
7
Criterion
8

It is student growth, not student achievement,
that is relevant in demonstrating impacts
teacher and principals have on students.
Formal Tests in
Core Subjects Only
Knowledge and
Learning that can be
Measured
All Classroom
Learning

59
Student Growth Data
Examples
• State-Based Tools (with proposed changes)
– e.g., MSP, HSPE, EOCs, SMARTER Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
• District-Based Tools
– e.g., MAP, AIMS Web, SBAC interim
• School-Based Tools
– e.g., content area, grade-level or other school
team assessments
• Classroom-Based Tools
– Applies to all teachers
59

Substantial factor
Student growth data must be
a substantial factor in
evaluating principals for at
least three of the eight
evaluation criteria.
P.7 (ESSB 5895 PL)
Multiple Measures
based on multiple measures
that include classroom-
based, school-based, district-
based, and state-based tools.
P. 8 (ESSB 5895 PL)
Student growth means the
change in student
achievement between two
points in time.
P.8 (ESSB 5895 PL)
3.4 Planning with data
5.2 Improving Instruction
8.3 Closing the gap
8.3 Closing the gap
8.3 Closing the gap
8.3 Closing the gap
DISTRICT DECISION-MAKING MATRIX
Progress Elementary
Schools
Two Points in Time
Leadership Goals
Hardy Middle School
Success High School
Achievement
Alternative School

Substantial factor
Student growth data must be a
substantial factor in evaluating
principals for at least three of
the eight evaluation criteria.
P.7 (ESSB 5895 PL)
Multiple Measures
based on multiple measures that
include classroom-based, school-
based, district-based, and state-
based tools.
P. 8 (ESSB 5895 PL)
Two Points in Time
Student growth means the
change in student
achievement between two
points in time.
P.8 (ESSB 5895 PL)
3.4 Assists staff to use data to guide,
modify and improve classroom
teaching and learning.
5.2 Assists staff in developing
required student growth plan and
identifying valid, reliable sources of
evidence of effectiveness.
8.3 provides evidence of growth in
student learning.
State-based tools, e.g., MSP, HSPE,
EOCs, SMARTER Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC)
District-based tools, e.g., MAP, AIMS,
Web, SBAC interim
School-based tools., e.g., content area,
grade-level or other school team
assessments
Classroom-based tools (applies to all
teachers)
Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
Lexile Scores
Data Walls : (explanation:
http://web.nmusd.us/cms/page
_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1264862
614295 )
8.3 Closing the gap
3.4 Assists staff to use data to guide,
modify and improve classroom
teaching and learning.
5.2 Assists staff in developing
required student growth plan and
identifying valid, reliable sources of
evidence of effectiveness.
8.3 provides evidence of growth in
student learning.
State-based tools, e.g., HSPE,
EOCs, WELPA, SMARTER Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
District-based tools, e.g., MAP,
AIMS, Web, SBAC interim
School-based tools., e.g., content
area, grade-level or other school
team assessments
District Reading/writing scores
Scholastic Reading Inventory
(SRI) is a reading assessment
program which provides
immediate, actionable data on
students' reading levels and
growth over time.
3.4 By April 1, each common
content area team will hold a
data talk with a building
administrator discussing the
results of a common formative
or summative assessment. This
information will be used to plan
interventions and inform the
next steps of instruction.
DISTRICT DECISION-MAKING MATRIX
Elementary
Schools
Leadership Goals
Middle School
High School

Rater Agreement Background
• The TPEP project has relied heavily on the
growing body of research, the framework authors
and the practical input from practitioners in the
pilot sites to create a “working definition” of rater
agreement for the 2012-13 school year.
• The new law requires that evaluators of
both teachers and principals “must
engage in professional development
designed to implement the revised
systems and maximize rater agreement.”

Rater Agreement Definition
The extent to which the scores between the
raters have consistency and accuracy against
predetermined standards. The predetermined
standards are the instructional and leadership
frameworks and rubrics that define the basis for
summative criterion level scores.

