1 / 24

SEED – CT’s S ystem for E ducator and E valuation and D evelopment April 2013

SEED – CT’s S ystem for E ducator and E valuation and D evelopment April 2013 Wethersfield Public Schools . CONNECTICUT ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION Overview of SEED . Administrator Evaluation. Student Learning (45%). Teacher Effectiveness (5%). Leadership Practice (40%).

zurina
Download Presentation

SEED – CT’s S ystem for E ducator and E valuation and D evelopment April 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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%) Practice Rating (50%) Outcomes 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 IMPLEMENTATION AND 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. Orientation and Context Setting • Orientation to SEED • Review data such as: • Student learning data • SPI rating • Stakeholder survey data • District Improvement Plan (DIP) • 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%) Practice Rating (50%) Outcomes Rating (50%) Final Rating (100%)

  9. 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%) Select appropriate survey measures aligned to the Connecticut Leadership Standards Review baseline data on selected measures Set one target for growth on selected measures (or performance on selected measures when growth is not feasible to assess) Later in the school year, administer surveys to relevant stakeholders Aggregate data and determine whether the administrator achieved the target Assign a summative rating, using this scale:

  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: • Vision, Mission & Goals • Teaching and Learning • Organizational Systems and Safety • Families and Stakeholders • Ethics and Integrity • The Educational System Other 5 PE Performance Expectations Total Leadership Practice Rating Teaching and Learning PE 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%) Practice Rating (50%) Outcomes 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%) SPI Progress & Average SPI Subgroup Progress 3 SLOs State-tested Academic Learning: Progress and Results Locally – Determined Measures: Progress and Results Total Student Learning Rating 22.5% 22.5% 45% 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.

  17. 2. Goal Setting and Plan Development Set the goals (Administrator) Meet and Discuss Agree on the Plan

  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:

  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 areas • Question: Why self assess in the spring? • Answer: Inform the summative rating.

  21. 5. Summative Rating and Review Meet and Discuss Assign Rating Adjust as Needed

  22. 5. Summative Rating & Review Exemplary • Substantially exceeding indicators of performance • Could serve as a model for other leaders Proficient • Meeting indicators of performance • The expectation for experienced administrators Developing • Meeting some indicators of performance but not all • Expected for new administrators • Multiple years at this level a concern for experienced administrators Below Standard • Not meeting indicators of performance

  23. 6. Summative Rating & Review Teacher Effectiveness (5%) Leadership Practice (40%) Stakeholder Feedback (10%) Student Learning (45%) Outcomes Rating (50%) Practice Rating (50%) Final Rating (100%) (Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant)

  24. 6. Summative Rating and Review

More Related