Meeting of the Board of Regents | June 2010

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

 

To:                                             Higher Education Committee

 

From:                                        Joseph P. Frey

 

Subject:                                    Proposed Principal’s Performance Evaluation System and Feedback from the Field

 

Date:                                         June 4, 2010   

 

Authorizations:                        

 

 

SUMMARY

 

Issue for Decision

To review feedback from the educational community on a proposed Principal Performance Evaluation System (PPES) as defined in the draft Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders (attachment A) document developed by the School Leader Evaluation/Assessment Working Group and the General Advisory Group to the Wallace Foundation Grant: Building a Cohesive Leadership System (CLS) in New York State.        

 

Reason(s) for Consideration

              This proposal is consistent with the Regents Policy direction as set forth in New York State's round 2 Race to the Top application.

             

Proposed Handling

This item will come before the Higher Education Committee at its June 2010 meeting for discussion and approval of the guiding principles and required components contained in the Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders to serve as the basis for a Principal Performance Evaluation System.  The Principal Performance Evaluation System is intended to be the annual professional performance review for principals. Any principal evaluation system which is approved by the Board of Regents will have to conform with Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 in relation to the evaluation of teachers and principals.

 

Dr. Margaret Orr, professor of educational administration at Bank Street College and member of the General Advisory Group to the Wallace Foundation Cohesive Leadership System grant and Dr. Robert McClure, professor of educational administration at The College of Saint Rose and project director for the Wallace grant will be available to answer questions of the Regents regarding this item. Upon approval by the Board of Regents, regulations will be developed with input from the educational community and brought back for final approval in the fall of 2010.

Background Information

In February 2010, the Higher Education Committee reviewed the draft Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders document which was developed as a major initiative under the $3 million Wallace Foundation Grant: Building a Cohesive Leadership System (CLS) in New York State.  More specifically, the grant called for the creation of a "school leader performance evaluation" to be based on The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards, 2008, linked to meaningful personalized professional development focused on improving teaching and learning, administered locally and required through State regulations with the approval of the Board of Regents.  To guide the development of New York State's Cohesive Leadership System, the General Advisory Group was formed consisting of Department staff working in collaboration with national experts and representatives from the following grant partners:

 

• Collegiate Association for Developing Educational Administrators
• Leadership for Educational Achievement Foundation, Inc.
• Metropolitan Council for Educational Administration Programs
• New York City Department of Education
• New York City Leadership Academy
• New York State Council of School Superintendents
• New York State Federation of School Administrators
• New York State School Boards Association (added in year 2)
• Rochester Leadership Academy (added in year 2)
• Mid-Hudson Leadership Academy (added in year 2)
• School Administrators Association of New York State
• Education Counsel

Led initially by Dr. Joseph Murphy, a national expert on the design and construction of performance evaluations for school leaders, members of the General Advisory Group reviewed relevant research, studied evaluation models  and met with education department officials from states where principal evaluation systems have recently been implemented (Delaware, Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico).  Based upon the importance and enormity of the task as well as the need to involve both school and district level leaders in the conversation, a decision was reached by the General Advisory Group to create a School Leader Evaluation and Assessment Working Group to identify research-based design elements and components for a new school leader performance and evaluation system designed to increase the impact of school leaders on improving student achievement.  This group included members of the General Advisory Group as well as principals selected by their state organizations (School Administrators Association of New York State, and New York State Federation of School Administrators) and superintendents selected by the New York State Council of School Superintendents. 

As stated in New York's Race to the Top application: The PPES will be built upon the ISLLC 2008 standards and other research-based leadership standards and designed to differentiate principal effectiveness employing multiple measures.  To accurately assess a principal’s effectiveness as a school leader and ensure a sharp focus on the connection among strong school leadership, teacher effectiveness, and student achievement, the PPES will require:  (1) specific and measurable performance goals which address substantive issues identified through analysis of student achievement data and other factors that influence teaching and learning; (2) action plans that are based on a thorough understanding and application of relevant research and ensure attainment of goals; (3) growth in student learning and achievement; (4) feedback from multiple sources including educational stakeholders; and (5) identification of targeted areas for professional development and evidence of growth.  In addition, in conjunction with implementation of the new law, the PPES will include the composite effectiveness score gains for teachers supervised by each principal and the gap-closing performance of those teachers.

The group met over a 15 month span reaching consensus on the draft Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders which was presented for conceptual approval to the Higher Education Committee in February 2010 after which feedback from the educational community was sought through regional focus groups.  A total of 19 focus groups for school-level leaders (principals and  assistant principals) and 15 focus groups for district-level leaders (superintendents and assistant superintendents) were conducted  across the State to gather feedback on the clarity of the document and to determine its effectiveness in developing the capacity of principals to serve as instructional leaders focused on teaching and learning.  The complete focus group feedback from school-level and district-level leaders along with feedback received from other members of the educational community can be found in Attachment B.  Members of the General Advisory Group met in May to review the feedback, draw generalized conclusions and identify themes related to each of the four focus group questions.  This analysis is provided below.  Please note that minor changes in the wording of questions were made depending on the focus group session participants (school-level or district level leaders).

FOCUS GROUP FEEDBACK

Question #1: 

District-Level Leaders:  Which sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders, provide a framework for meaningful focus, direction and support to you in developing principals in your district as instructional leaders?

School-Level Leaders:  Which sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment for Educational Leaders, provide a clear framework for meaningful focus direction and support for you as an instructional leader?

Overall the responses from participants (principals and superintendents) indicated significant levels of support noting the following elements/features as helpful:

 

• flexible yet focused
• goal oriented
• collaborative in terms of process
• based on a positive philosophy vs. a deficit frame
• structured around meaningful work
• research-based (ISLLC)
• individualized
• focused on student achievement
• balanced
• tied to professional development

 

Question #2:

District-Level Leaders:  Which sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders, need to be clarified or modified in order to provide a framework for meaningful focus, direction and support to you in developing principals in your district as instructional leaders?

School-Level Leaders:  Which sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders, need to be clarified or modified in order to provide a framework for meaningful focus, direction and support for administrators as instructional leaders?

 

• explain that this is a framework or guide
• include money in RTTT to develop exemplars and online resources
• explain what the document is not
• better explanation of component 4 (Professional Growth) and component 5 (Personalized Professional Focus) is needed
• all five components may not be doable in a single year
• should explain whether this is a holistic or weighted model
• provide a link to ISLLC standards within the document
• Develop a Q/A document with input from the General Advisory Group
• Do not develop a resource guide (too prescriptive and could inhibit local flexibility/creativity) but do commit as a State to develop vehicles for districts to share lessons learned while the process is being developed
• model collaborative learning statewide by sharing resources and documents from all districts
• define what is meant by the terms "level, growth and equity " in student achievement

 

Question #3: 

District-Level Leaders:  What sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders, would be valuable/effective for your principals to use in evaluating administrators who report directly to them?

School-Level Leaders:  Which sections of the draft document, Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders, would be valuable/effective for you to use for the same evaluative purpose for leaders who report directly to you?

 

• provides a common language
• formalized approach
• goal-focused
• provides for system-wide alignment
• establishes clear expectations
• evidence-based
• applicable for multiple levels
• promotes growth and reflective practice
• uses multiple measures
• individualized and personalized
• collaborative ongoing conversation
• based on student achievement as important

 

Question # 4: 

District-Level Leaders: In using the draft document, Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders, as a framework for a locally developed evaluation instrument, what resources and support should be provided to ensure its success?

School-Level Leaders:  Same as above.

 

• training on coaching and mentoring
• webinars with information, exemplars, rubrics, models, etc.
• research, bibliographies available on-line
• an improved data system
• board of education training
• quality professional development for principals
• funding
• time and resources
• use existing infrastructure to support professional development
• vehicles to share best practice
• review on a cyclical basis to revise as needed
• explain how system will be evaluated

    

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Board of Regents endorse the Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders including the guiding principles and 5 components (Performance Goals; Student Performance; Feedback from Multiple Sources; Professional Growth; and Personalized Leadership Focus)  to serve as the framework for a statewide Principal Performance Evaluation System and direct the Department  to develop regulatory language with input from the educational community for adoption by the Board of Regents in the fall 2010.

