Updated Training for DPAS II for Administrators

Educator Accountability Educator Professional Development and Accountability Act of 2000 Established DPAS II for all educators Required that the system have no more than 5 components, with one component addressing student improvement. Required that evaluators be properly trained and credentialed.

DPAS II Pilot Regulations apply only to the two districts piloting DPAS II Appoquinimink Caesar Rodney During the pilot, any rating received on a Summative Evaluation is not included in the determination of a pattern of ineffective administration.

Who is an Administrator? For the purposes of DPAS II, an administrator is a professional employee of a school board serving in a supervisory capacity which involves the oversight of an instructional program.

Administrator Inexperienced – less than three years of service as an administrator Experienced – three or more years of service as an administrator Role Experienced – three or more years of service as an administrator in the role in which employed

DPAS II for Administrators Four Components Each component weighted equally Taken together, the components of the DPAS II system provide a strong focus on teaching and learning Components 2 through 4 directly relate to an administrator’s daily responsibilities Component 1 examines the administrator’s performance in light of national standards for school leaders

Components Component 1 – Leader Standards Component 2 – Goals and Priorities Component 3 – School or District Improvement Plan Component 4 – Measures of Student Achievement

Component 1 – Leader Standards Assesses the administrator’s performance against six national standards Establish a context in which administrators focus on components 2, 3, and 4 Assessed through an electronic survey

Component 1 School Leader Survey Provides judgment about 4 components of professional practice for each of six school leader standards Survey completed by: Administrator completes a self-assessment Teachers who are supervised by the administrator complete an anonymous survey by April 1 Evaluator completes a survey

Component 1 School Leader Survey All surveys are forwarded electronically to the evaluator, who develops a composite score of the data from the three surveys Evaluator develops a summary assessment in the spring of the year

Components 2, 3 and 4 Components 2, 3 and 4 are intentionally aligned with the school improvement plan and the district strategic plan Designed to work together to reinforce and support improved student performance and to drive continuous improvement Data and evidence collected by administrator as part of the process should be a natural harvest of the administrator’s ongoing work.

Component 2 – Goals and Priorities Sources of Goals Most should be linked directly to an administrator’s school or district improvement plan Should be focused on improving practice and student performance May include a goal based on leader standards May focus on unique school or district conditions May result from the administrator’s self-reflection

Component 2 – Goals and Priorities Substance of goals should: Connect to ISLLC Standards for School Leaders Be organizationally grounded Emphasize the direct contributions of the administrator Be anchored in analysis of data Be limited in number Have a longitudinal focus Be challenging Be mutually determined

Component 2 – Goals and Priorities Process Spotlights mutual determination Features ongoing dialogue between the administrator and the evaluator Delineates clearly expected performances Specifies evidence that will be provided Establishes criteria for success

Component 3 – School or District Improvement Plan Process mirrors that employed in Component 2 Evaluator and administrator review school or district improvement plan and identify specific goals and targets An agreed upon timeline for achievement of targets will be developed

Component 4 – Student Improvement Achievement and improvement in 3 broad areas grounds this part of the system School Accountability DSTP data Other measures of student achievement

Process

Procedures Determine administrators to be evaluated and their status Administrator submits completed goal form prior to August 15, based on the Summative Evaluation conference held during the summer. New administrators should complete the goal form within one month of employment

Procedures Administrator and evaluator meet within one month of summative conference, and no later than September 15 to agree upon goals. For superintendents, conference with the Board will take place prior to June 30 Mid-year conference will be held in December or January Written summary of mid-year conference prepared by the evaluator

Procedures Evaluator and administrator agree on who will complete Leader Standards Survey Survey completed by April 1 Evaluator develops a composite of data from survey Administrator compiles student achievement data and progress on goals and submits to evaluator at least one week in advance of summative conference

Procedures Summative Conference Held during the summer (Superintendent and Board will hold a summative conference no later than June 15) All four components reviewed and discussed Initiate discussion of goals for the upcoming year. Evaluator completes Summative Evaluation Form and forwards to administrator within one week of conference

Waiver Process DPAS II features an annual process, but certain aspects may be waived for experienced educators whose performance is at least satisfactory. One year cycle for inexperienced administrators Two year cycle for experienced administrators whose performance is satisfactory

Waiver Year During a waiver year, the goal setting process and conference continue Evaluator and administrator meet at least four times over the two-year cycle Summer or early fall of year 1 for agreement on goals Mid year each year to discuss progress End of year 2 to for summative conference The Leader Standards survey is conducted in the spring of year two

Component Performance Levels Satisfactory Performance Clear and convincing evidence that the administrator has met established targets; Demonstrated flexibility in adapting to unusual circumstances; School leader know what to do and does it; Administrator understands the concept underlying the component and implements it well

Component Performance Levels Unsatisfactory Performance Little or no evidence of achievement of established targets Administrator does not yet appear to understand the concepts underlying the component and was unable to meet the established targets

Summative Performance Levels Effective Four satisfactory ratings among the four components Needs Improvement One unsatisfactory rating among the four components Ineffective Two or more unsatisfactory ratings among the four components

Pattern of Ineffective Administration Needs Improvement rating for a third consecutive year results in a pattern of ineffective administration Effective Ineffective Needs Improvement

Improvement Plan Developed when an administrator receives: An overall rating of Needs Improvement or Ineffective on the Summative Evaluation A rating of Unsatisfactory on any component of the Summative Evaluation

Improvement Plan Must include: Definition of specific deficiencies Measurable goals for improving deficiencies to satisfactory level Evidence that must be provided or behaviors that must be demonstrated Procedures for evaluating and documenting improvement Timeline Record of judgment and date completed

Development of Improvement Plan Expectation of mutual development Both evaluator and administrator complete a preliminary Assistance Plan Meet to bring two preliminary plans together into one final Assistance Plan If consensus cannot be reached, the evaluator will develop the Plan.

Appeal Process An administrator may appeal any rating on the Summative Evaluation, either a component rating or the overall rating Must submit additional information specific to the point pf disagreement in writing within 10 days If the differences cannot be resolved, the appeal is forwarded to the supervisor of the evaluator. If the Superintendent is also the evaluator, the appeal is directed to him/her The decision of the evaluator is final