Evaluating School Principal Effectiveness Why We Need to Evaluate Principals and Use Principal Evaluation as a Tool for Professional Improvement October 4, 2011

Webinar Logistics  Everyone is muted  Use the chat function to make a comment or ask a question  You may chat privately with individuals on your team  If you have problems, you may send William Bentgen a message via the chat function or an at

Welcome  Janice Poda, CCSSO  Initiative Director Education Workforce 4

Moderator  Mary Canole  School Leadership Consultant, Council of Chief State School Officers 5

Purpose To provide an objective, research-based overview of what an effective principal evaluation system should include. To provide SCEE Teams a Framework for Principal Evaluation Tool.

Framework for Principal Evaluation 7

Presenters  Margaret Terry Orr  Bank Street College of Education  Jean Satterfield  Assistant State Superintendent for the Maryland Division of Certification and Accreditation  Sarah Brown Wessling  National Teacher of the Year 2010, English Teacher, Johnston High School, Johnston, Iowa

Research on conventional practice for principal evaluation  Wide variation in principal evaluation scope, instruments, and practices  Few psychometrically rigorous evaluation rubrics or rating systems  Movement:  away from assessing leadership traits  toward use standards  toward the relationship between leadership practices and student achievement

Essential content elements of principal evaluation system:  Who is assessed  The purposes of assessment  What is assessed  What sources of evidence are used

Essential organizational elements of principal evaluation system:  How the assessment is conducted  How evidence is valued  Psychometric qualities  Implementation, organization, and support of evaluation  Evaluation of the system’s effectiveness

Considerations of who is assessed  How “principal” is defined  To include all school building leaders, or just principals  To include district leaders or not  To differentiate based on years of experience, time in current building assignment, and levels of responsibility

Purposes of the evaluation  Summative—for consequential decisions  Formative—for professional growth  Organizational change—cohesive system Evaluation systems differ based on which purposes are incorporated and to what degree.

Poll

How much emphasis does your state give to each of the three purposes of leader evaluation?  Summative a)No emphasis b)Minimal emphasis c)Moderate emphasis d)Great emphasis  Formative a)No emphasis b)Minimal emphasis c)Moderate emphasis d)Great emphasis  Organizational change a)No emphasis b)Minimal emphasis c)Moderate emphasis d)Great emphasis 15

What is assessed? Leadership practices Teacher capacity and effectiveness Student achievement gains Other student outcomes Organizational capacity and effectiveness Other school outcomes School, community, district and state context Leadership Development

Leadership practices  National standards  District priorities for practice (e.g. teacher evaluation practices)  Span of authority and control in whether leaders can perform the practices

Teacher and organizational capacity and effectiveness Indirect influence on student achievement through influence on:  teacher instructional practices  distributed leadership  school culture and climate  teacher and school use of data  community engagement  working conditions  school wide improvement goals

Student and other outcomes  Student achievement progress  Progress on other student outcomes, such as graduation rates and reduced dropout rates  Progress on other broader school effectiveness goals, such as improved learning for ELLs and special education students  Improved safety and security

Context  Resources  Challenges  Parent and community expectations  Other district and state policies

What types of evidence is collected?  Observations  Documentation  Principal reports  Perceptions of actions and behaviors  Perceptions of working conditions, school climate  Student performance data

Whose judgments?  Principal  Subordinate staff (teachers, other professionals, support staff)  Peers (other principals)  Supervisors (central office and superintendent)  Students  Families  Community partners

Considerations in selecting types of evidence to include  Psychometric considerations  Validity of measures  Validity of combining measures  Representation of scope and depth of principal work  Reliability  Balance between direct observation of principal practice, evidence and impact  Evaluator skill  Time

When measures are made and how interpreted?  How often is measurement made?  Initial-interim-final? or  Annual only?  How are results interpreted?  What is used to make judgments? Rubrics and rating forms?  Are results disaggregated?  Who makes the judgments in reviewing the evidence?

How measures are valued: DimensionRatingWeightScore Development320%.60 Behavior420%.80 Intermediate outcomes 330%.90 School outcomes 230%.60 Total2.90 See: Principal Score Card (Milanowski, 2009)

Evaluating the evaluation system  New field  Test out:  Measures  Tools  Processes  Implementation  Evaluate the underlying theory of action

Theory of action of principal evaluation as a lever of change Student and school outcomes Teacher and organizational effectiveness Leader practices Principal Evaluation System

Making evaluation system design decisions  Start with purpose  Build in an evaluation of the system from the start  Involve critical stakeholders to engage, educate and create buy-in  Keep it simple, easy to use, and easy to understand

Framework for Principal Evaluation: Key evaluation elements and considerations Elements Considerations Current state policy Decisions to be made The purposes of assessment Who is assessed What is assessed What sources of evidence are used How the assessment is conducted How evidence is valued What psychometric qualities are maintained How the assessment system is implemented and operates 29