Attachment A

Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders

 

•  Background and Purpose:

 

The New York State Education Department has embarked upon a comprehensive plan seeking to develop a Cohesive

Leadership System (CLS) by focusing on key leverage points that will prepare and support educational leaders throughout their careers:

• Improving pre-service leadership programs
• Providing high quality professional development for practicing school leaders
• Creating an educational leader performance evaluation system 
• Basing the above on the ISLLC Standards (2008)* thus strengthening the cohesiveness of the system 

 

A working group of principals, superintendents and district-level leaders were asked to address the third element of the CLS and design an educational leader performance evaluation system for recommendation to the department.  NYSED staff assisted in this process, along with an expert consultant** and the project director for the NYSED/Wallace Foundation Grant:  Developing a Cohesive Leadership System in New York State.  At the outset of the group's work, a number of Guiding Principles were identified upon which the performance evaluation will be constructed.  In addition to these principles, a number of important concepts and ideas were discussed and agreed upon. 

The first concept discussed by participants dealt with a strong interest in assuring that the professional assessment system would inform, and be informed by, the other elements of the CLS.  Thus, the system serves, in part, as a tool to identify where and how pre-service leadership preparation programs and professional development initiatives can be improved.    There was also a strong belief that the assessment system should be a team building enterprise whereby the evaluator and educational leader being evaluated form a strong bond focused on important work centered on student learning.  Additionally, the concept of collective efficacy, where all partners in the equation for student success commit to school and personal growth and understand that extraordinary results can be achieved only when  belief  in one another is embraced, should be advanced as the result of the evaluation process.  This would come, in part, by assuring that “lessons learned” are regularly and openly shared.  Lastly, while ISLLC Standards are the prevailing framework, attention to state and local improvement initiatives must be accommodated as well.

*Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC (Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium) 2008 as adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration on December 12, 2007. http://www.azedfoundation.org/ISLLC%2008.pdf   

** Joseph Murphy,  Frank W. Mayborn Chair, Vanderbilt University 

 

• Guiding principles:

 

The Foundation Should . . .     

• be based on state and national standards (ISLLC:  2008)
• be based on research, best practice, and experiential learning
• focus on the advancement of learning
• include indicators of student, teacher, and leader growth
• be evidence-based

 

The System Should . . .

• be applicable to all levels of leadership
• be flexible
• be based on multiple measures
• be sensitive to the diversity and the context of the school and district
• be clear and explicit
• be fair and reasonable

 

The Process Should . . .

• be a shared responsibility between the supervisor and the leader being evaluated
• include formative and summative assessments
• promote collaboration, ongoing communication, timely feedback, and trust between the supervisor and the leader being evaluated

 

The Outcomes Should . . .

 

• lead to professional growth and development of the leader being evaluated
• promote learning for all students
• be confidential

 

• Components

Educational leaders will be evaluated annually on basis of the following five components: 

Goals; Student Performance; Feedback from Multiple Sources; Professional Growth; and Personalized Professional Focus.  A description of each component is provided in the chart below.

 

Components	Description
Performance Goals	The selection of goals should take into consideration all aspects of a comprehensive school environment and provide a focus linked to established school and District plans designed to increase learning and achievement for all students. Goals should result from collaborative dialogue between the educational leader and his/her supervisor. Goals should be manageable in number. Goals should be specific and measureable. Goals should be prioritized to ensure they address substantive issues identified through a thorough analysis of data. Actions related to goals should be identified and implemented based on a thorough understanding and application of relevant research. Goals should identify targeted growth areas linked to the ISLLC Standards.
Student Performance	Student performance should be emphasized as a priority.   Evidence of data analysis should be demonstrated. Evidence of student growth/achievement should be derived from multiple indicators. Evidence of actions taken to address needs identified through data analysis should be demonstrated. Evidence of impact of actions taken on student growth/achievement should be demonstrated. Evidence of student growth/achievement should be based on evidence which answers the following questions:      What is the level of achievement? What is the growth in achievement? What is the equity in achievement across subgroups? Student achievement should be supported by actions tied to ISLLC Standards.
Feedback from Multiple Sources	Feedback from stakeholders in the educational process provides valuable information related to school improvement initiatives.   Feedback should be related to ISLLC Standards. Determining what feedback should be collected as well as how, and from whom (which stakeholders) should be based upon discussion between the educational leader and supervisor. Methods for collecting feedback should be designed to guide the school/district improvement process. Feedback should be used to develop relevant professional development and other support for the educational leader aligned with ISLLC Standards.
Professional Growth	Professional growth of the educational leader as demonstrated through actions and outcomes that impact student learning and achievement is an important objective of the educational leader evaluation/assessment process.   Supervisors should provide specific and timely feedback through regularly scheduled meetings and ongoing communication. Evidence of the impact of professional growth efforts should be demonstrated The educational leader should engage in personal and collegial reflective practice that promotes professional growth. The educational leader’s professional development and support should be differentiated based on need. Professional development for the educational leader should be identified through collaborative discussion with his/her supervisor. Professional growth should be tied to ISLLC Standards and built upon New York State’s Professional Development Standards.
Personalized Leadership Focus	The Educational leader will develop and demonstrate a level of expertise by targeting a single ISLLC Standard and concentrating on one or more of its related functions, The targeted ISLLC Standard and its related functions should be selected by the educational leader and shared with his/her supervisor. The educational leader and his/her supervisor will determine how acquisition of knowledge and skills will be demonstrated. The educational leader should provide evidence demonstrating acquisition, enhancement and application of skills/expertise to his/her supervisor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders

Focus Group Feedback

from District-Level Leaders

Background

A group of principals selected by School Administrators Association of New York State (SAANYS) and New York State Federation of School Administrators (NYSFSA) worked side by side with a group of superintendents selected by the New York State Council of School Superintendents (NYSCOSS) along with members of the State Education Department staff to develop an evaluation system for New York State principals.  A national expert facilitated the work of this group which led to the development of  the  Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders, one of the major elements  in the NYSED/Wallace Foundation grant:  Developing a Cohesive Leadership System in New York State.    

Focus Groups:  Purpose and Process

The Board of Regents and NYSED are  interested in receiving feedback from practicing principals, superintendents and district-level leaders regarding the draft  Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders before its adoption.  In order to gather this feedback, a series of focus groups were conducted throughout the state.   A number of Statewide professional organizations were also invited to provide feedback.  Results from the focus groups will be used to determine the clarity of the draft Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders and to determine if  it provides a framework for meaningful focus, direction and support in developing principals as instructional leaders.  Feedback from the 15 regional focus group sessions for superintendents (total participation 131) is provided in this document.   Questions were agreed upon by the State associations responsible for conducting the focus group sessions (SAANYS and NYSFSA for principals; NYSCOSS for superintendents).  Trained facilitators conducted the sessions and submitted feedback to their respective State organizations.  Feedback based on each question is provided herein.  Some minor editing took place for purposes of clarity (i.e. questions were re-worded as suggestions) and additional categories were created based on feedback unrelated to the focus group questions.   

Focus Group Process

The facilitator at each focus group followed the same procedures outlined below in order to ensure consistency across the state:

 

• A brief overview of New York State's Cohesive Leadership System was provided to set the context for where/how the Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders fits within the broader scope of the State's investment  in leadership development and support.

 

• Focus group participants were given time to individually review the draft Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders  as well as the focus group questions.  Participants also received a copy of the ISLLC Leadership Standards (2008) and the NYSED brochure, Developing a Cohesive Leadership System in New York State.

 

• The focus group facilitator sought reaction to question #1 offering participants the opportunity to share their thoughts.  A scribe kept a record or transcript of participant feedback.  Before moving to question #2, the scribe summarized the groups' feedback to confirm accuracy.

 

• Questions 2 - 4  followed in the same manner.

 

• A record of all focus group feedback was assembled by State Education Department staff along with a list of common or recurring themes that emerged.