Topics for this session: What I hope you heard.
• How research supports the framework
• Research base is provided for each criterion and each indicator under the
criteria.
• How Washington’s eight principal evaluation criteria are addressed
• Seven of the eight Washington criteria came directly from the AWSP
Framework.
• There is now a strong match between the framework and the eight criteria.
• Key strengths of the framework
• This is a Washington state framework designed by and for Washington
administrators, responsive to Washington state statutes.
• The role of evidence gathering when putting the framework into practice
• The intent behind the framework is professional growth. Evidence related
to the various components will not only assist in assigning scores on the
rubric, it will lay the foundation for professional growth.

To be continued….
Gene Sharratt
gsharratt@wsu.edu

Recommendations
and Suggestions for Effective
Principal Evaluations
Putting the Pieces Together

1. Evaluation should stimulate and guide a principal’s
professional development.

2. Evaluation protocols should be aligned with
important school and student outcomes
(e.g., student achievement and effective instruction).

3. Evaluators should acquire appropriate feedback
from multiple stakeholders.

4. Evaluations are enriched and strengthened when
evidence is collected through multiple methods (e.g.
portfolios, self-assessments, 360-degree feedback, and
outcome-based assessments).

5. Evaluation systems should be flexible enough to
account for variations in school contexts and
environments.

6. Principals should be engaged partners in the process
of establishing evaluation goals and objectives and
assessing their own performance.

7. The quality of the conduct of principal evaluation may be more
important than its content; strong, trusting and collaborative
relationships between principals and their district office
evaluators is especially critical to the success of the evaluation
process.

8. Evaluation procedures and tools should be reliable
and valid.

9. Evaluation systems should
be based on established standards of administrative
practice and on objective and measurable
performance objectives.

10. School district leaders should regularly assess the alignment
between the district’s principal evaluation system and the
critical goals and needs of principals, the schools, the district
and the community.

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Provisional Teachers
First Year Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive
Second Year Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive
Third Year Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive
Probationary
Classroom Teachers Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive
Non-Provisional or
Non-Probationary
Classroom Teachers
(4 years of
satisfactory
evaluations)
25% on Comp
75% on Focused
25% on Comp
75% on Focused
25% on Comp
75% on Focused
25% on Comp
75% on Focused
Four Year Implementation Plan

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Provisional
Teachers
First Year
17 FTE
Required: Comp
15 FTE
Required: Comp
10 FTE
Required: Comp
15 FTE
Required: Comp
Provisional
Teachers
Second Year
16 FTE
Required: Comp
17 FTE
Required: Comp
15 FTE
Required: Comp
10 FTE
Required: Comp
Third Year
8 FTE
Required: Comp
16 FTE
Required: Comp
17 FTE
Required: Comp
15 FTE
Required: Comp
Total Provisional 41 FTE 48 FTE 42 FTE 40 FTE
Probationary
Classroom Teachers
1 FTE
Required: Comp
3 FTE
Required: Comp
4 FTE
Required: Comp
3 FTE
Required: Comp
Non-Provisional or
Non-Probationary
Classroom Teachers
(4 years of
satisfactory
evaluations)
Total: 378 FTE
Comp: 75
Focused: 303
Total: 369 FTE
Comp: 110
Focused: 259
Total: 374 FTE
Comp: 125
Focused: 249
Total: 377 FTE
Comp: 94
Focused: 283
Total teachers on a
Comprehensive:
117 161 171 137
Total teachers on a
Focused:
303 279 259 293
Sample District: Total Number of Classroom Teachers: 420 Total
Student FTE: 8,423

Awsp Seattle Hilton May 2013

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (6)

Similar a Awsp Seattle Hilton May 2013

Similar a Awsp Seattle Hilton May 2013 (20)

Más de Glenn E. Malone, EdD

Más de Glenn E. Malone, EdD (20)

Último

Último (20)

Awsp Seattle Hilton May 2013