 Assistant State Superintendent for the Maryland Division of Certification and Accreditation Jean Satterfield 30

7 MD Pilots Model Teacher & Principal Evaluation System  : 7 Districts run pilot to i dentify ways to measure student growth in all subject areas and for all teachers  Student growth will account for 50% of a teacher and principal evaluations  : Statewide pilot using results and feedback from pilot year to inform the no- fault, statewide pilot.  Fall 2013: Mode fully operational statewide 31

Pilots Underway…  Baltimore City  8 principal volunteers with 300+ teachers in 8 schools begin 1 st cycle in December 32  Baltimore County  Instrument aligns to the Danielson Model  11 principals self selected to participate [with 80+ teachers]  Data systems and measures in place

MD District Pilots  Charles County: 7 pilot school principals & 56 teachers now working with teacher leaders to complete a pilot evaluation tool.  Kent County: All 7 schools (2 teachers per school)  Completed internal restructuring  Migrated to a new student data management system 33

Pilots (continued)  Prince Georges County: Aligned with the Danielson model – All principals & 100 teachers in 38 schools. Data systems and measures are progressing.  Queen Anne’s County: 7 principals & 126 teachers are exploring cost effective methods for aligning data, validating student growth measures and delivering PD. 34

Pilots (continued)  St. Mary’s County:  Five principals,11 assistant principals, 235 teachers  Implemented the Danielson model for the past 10 years 35  Data collection system in place to identify PD needs of teachers, principals and the system

Sarah Brown Wessling National Teacher of the Year 2010 English Teacher, Johnston High School, Johnston, Iowa 36

Evaluation Discussion Group  Join the Evaluation Discussion Group  evaluation  On the Collaboration Site Home Page select EvaluationHome Page  If you are not already a member, request an invitation 37

Upcoming Webinars  NEW DATE: November 1, 2:00 EDT  Continuing the Conversation About Educator Evaluation: Next Steps After the SCEE Topical Meeting  Save the date for our December webinar  December 13, 2:00 EDT 38

30 Minute Q&A  Participants respond to questions regarding the framework tool—we’ll pose three questions  Participants ask questions of the experts  We will post the Q&A on the webinars page at the conclusion of this event 39

Using the Chat  Find the Chat in the bottom right side of your screen.  To make the Chat appear larger on your screen, click on the triangle next to the Participants list to minimize it.  Questions and comments sent to All Participants are visible to everyone.  To offer an anonymous question or comment privately, click on Circe Stumbo’s name in the list of Chat recipients or her at  For technical assistance find William Bentgen in the Chat box or him at 40

Chat with other SCEE members… 1.Which elements of the Framework for Principal Evaluation generated the most discussion with your team? Example: In Maryland, framework elements most discussed: The difference between how to measure highly effective and effective. 41

Chat with other SCEE members… 2.If you have a Principal Evaluation Model in place, who are you evaluating (“Who is assessed”)? Example: In Maryland, principals are included in the evaluation/assessment – We are discussing whether the same model could be used for all levels of administrators, e.g., assistant principals and supervisors. 42

Chat with other SCEE members… 3.Which elements of the Framework for Principal Evaluation should be the highest priority for SCEE to attend to with future technical assistance (TA)? Example: In MD, we would like TA to address validity, reliability, and how to use student growth data. 43

Please complete the webinar evaluation that you will receive by . Thank You 44

Resources Brown-Sims, M. (2010). Evaluating School Principals. Tips & Tools. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Calabrese, R. L., & Zepeda, S. J. (1999). Decision-making assessment: Improving principal performance. The International Journal of Educational Management, 13(1), 6. Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2006). What are principals expected to do? congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), Goldring, E., Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2007). Assessing learner- centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards and current practices. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Hessel, K., & Holloway, J. (2001). School leaders and standards: a vision for leadership. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational administration quarterly, 44(4), Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervison and Curriculum Development.

Resources (cont.) McREL. (2010). McREL's Principal Evaluation System. Milanowski, A., & Schuermann, P. (2009). Principal evaluation (powerpoint slides), Teacher Incentive Fund Grantee Meeting. Bethesda, MD: Center for Educator Compensation Reform. Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Porter, A. C., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2006). A framework for the assessment of learning-centered leadership. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Portin, B., Feldman, S., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Purposes, Uses, and Practices of Leadership Assessment in Education Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Reeves, D. B. (2004). Assessing educational leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press. Rhode Island Department of Education. (November 9, 2010 ). Working draft. Rhode Island Model. building administrator professional practice framework. Providence, RI: Rhode Island Department of Education. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational administration quarterly, 44(5),