 

• This information was be presented to the General Advisory Group* to the Cohesive Leadership System and to the working group of principals and superintendents who authored the draft Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders for their consideration prior to being presented to the Commissioner and Board of Regents.  

 

* The General Advisory Group is comprised of representatives of the following organizations who have provided ". . . general direction, input and feedback to the NYSED on the conceptualization and implementation of each strand of the Cohesive Leadership System."

• Collegiate Association for Developing Educational Administrators       
• Leadership For Educational Achievement Foundation, Inc.
• Metropolitan Council for Educational Administration Programs
• New York City Department of Education
• NYC Leadership Academy
• NYS Council of School Superintendents
• NYS Federation of School Administrators
• NYS School Boards Association
• School Administrators Association of New York State
• Education Council, Washington, DC
• Buffalo Leadership Academy
• Mid-Hudson Leadership Academy
• Rochester Leadership Academy

 

 

Feedback

Question #1: Which sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders provide a framework for meaningful focus, direction and support to you in developing principals in your district as instructional leaders?

 

• The four component areas are excellent, balanced, and more than a minimum for good skills
• Components 1, 2, and 4 were felt appropriately framed, with meaningful focus
• It is a solid framework that includes a system of support that we need to address
• goal-setting is important: most everyone uses it now
• All five Components of the Draft document are clearly stated.
• The Student Performance section is especially well developed and will be useful in supporting meaningful focus and direction is developing principals in my district.
• The student performance goals leave little doubt about the focus on instructional leadership.
• Each component is somewhat tied to the ISLLC standards.
• The use of multiple sources for feedback from stakeholders is a strength of the system.
• Thanks for including equity in achievement as that is often overlooked.
• The growth model of assessing student achievement is included and that is a positive
• focus is on achievement which is good, but also should focus on the human development …of both students and staff
• In Part III, Components, the Student Performance section is well defined and features the work Principals do in collaboration with the teaching staff.
• This allows for a very individualized approach to Principal development and assessment.
• It would appear that this document was developed from good solid research and best practice.
• A strength of this document is the opportunity for individual assessment and the review of the Equity in student achievement.
• This document allows for locally developed job descriptions for each school leader.
• This document allows for variances in the work of Principals at different levels of the education system.
• good process for having ongoing conversations about leadership
• collaborative
• measureable
• objective
• tied to priorities
• outcome driven
• emphasizes professional growth and development
• is personalized to the individual
• goal-centered
• the relationship between the principal and supervisor is collaborative
• consistent connection with the ISLLC standards
• comprehensive document, addressing all major categories
• concrete, useful for developing instructional leadership
• assessment is focused on school improvement
• limiting the number of goals helps to focus improvement efforts
• framework effective with novice and experienced principals
• covers district goals and personal goals for the principal
• contextual-not trying to make one size fit all
• tied to the common language of the standards
• good that it focuses on educational issues of student performance
• feedback comes from multiple sources
• allows for professional growth of the principal and is tied to the New York State professional development standards
• The focus on goal development within the first component, with emphasis on student performance, applauded
• Performance goals will continue to move schools forward
• An excellent framework for a consistent State-wide process for evaluating administrators.
• Good to require conversation between supervisor and educational leader:  Need to clarify what kind of “feedback” will be included. Who will collect feedback?  How do we ensure that it is being collected properly?  How will this data inform the leader being evaluated?  How will it impact the review process?
• Component #5, excellent…narrows the focus to standards;  Standards are very clear and relevant to the performance of principal
• Focus on student performance data is good
• Seems to be consistent with local district efforts to improve student achievement through effective supervision practices
• Has a formative, rather than a summative, orientation so that supervision is ongoing
• Can be made to fit in with board goals and objectives
• Can fit in with the shared decision making process
• Will drive differentiated professional development
• Integrates school and district initiatives
• Provides for multiple sources of feedback….part of the collaborative process
• Sets clear expectations for what should be done for principal evaluation
• Allows for local flexibility, assuming that the development of the evaluation instrument will be locally developed
• The framework helps to address that administrators get bogged down with day to day operations and duties that raise questions about how to stay current with research and literature.
• It is balanced with emphasis on student performance, data, and setting goals.
• The use of feedback from multiple sources is valuable.
• The section on professional growth is important and so is the emphasis on expecting a personalized professional focus.
• The components fit nicely with P-16 initiatives of SED, leadership academies, and connections with higher education (which needs a stronger connection).
• This question raised discussion about renewing certification as a means to encourage administrators to stay current with research and practice.  Renewing certification also helps when it becomes more difficult to justify funding for professional development.
• Like the goal orientation of the document
• Like targeting a single standard-allows for long term planning
• Section on professional growth is vital
• In using student performance there is evidence of "level, growth and equity"-this is good
• We are conducting evaluations now - we set goals and it’s very data-driven, so that segment is meaningful to us.  We have created our own school scorecard system.
• The part that’s least familiar to me is feedback from multiple sources.  I understand it but I don’t use it formally.  It is meaningful 
• Performance Goals:   Most vague section of the proposed component;  Important that it explicitly states that actions should only be taken that are “research-based” as opposed to what feels good and is comfortable;  Achievement of goals needs to be evaluated based on evidence
• Student Performance:  Important to be very explicit;  Good that it is data-driven, includes multiple indicators, and asks for the actions taken by the school leader to address the needs of his/her community of learners
• Professional Growth:  Issue of alignment – This cannot happen in a vacuum.  Must be aligned to student performance and tied to Component #3 Feedback from Multiple Sources;  If included, this should reference how principals’ growth area(s) are manifested in the school/student data
• Documentation could show growth over time as to the development or lack thereof of an individual and can lend itself to discontinuance/denial, 3020a, or extension of tenure
• Correlates to NYC DOE accountability tools:  Component of performance goals already being used with NYCDOE principals, specifically around student outcomes.  Student achievement captured through Progress Report.  Feedback captured through School Survey
• Appreciate that goals should be manageable in number
• Appreciate that in the preamble to #1 there is an emphasis on linking the goals to established school and district plans
• Appreciate use of multiple measures of student performance
• The goals, specifically Student Performance, are too open-ended but the superintendent has the ability to put specificity into it
• Leadership needs to be a priority to make a real difference
• This tool sets the right direction-provides the focus
• Coaching and mentoring will strengthen this process
• Professional development needs to be imbedded in its design
• The quality of "goal setting" will be the centerpiece of the rest of the process
• A system of this type should provide documentation and a portable record of past experience, professional development, etc.

 

Question #2:  Which sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders need to be clarified or modified in order to provide a framework for  meaningful focus, direction and support to you in developing principals in your district as instructional leaders?

 

• • Emphasis is needed on team skills of school leaders as they relate to being an             effective and contributing member of a district leadership team
  • The use of verbs with “#2 Student Performance” should be stronger. For example,    use of “must be” or “is expected” would be stronger than “should be emphasized” or            “should be demonstrated”
  • Be more specific with “Goals should be manageable in number”, such as 3 to 4 or 2               to 3
  • Use research to identify a workable number of goals and indicate if multiple years     can be used for attainment of some goals
  • Add examples for “multiple indicators”
• Clarify whether assessment and evaluation are the same thing
• will rubrics/evaluation tools be developed locally?
• can the same person coach and evaluate?
• definition of terms and language needs to be made more clear- e.g.; who are the stakeholders?
• What standards will be used to measure level, growth, equity, etc.?
• Performance goals of the principal should be linked to the district goals
• How would “demonstrated” be measured?
• The guiding principles need to be clarified further to improve the understanding of the importance of this assessment system.
• The guiding principles should provide more direction especially for negotiating with the administrative group
• Goals should be specific and measurable
• There are so many important variables involved in good leadership, such as strong interpersonal skills, and good communications skills that cannot be as easily measured; but these leadership traits must also be evaluated when assessing the performance of the school leader. There needs to be built into the Component section the opportunity to assess these traits
• Please include more flexibility and support for assessing multiple leadership traits.  If they are not specifically stated in the document the opportunity to negotiate assessment of these other leadership traits may be lost
• Include a statement such as “where appropriate and possible” in the Component #2 Student Performance
• Is the intention of this document to be applicable to school leaders responsible for the Special Education Programs of a District?  If so the ISLLC standards could/should be augmented by including standards from national organizations specializing in Special Education Leadership
• This document should detail the process and not identify tools
• The term Equity in Student Achievement” needs greater clarification
• There should be stronger connections with the components to the ISLLC standards. Why not have a Components section that more directly corresponds to the ISLLC standards?
• Please think about multi-year portfolios as a product of a body of work to be assessed
• Clarification of "multiple sources of feedback" is a must.  A better definition is needed here to ensure that this concept survives the collective bargaining process
• People misunderstand what school leaders do and feedback from multiple sources could be troubling when that misunderstanding is allowed to enter into the performance assessment of the principal
• I hope this process does not evolve into a weapon to be used against school principals
• The growth model in student achievement should be the emphasis of the student achievement goals and therefore should receive more focus in the Component section of the document
• There must be a stronger effort to ensure that students are learning at higher levels on Blooms Taxonomy such as synthesis and application. This must be stressed or it could easily be lost in the translation and negotiations at each individual school district
• Provide examples of multiple indicators
• There seems to be a hyper focus on test scores and the assessment of lower levels of learning that can easily be measured.  Please consider clarifying and or modifying the Student Performance section to include higher order learning. (One participant asked me to pass along this reference to be used in formulating any student achievement goals:  Catching Up or Leading the Way,  Yong Zhao
• Performance Goals:  Need to clarify and define language – for example:  What does “relevant” mean?  “Goals should be manageable in number” – how many?  How much does each goal weigh?  Need more specifics regarding content of the goals. 
• Goals needs to be substantive and complex in order to hold people accountable. Need to be a challenge to accomplish
• May be helpful to include a rubric as to what makes an effective goal – could help school leaders create goals
• Component #2 (Student Performance) is too vague – difficult to understanding key points of this component
• Important to focus on student growth more than absolute performance
• Clarify what is meant by “equity” – is this achievement of various subgroups in each district and school?
• Component #3: Feedback from Multiple Sources:  Need clarity here – who, about what, how collected.  Should be collected on an ongoing basis throughout the school year
• Component #5 – Professional Growth – Clarity on Who evaluates this and what is the evidence
• May need to include school leaders’ ability to develop teachers and develop curriculum 
• Need to include relevant weighting across the 5 areas
• • Give student performance (Component #2) the most weight – ensuring that students are progressing should be most important
  • Performance Goals (component #1)
  • • Only weight this heavily if there are clearly defined, measurable, meaningful goals – not if there are “fluff” goals
  • Feedback from Multiple Sources (component #3)
  • If kept, Professional Growth (component #4) should be 4th
  • If kept, Personalized Professional Focus (#5) should be last
  • Re-order components based on order of relative weight (so in order above)
• In the Professional Growth component change the “should” statements to “must” statements
• There needs to be a stronger link to the ISLLC standards than appears in the Component Section of the document.
• Clarify what the state role would be and what the local role would be in evaluating the school program and student performance
• Clarify where feedback will come from….this could be very dangerous…..who will actually be involved in evaluating the principal?
• The components of the evaluation system should be better connected
• Reporting requirements (if any) for districts should be identified
• What paper trails will document the usefulness and effectiveness of the principal evaluation system?
• Need to clarify ”growth of students” by using data, especially local data….and it will be critical to be able to get good data quickly
• The document/evaluation components are complex and not well defined
• how does this initiative fit with the Race To The Top process?
• need more field involvement to specify and communicate a clear system
• should the Personalized Professional Focus be limited to one standard?
• need more specifics on accountability especially as it relates to student growth and student results
• current statewide data system would not be capable of supporting the concept of student growth
• it is a major problem if teachers are going to evaluate principals
• The components need attention to a leader’s relationship with the community.  That relationship is important with driving initiatives forward and with minimizing distractions to the instructional program.  This area of leadership is more clearly addressed with the ISLLC Standards (See #4.) than PASEL
• The system needs to get at the capacity to be a change agent and to be resilient.
• • Under “Guiding Principles”, add state expectations for school and state             accountability
• Section 3 needs modification, removal or restructuring
• clarify the term "equity"
• Ability to work with parents is not mentioned at all
• Principals have to be able to work with others-those they report to and those who report to them
• Professional development should be termed "professional learning"
• It is not just about getting feedback but HOW the principal responds to the feedback
• The principal needs to be evaluated on supervision of teachers and responding to teacher  performance
• Nothing in the document about safety of students in the building
• Nothing in the document about emotional needs of students
• Nothing that looks at students developmentally
• Not enough emphasis on the principal as part of a team
• Need a component on the principal's evaluation of teacher performance
• Teachers evaluated only in terms of data-misses everything else
• This is laser like focus on scores-it is not relevant to many high performing districts
• It is a mixture of the what (the standard) and the how (how do you get there) which makes it unclear
• Need to operationalize the components
• The standards (ISLLC) are integrated and component 5 detracts from this (seems more like busywork)
• The Standards need to be a shared vision for all (currently a disconnect between superintendent, teacher and parent perceptions)
• Change does not make everyone happy and thus might influence the feedback received from multiple sources
• Suggestion made to use the Reflective Leadership Development Tool (RLDT)
• Sections 4 & 5 share common elements, both have to do with professional growth, and are not as discreet as the other sections.  The two sections perhaps could be combined or more clearly differentiated
• Component 1 should be widened to include Boards of Education as they develop goals for the year.  Often Boards go off on tangential issues, rather than school or student achievement improvement
• The alignment suggested in Component 1 should apply to all decision-makers in a school district
• Concern was expressed as to the definition of “equity” (What is the equity in achievement?).  Should it be defined at the local level or by a body of researchers?
• Component 3 was questioned as to its implementation.  Serious concern was raised as to the capability of obtaining comprehensive, objective, accurate feedback from multiple sources. Will this component be subject to collective bargaining? Will its final form be developed at the district level or will it be regulated (with concern that an SED regulation on feedback will not be in the best interest of school district governance)
• Component 3 should not be clarified beyond its current language.  Further stipulation would only limit implementation, rather than support it
• Component 3 has evoked great uncertainty as to its real life implications
• A suggested modification of Component 3 was to word it “Determining what feedback should be collected should be based upon discussion between the educational leader and supervisor.”  The current specificity interferes with flexibility important to local or individual circumstances
• Component 3 feedback should be directed to school performance, not the individual principal
• A proposed modification for Component 3 was to incorporate it as a subset within the other four, rather than have it as a stand-alone component
• Component 3 was viewed as polarizing, based on popularity rather than performance
• If the foundation of Component 3 is so compelling, where are current effective processes, tools, and rubrics?  Why aren’t they with us already?
• Feedback, as incorporated in Component 3, is a characteristic of evaluation, not a specific component
• A great concern for Component 3 is lack of expertise (or capacity) on the part of the supervisor to structure, assess, and present the feedback effectively
• From the contrasting viewpoint on Component 3, feedback on administrator performance was considered vital to the overall management of the complex set of relationships within a school environment.  A school could have satisfactory to excellent student performance, yet the relationships within the building could poor, if not detrimental 
• Component 5 is redundant, and unnecessary and could be incorporated in Component 4.  Its inclusion diminishes the importance of the other four components
• From a contrasting view, Component 5 seems to provide emphasis to encouraging each educational leader to develop expertise in a “specialty,” such as early childhood education
• Process is moving too quickly, especially without full understanding of the implications of the recently adopted teacher evaluation process and potential limitations on teacher evaluation
• The draft proposal does not incorporate a “common language” that effectively characterizes each of the components
• The definition of “value added” should be clarified.  Is it a “standards model?”
• The performance goals should be expanded to incorporate “student culture”
• Concern was expressed as to effective methodology for acquiring meaningful feedback
• The draft system seems more oriented toward formative rather than summative assessment
• The feedback component seems more oriented to giving everyone a “say,” rather than getting a temperature or perspective on how kids are doing  
• The feedback component should emphasize longitudinal comparison
• The confidentiality Guiding Principle is unclear as to its relation to the draft system.
• The proposed system does not seem equally applicable to varying categories of administrative positions
• It is difficult to discern whether the framework of the draft system is a minimum or maximum measurement
• Does the draft system have consistency with the 40%  student performance component of the teacher evaluation system?
• Is there sufficient substance to the system to make a difference?
• Is there agreement on what an effective principal looks like over the past ten years; over the next ten years?
• The Guiding Principles of applicability to all levels of leadership and flexibility are concerning.  Where is this system really going?  Will it change anything?
• Is the system equally applicable to tenured and non-tenured administrators? 
• There is concern that the draft system is too soft; not an effective tool
• What happens if the administrator is not meeting standards?  Does the system permit another year of development?
• The more closely aligned with the ISLLC standards the better
• The role of the Board of Education should be restricted to evaluation of the superintendent
• Focus on growth and equity of achievement; multiple indicators; evidence-based; actions tied to standards
• Component #3—need examples of types of feedback to be collected from multiple sources
• Background—elaborate on the meaning of collective efficacy
• Document should stress that use of technology is an expectation for principals
• Component #2:  Which data should be collected—only math and ELA, or a broader set of measures?  Need to specify.
• How are all the ISLLC standards woven into this evaluative framework?  Need to explain.
• Component #2:  Impending changes in SED regulations on teacher and principal evaluation will affect guidance on student performance data to be collected. Need clear differentiation between teacher and principal data to be gathered.
• The implication in Components 1 and 5 is that the principal’s supervisor knows good instruction.  This isn’t always the case.
• How this system is introduced to the field will be crucial.  Stress that this is a developmental supervision tool and not a “gotcha” evaluation instrument.
• Redundancy exists conceptually between Component 1 and Component 5.  Clarify or consider combining/consolidating.
• The order of components might better be:  Components 2 and 3 (Data Gathering), Components 1 and 5 (Goal Setting based on Data); Component 4 (Professional Development Based on Goals Established)

 

Question #3:  What sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment for Educational Leaders would be valuable/effective for your principals to use in evaluating administrators who report directly to them?

 

• • The evaluation system may not be as relevant for smaller systems in which     superintendents evaluate assistant principals
  • There is a question about how it might apply to teachers who have some         administrative duties
  • It might be important to use with a teacher who is on an administrative assignment               for one year
• Since we often view the Assistant Principal role as a Principal in training, this assessment system will be very useful for our Principals as they work to support the growth of their assistants
• The general consensus of this group of District Leaders is that the document will be useful for Principals in their supervisory role over Assistant Principals and others who may report to them in a leadership capacity
• This system and process will work for Principals assessing their direct reports only as well as it works between the Principal and the Superintendent.  If it is modeled well at that level it  has the opportunity to be effective at all levels in assessing school leaders
• This is an important but often overlooked area.  This document will emphasize that the principal is expected to comprehensively develop assistant principals and teacher leaders for building leadership with an emphasis on instruction and student achievement.
• Like item 1- most all of us use it
• Item 2- State must adopt a growth model before it can be used
• Item 3 is too cumbersome.  We can't spend everything on the data
• Items 4 and 5 are fine
• Limited resources have an impact (especially over the last 3 years), yet use of common standards and common language "gives us permission"  to get at what matters the most
• Though it says multiple measures we currently don't use very many
• This may produce an increase in student achievement initially but may not always produce collaboration and may promote competition
• Manageable specific goals are very helpful
• There is good alignment with ISLLC but not specific
• There was general consensus among the participants that the document could be a valuable tool for principals to use in evaluating administrators who report to them.
• Component 5- clarification on who chooses the targeted goal and how it is selected and shared is needed
• Component 4 and 5 seem much the same
• Overall not enough emphasis on ISLLC standard 2
• Not enough on the principal's role in creating a culture and how things get done in the building within that culture
• The politics of leadership is ignored, needs to be part of the plan, ISLLC 4 and 6
• It is biased toward school improvement
• Like the standard measure that the tool will offer
• All evaluations should be linked by a standard used by the district or beyond
• Hard to separate inputs and outcomes
• It will require different resources district to district
• The components of goal setting, using student data for evaluation, and multiple source feedback brings into the evaluation format something which is not done formally at all times
• goals should align with principal/building/district goals
• doesn’t apply much to small rural schools
• why does this system stop with administrators and not continue down to teachers?
• need to have same good characteristics as when the district office is evaluating the principal

 

 

Question # 4:  In using the draft document, Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders as a framework for a locally developed evaluation instrument, what resources and support should be provided to ensure its success?

 

• • BOCES can provide support
  • SED, NYSCOSS, and SAANYS should team on this
  • Webinars and videos will be helpful
  • A handbook of best practice will give support
  • NYSCOSS could use the Superintendents’ Resource Bank for queries and responses              on related questions
  • A uniform roll-out statewide is critical, so everyone in the state is at the same                                   place
  • The mid-winter institute (NYSCOSS) can provide presentations and break-out             sessions
  • Teams from NYSCOSS and SAANYS can provide on-site support like a helpline or       tech support
  • A list of districts that will share practices in a timely manner can assist other               districts
  • There should be a statewide survey after the first year to give guidance for the          future
  • A resource can be a publication of research based models or locally developed          models.  (Can Wallace assist here?)
• More flexibility on a year of instruction.  SED should mandate 190 days across the board.  It cannot be negotiated on a district by district basis. 
• Additional time needed for data analysis, board training and professional development
• We need a way of disseminating best practices in assessment and instruction
• State level work needs to come to closure including the data system . . . don't want to develop a new accountability system on such uncertainty
• Training for superintendents in the evaluation of principals and in coaching
• Funding for the program
• Training for Boards of Education-Boards must understand the clear direction of this initiative and the associated consequences
• Where is the culpability for Board and superintendents?
• Dire need for models to clarify how this will work
• Need for best practices
• Major need to clarify the process…..what is mandated….are teachers involved in evaluating principals?
• Need new principal induction programs
• Training and support programs for principals
• Need references for the research that supports the system-use a nationally based research structure
• Need for ongoing dialog with the superintendents
• Where do the principals and superintendents get the time to do this?
• Remove a lot of the other distractions and allow leaders to focus on what is really important
• Should be required training for all board members…NYSSBA could help
• Need for more concrete examples tied to the national standards
• Need for simulations and pilots to help people better understand how this is supposed to work
• Need for videos to show the field how this will work
• Develop a scale early and clearly lay out the measures
• Dire need for a structural model to bring the standards to life
• SED should develop a template so each district isn't developing its own
• We need to talk about the ISLLC standards which are somewhat vague
• SED should develop a framework for principals (of good practices) but provide for local flexibility
• SED needs to spend more time, develop more specifics
• SED should provide data analysts (people) so districts utilize information in the same way.  It now depends on the RIC, BOCES of district's individual resources
• Many districts do not provide professional development for administrators- they should
• It should be differentiated to meet particular administrator's needs
• Tenure should be extended to 5 years so they have time to grow
• Should have renewable tenure
• Principals should be 11 or 12 month employees
• Have SED offer professional development options through leadership academies (related issues identified: quality control and availability of  SED resources)
• Professional development being required for administrators (differentiated, through BOCES through cohorts, job-embedded)
• It is always helpful to have model evaluation systems available, and it would be good to have an electronic version that districts could edit for their use 
• It would be helpful to have a resource group  to answer questions and provide support.
• Skills necessary for effective implementation by the supervisor
• Recognized, effective feedback tools, processes, practices, or models
• Mentoring programs
• Approval of Professional Assessment of School Leaders by SAANYS
• Acknowledgement of the existing disparity among school districts in terms of wealth, socio-economic status, etc., which are beyond the control of the school leader
• Weight associated with each component
• Rubrics for each category
• Clearly articulated purpose directly from the Commissioner – help frame the conversation
• Build in opportunities for ongoing feedback from the superintendents and principals to the state about the evaluation system 
• Data gathering to inform trends and next steps around framework
• Redundancy throughout about the ISLLC Standards
• Last bullet in Performance Goals is the same thing as all of Component #5 Personalized Professional Focus:  Remove last two components (#4 and #5 about growth) altogether and just keep this bullet as part of performance goals or Combine standards #4 and #5 – not helpful as two distinct categories.  Individual professional growth should link to needed school’s growth (so can be linked to goals component).  If kept, component #4 should be driven by evident needs of school and embedded in student progress
• Please provide model for the Student Achievement Component.
• A Rubric would be helpful
• Provide research on the most effective professional development programs for teacher and school leaders
• Provide examples of multiple measures
• Strengthen the Guiding Principles section by providing the research that ties school leadership to student learning
• Provide best practices in the professional development of School Leaders.
• Identify Professional Development that works
• Give examples of 360 feedback processes that have merit and have been found to be useful. One participant asked me to forward this reference as a potential tool for 360 feedback:  Leadership Effectiveness Analysis from Management Research Group
• SED and the legislature must support the number of administrators needed to make this system work
• Colleges need to be held accountable that their program matches the standards and their outcomes are positive
• Is this the end of the state prescription or will the state be further involved as this system rolls out?
• Need a lot of support for mentoring/coaching principals with deficiencies
• Increase the number of training institutions or increase the use of technology in order to increase access to staff
• Where are the teeth in this system….where really is the accountability?
• Superintendents will need coaching support
• Clarify whether the superintendent’s evaluation is a part of this system
• Develop a visual representation of the relationship of the five components to one another
• It will take time for people to be good at this, especially for new superintendents
• Staff-schools are short staffed administratively, especially in small rural schools….in addition, administrators are currently being cut because of budget issues in schools
• The state has to commit to this direction for at least ten years but with constant massaging where needed
• Need to identify distinguished educators or retirees to provide support in this area
• Regents should recognize the role that BOCES can play in supporting this initiative and support the BOCES role
• Money is going to be needed for training, education, and support
• The state has to commit to providing feedback to the local districts about how this system is working
• We need time to engage in collective bargaining with our leadership units.  So timelines and deadlines will be important to be identified
• Ensure that the foundation/rational for this process and system is well articulated so that it is not subject to be watered down as it is translated into collective bargaining language across the state
• Provide a tool box of models and well researched instruments especially as it relates to feedback from multiple sources
• Professional development opportunities for School Principals should be linked to the efforts of the Leadership Academies
• Approval of Professional Assessment of School Leaders by SAANYS
• Knowledge, understanding, and incorporation of the assessment system within higher education preparation programs.
• Rural areas value on-line webinars for professional development(saves time/money from traveling distances.)
• Ensure admin. prep programs at colleges connect to SED focus
• It will be important for BOE’s to understand the new system. NYSSBA should clearly communicate this information to support local efforts.
• There is an overwhelming number of regulations, mandates, information from SED. Can the system be streamlined to make the information more easily accessed.
• Are there “good” evaluation models that relate to this assessment process now being used that districts can consider as boilerplates
• Can the BOCES be used to provide boilerplate models that make sense for their region?
• People really need to understand leadership standards before they can use this instrument effectively.  Additional background material about the ISLLC standards should be provided.
• SED should collaborate with other organizations like NYSCOSS and the NYS Staff Development Council in the “rollout” of this regulation.
• SED should expand mandatory school board member training so that Boards of Education will understand expectations for principals and teachers and play their role in supporting their development.
• SED should develop a guidance document so that supervisors know which data to gather (Components 2 and 3).  Examples of data collection instruments should be provided.
• There will always be tension between formative assessment for improvement and summative assessment for evaluation.  This should be acknowledged and clarified in the guidance document.
• A self-assessment of current district capacity to support principal development should be created so that districts can assess their readiness before embarking on the implementation of this system.
• Consider developing a rubric for each component so that supervisors across the state aren’t guessing about the intent of each component.
• SED should develop a website to supply guidance for the implementation of this system.  Include links to ISSLC, exemplary programs, etc.
• Specific funding such as Title 2 A should be earmarked for this program.

 

Additional Feedback:  The following  comments did not specifically relate to the focus group questions and thus are included here.  The headings were developed in order to group similar responses.

Design of the System:

• a growth (achievement) model must be adopted before principals can be evaluated on student achievement gains
• Relationships are critical to any system working
• Too prescriptive
• In applying ISLLC it has to be more than a checklist
• To whom does this document apply….principals, assistant principals, directors, coordinators, superintendents, CSE chairs, etc.?
•  It is quantitative-not qualitative
• Some principals need long term, multi-year goals-evaluation should not be an annual process but done over time
• Need to understand that the process cannot always be collaborative, especially when employment decisions come into question
• Component 4 (Professional Growth) calls for a lot of dialogue and review of PDP in a reflective manner more so than what is currently occurring in the field.  This is different from the current superintendent role in NYC – We would need to incorporate the role of the Network Leader to make this work in NYC
• Very vague language within draft framework – not very easy to read
• Would be difficult to rate school leaders using this current language (e.g., “measurable” in goals section should be defined and should reference specific data and percentages within each goal
• Does not include anything about parental involvement (or lack of)
• Don't like reinventing the wheel
• Should be tied to teachers-seems to be separate and belongs as part of larger picture
• Too much on ISLLC
• The standards seem to be a comprehensive refection of the expectations of a building leader. Base the new system more around the standards
• One year window is insufficient to mitigate a school improvement . . . to make meaningful change
• Not all goals lend themselves to “measureable”; include “evidence and “progress” for non-numerical goals
• Timing of evaluations....if goals are related to data, schools need test data results  from SED
• goals may be multi-year
• Are we missing a focus on instruction as part of principal eval. (i.e. promoting teacher improvement?)
• Time  (training and professional development) and costs for implementation
• It is another unfunded mandate
• Numerous cost and time issues
• Should include public presentations as a requirement
• Is this component solely evaluated on the state assessment, core areas and Regents? If this is the case, what will there be measures for achievement for lower schools?  Need to ensure that we do not leave out K-2 grades
• Need space for NYC DOE to define own standards of how to evaluate student performance

 

 

Purpose of the System:

• The real issue is RTTT
• Compare this to APPR- the difference is RTTT  
• Don't like forced issue
• We're already doing it
• Why is this happening now when so much more is happening in education
• May not encourage young administrators to stay in high need districts
• May hinder greater commitment from most giving staff

 

Considerations:

• Need to protect principals from being a scapegoat
• Interpersonal skills are critical in evaluation and professional growth of staff and principals. There needs to be some reference to this as a factor.
• Important to remember that success of students is defined by more than test scores.
• Does superintendent view results of feedback from stakeholders?

Component #3 is weighted 1/5 of evaluation? Not as important as other components. Can local decision re-balance priorities/weighting.                       

• Success or lack of success is the responsibility of everyone--not just the principal
• Feedback from multiple sources is a concern (it could empower individual points of view about the principal that may not be accurate)
• Principals may focus on things that can be easily achieved
• Item 3 . . . a 360 review would be too time consuming, ridiculous
• Engagement in meaningless activities
• There could be a loss of creativity
• There is no equity in school populations or in schools across a district
• Where will the money come from to support reporting, professional development, etc.?
• Too few managers and too many people to supervise
• Time lag that it will take for principals to work with staff to have student performance improve
• If administrators cannot use the teacher evaluation process to hone in on student achievement, how can the administrators be held accountable for student performance?
• Component #5:  Area of focus should either be selected by the superintendent. or agreed upon.  If the principal is at-will to select his/her own focus, it might be irrelevant to the needs/concerns perceived by the Supt. who is responsible for recommending tenure.

 

 

Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders

Focus Group Feedback

from School-Level Leaders

 

Question #1:  Which sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment for Educational Leaders provide a clear framework for meaningful focus, direction and support for you as an instructional leader?

 

• Section III.-Components are clear and concrete, but no steps or sequence given
• Good that it goes as a system –not an instrument.
• It allows for local flexibility.
• Value-added model
• Equity of achievement
• Performance goals-clear, concise-everyone needs to know and understand ISLLC Standards
• Guiding principles-foundation, system & outcome clear
• 1 & 5 clear and meaningful
• Professional Development for Administrators-Making sure this is provided
• Collaboration between supervisor and administrator being evaluated
• Provides a frame of reference, uniform set of standards-ISLLC Standards
• Focus on identified goals, performance goals
• Clear/concise
• Can take this document as is and utilize it
• Provide focused areas from which to base goals
• Personalized professional focus, individualized
• Suitable for both the new and veteran educational leader
• Starts with a positive philosophy
• Built-in flexibility, local initiative
• Feedback from stakeholders
• Concept driven
• Collectively working together, team-building perspective
• Strives for results
• Guidelines, yet flexible
• Common language, set of standards (ISLLC)
• Focus on student learning
• Evaluation process is ongoing, regularly scheduled meetings, ongoing conversation, regular feedback
• Inclusion of professional development
• Collaborative effort
• Focus on student achievement
• Liked that it was general in nature, gives latitude to usage, flexible
• Same parameters statewide for evaluating educational leaders, should possess the same skill set
• Section III, Component #1: good to set very clear performance goals
• Provides needed structure
• Helps both the evaluator and person being evaluated to know what the goals are
• Professional growth based on individualized needs
• Connection to the District goals
• #5 Personalized Professional Focus-clear, measurable expectations
• Project driven
• Collaborative efforts
• Specific performance goals
• Goals tied to student achievement (however what kind of student achievement: NCLB vs areas from disaggregated data at your school.)
• Professional development-to ensure professional development happens, tied to district goals
• Multiple source feedback
• Focus on student achievement
• Goal setting process based on real data

• Components
• Feedback of multiple sources is clear
• Professional growth – clear
• Personalized Professional Focus – clear
• Performance goals – the clearest of the 5

• Goals and what actions are you going to take.
• Document is focused on student learning and performance. Liked that this is a prime focus.
• Professional growth –Growth Model is the best for getting people to do things to improve.
• Like student achievement.
• Piece on goals is usable.
• Student Achievement is good too.
• Being an administrator is growth – professional development.
• Like that Professional Growth is there – if we need/want it – then we have to be able to get it.
• Personalized Professional Focus – like that a principal can make it part of their evaluation.
• Similar to teacher APPR process with the 8 criteria, but the admin 5 components are more general and are negotiable
• Component “2” item 2 – evident of effort is very appropriate
• Professional growth plans not common; as teacher APPR’s connect to student achievement, administrative decisions will change
• Current evaluation systems don’t help new superintendents to know their staff and many do not see their administrators often
• Performance goals help keep us focused. Acceptable request of all administrators
• Goals need to be clear and measurable
• Using achievement data to assess performance is okay as long as teachers are expected to do the same and the data is agreed upon
• Accepted concept of multiple sources of assessment as long as data is valid and represents a variety of input
• Would welcome getting feedback
• Liked targeted ISLLC Goals as a way of getting specific
• Would put pressure on schools to develop better goals
• All sections have elements of value that would improve student achievement & make sense.
• This should act as a framework for districts.

• Seems to be flexible to allow for local realities from size of district to financial resources to socio-eco status of pupil population
• Must be cooperatively developed
• Defines achievement broadly
• Performance goals are developed collaboratively, not generated by supervisor
• Brings evaluator closer to evaluated
• Provides opportunities for professional growth
• Gives leaders choice:  personalized growth
• Subordinate should learn from evaluator; Goes both ways
• PD is collaboratively decided on by parties involved.  Supervisor can recommend outside resource or subordinate may request specific resource/support
• Overall components are fine
• Might now assess/evaluate all aspects/responsibilities of an administrator/leader
• Allows for district flexibility
• Keep all 5 components, but clarify

 

Question # 2:  Which sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment for Educational Leaders need to be clarified or modified in order to prove a framework for meaningful focus, directions and support for administrators as instructional leaders?

 

• Clarification of multiple sources
• Background and Purpose is not clear
• Guiding principles need clarity
• Who collects evidence?
• Performance goals are more expansive than appear on paper
• Who in central administration will be responsible for collecting this info
• Question: #3 who collects feedback? How? To whom is it given?
• Question: Are all 5 components done yearly?  Realistic?
• Component “5” is confusing, is already in Number “1” – what is its purpose; out of synch ISLLC Standards
• Question: How will collaboration w/ higher education happen?
• Title of Document-“Assessment System”-change to “Guidelines for Education Leadership”
• Relationship between the ISLLC standards and the 5 components of the CLS unclear
• How will student performance actually be used
• Feedback from multiple sources, from whom? How will it be used?
• Process for gathering feedback in a fair and equitable manner
• Concerns about the misuse of multiple feedback, popularity contest/witch hunt, dependent on the climate in the community
• Where does this go if the assessment is not positive, idea of a TIP plan for the educational leader
• Disconnect between the goals of the district and the individual educational leader
• Implies everyone know the ISLLC standards, confusing, needs more clarification
• Refer to the ISLLC standards for goals
• How do you measure growth?
• Need for a rubric to help measure growth
• Plan for improvement should be linked to areas in need identified by the rubric
• Need to clarify the connection between component 1, performance goals and component 5, personalized professional focus-meaningful number of goals tied into the ISLLC standards, focus on a plan for improvement
• Should include specifics on the educational leader’s role in working with teachers to improve student outcomes and parent relations
• Clarify the phrase, “personal and collegial reflective practice”, perhaps should be self reflection
• Role of educational leaders in providing professional development
• Statute: “…will provide ongoing professional development…”
• Make sure that this process is not overwhelming, too time consuming
• Multiple sources of feedback, clarification of how utilized
• Connection between the ISLLC Standards and the 5 components lacking
• Use of student performance data
• Components 2, 3, 4, 5 in Section III Components need to be explicitly connected to Component 1 Performance Objectives
• Clarification of the type of measurable evidence needed to demonstrate professional growth efforts
• Whose responsibility is it to see that an educational leader engages in personal and collegial reflective practice? How is this documented?
• #3 Feedback from Multiple Sources - its use needs to be flexible based on the culture of the community, connection to professional development
• MUST be based on growth model not solely on proficiency
• Language lacking in professional collaboration
• Standard #5 ISLLC not evident (ethics)
• Standard #3 not evident (safety/management)
• Based on districts that are PLC oriented
• Can you differ on goals when you superintendent’s goals are directly tied to your goals
• Use multiple sources as not a separate component.
• What happens to non-unionized districts?
• What’s observable in this process?
• How can you move forward when you have a teacher’s union/teacher evaluation system that is preventing that?  Need meshing on all sides
• Very results oriented, but there is a skill set that is missing
• Where is the rubric
• Very vague
• Evaluative component criteria: not met/met/exceeded
• Is it weighted? Would not like one area to be more of an issue than another
• Locus of control? A process for making decisions
• Makes assumptions that things will happen that might no(accountability)
• Efforts vs.  improvement; relationship unclear
• If multiple feedback-how is this confidential
• Clarification of multiple sources
• Relationship between ISLLC standards and the CLS
• How will student performance actually be used
• Might not access all aspects/responsibilities of the job
• Feedback POSITIVE, specific, timely and valuable(not emphasis on the negative, stakeholders may have an “axe to grind”-you don’t make decisions that make everyone happy)
• Not multiple source feedback on the goals, but multiple sources to evidence/support goal
• Background and Purpose: “Additionally, the concept of collective efficacy, where all stakeholders, as defined by the local educational authority in the equation…”- unclear
• Guiding principles:
• The foundation should:  clear
• The System should:  Clear
• The Process:  Add respect for the process
• Include provide ample time for intended application
• Outcomes: Add bullet – result in reflective practice and continuous growth
• Components
• Goals are the results of collective dialogue……

Goals are manageable

Goals are specific

Goals are prioritized based upon substantive issues identified

Actions are based on thorough understanding……

Goals identify targeted areas

Remove the word “should”

• Terminology of “equity” is not stated in a way that makes intent, direction, etc. understandable
• Ok
• Ok
• Ok

 

• Outcomes that are student performance based – no focus on the technical problems of teaching
• Too much data emphasis, not enough on pedagogy
• Not designed to measure actual student outcomes
• Won’t change what we will do for kids; not a value added process
• Research example – growth model, coaching, Reading First in Florida – getting behind the classroom door – a slow move to better instructional models
• Do we know enough to coach out physics teachers?
• Goal setting ties to student achievement if it is academic – classroom focused
• Leaders need to have gone to the same trainings
• Leaders need to teach teachers  much as they come to us from college ill prepared

• Number of goals should be defined to avoid “unmanageable” number
• If we set goal with supervisor and there was no professional development associated with it, could we establish our own book studies, discussion groups?
• Will the state compare us to one another or are these goals within our own building and district?
• How do we ensure collaboration with supervisor, not dictation of goals?
• In small districts comprised of one school, it is scary to work with a superintendent who may not be “collaborative” in nature.  How can we work around this?
• Section #2-Student Performance

• What is the definition of student “growth”?  How will growth be measured, defined?

Section #3-Feedback from multiple sources

• Who determines the source(s)?  Are these people or achievement scores?
• Will district office administrators be held to same 360 feedback? If we are, they should be.
• Will teachers be held to same 360 feedback?  If we are, they should be.
• How will feedback be used?  Does administrator have to share feedback with supervisor?
• Will feedback be used to terminate an administrator? This is much more problematic in small districts
• Administrators need to be able to make tough decisions that benefit students without fear of negative feedback from teachers and staff
• What is the relationship of my performance to my supervisor’s performance?
• Political implications are significant       

Section #4-Professional Growth

• With failing economy, is providing these opportunities possible in all districts?
• Unless process and criteria are separated, document will be confusing to districts           

Section #5-Personalized Professional Focus

• Results/product and process seem to be melded-confusing
• Process can be problematic depending on supervisor and his/her attitudes/procedures/process
• Goals should come from front lines not be imposed from above
• • Focus must be on student progress, looking at the whole child not just one-shot test scores, socio-eco factors plus host of other variables
  • Concern about adequacy/accuracy of data collection systems
  • Context is key
  • Fear of data being used as a hammer
• Feedback
• • • Needs definition
    • Principals hired to be “change agents” not likely to receive positive feedback
    • Stakeholders need to feel empowerment but not part of a report card
  • Danger of leaders making decisions based on fear of negative feedback
  • Clarification on how student growth/achievement will be measured (for academic and non-academic classes non tested grade levels)
• How will students in different groups be measured, e.g.  students with disabilities, ELL’s
• What adaptations and modifications for individuals with disabilities
• Weighting: Will each component be weighted differently?  What happens if a weighted component is not met for 2 or more years?
• This proposal will have a big impact on LI schools.
• What about the resources to make this happen.
• Component 3 attempts to be clear, but it is not precise.
• Component 4 and 5 similar
• Component 5 must not be a 1 year goal – becoming an “expert” takes time
• No incentive to set higher goals because of fear of use as punitive instrument
• Who determines the professional growth
• Is student performance a certain level or growth over time?
• Background and Purpose is not clear
• Guiding principles need clarity
• Student Performance-needs more clarity
• Feedback from Multiple Sources-vague
• Personalized Professional Focus-vague
• Professional growth-vague
• Goals need to be manageable and limited number
• We need to identify what data will be looked at?
• Will the state assessments be used for this data – a flawed system – or will local assessments be used – will NYSED dictate?
• No consistency in the value added piece – or what model is used
• Different curricular, standards across the state need some common understanding
• Need fair measurements – growth model or achievement model - ? a local decision, mobility, ESL;
• Components “2 & 3” more problematic because of dependency on relationships with others – do you trust your district? – documents will vary dramatically – district to district.  This will not bring NYSED more consistency should this be more specific with more input from the State or more open for the district
• Component “3” could be problematic dependency on how fair and appropriately the feedback is collected
• What if the growth will take multiple years – is that a local decision?  Is this a one year plan?
• It is too long, too much if admin are expected to complete every bullet in every component – very time consuming, tedious; looks like another system to feed, manage
• Some superintendents will love it, other won’t; some will make it easy, and others more work.  Superintendents will not all take the same time to make this happen
• The trust piece is huge, as is the philosophy of the superintendent – who will define equity? – will this model force a comparison of other school district – what data will we use to measure
• Not really connected to ISLLC standards
• Must be flexible to allow for local realities from size of district to financial resources to socio-eco status of pupil population
• How measure professional judgment?
• Who/what/whom evaluates you?
• Timeline for assessment – “tenure”
• Supportive or evaluative?
• Reported to whom?
• “Flexible” & “explicit” seem contradictory
• Clarify/distinction between 4 & 5
• Clarify multiple sources
• Background and guideline principles are valuable sections but need clarity

Process – remove all “being evaluated” phrases

Outcomes – remove “being evaluated”

• Components – Bullet 1 and 2 are valuable but need clarity and bullets 3 – 5 valuable and clear
• What about superintendents, assistant superintendents, ASI’s ? AD’s ? Consensus is “YES” for ASI’s, more mixed for others – It makes sense to be aligned, have continuity – but as Board sets goals for districts that become goals for superintendent that become goals for admin it could be a problem --- board goals vs. district goals vs. super/admin goals – these should all fit – but may not
• Components have a what and a how – a clarification of these is needed; ISLLC Standards are clearer than the components – how will we evaluate on the standards and the components?; make the components more succinct
• Remove sentence 1 under Component III – “Leaders will be evaluated…”
• How to negotiate goal setting between principal and AP
• How to provide evidence that ISLLC standards have been met?
• Who selects the correct standard for supervisor?
• Weighting is key
• How much growth, percentiles to measure
• Who determines goals?
• Fair & reasonable-clearer definition
• Background and Purpose is not clear
• Guiding principles need clarity
• “Education Leader” – right now it seems to be just principals but must apply to all education leaders

 

 

Question #3:  Which sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment for Educational Leaders would be valuable/effective for you to use for the same evaluative purpose for leaders who report directly to you?

 

• Section III, Component 1: just concentrate on one goal annually-5 is a lot!
• Components #4 & #5 seem most helpful
• Section II gives them good background, but what does “confidential” mean?
• Performance goals
• Personalized professional focus
• Student performance
• Gives their job description/definition
• Could use for dept chair, assistant principal-All are very transferable
• Formalizes Process
• Focus on reflection and improvement
• On-going conversation
• Can help direct professional development
• Student performance piece
• Professional growth
• Develops a common language, familiarity across the state, nation
• User friendly
• Timeless, qualities of any educational leader during any time period
• Begins with the end result in mind, what needs to be accomplished
• Clear expectations, goals, measures of accountability
• Supportive data
• Evidence revolves around student data/results-goals/process
• Aligned with contractual language
• Provides professional development to meet the needs in identified areas of weakness
• Differentiation of professional development according to the needs of the individual
• Focused approach
• Individualized/personalized
• Provides a framework to start with, especially helpful for new administrators
• Focus is on the individual needs of the educational leader
• Clear goals helpful for evaluating
• Keeps the evaluator focused on the agreed upon goals
• Provides different ways to document growth and professional development, i.e. portfolio
• Transparent process
• “KISS” principle
• multiple sources of feedback
• gives a formalized process
• helps focus on reflections and improvement
• provides forum for on going collaboration, rich/deeper conversations
• can help direct the professional development that is offered
• evidence based, measurable quantitative/qualitative
• engaging in teaching process yourself (mentoring process)
• Individualization for person and building
• Growth more valuable than achievement
• Specific and timely feedback
• Supervisor accountability, develops an understanding of what the expectations are

• Background and guiding principles are valuable sections
• Components – all 5 have value but need clarity

• Components #4 & #5 seem most helpful
• Section II gives them good background, but what does “confidential” mean?
• Performance goals
• Personalized professional focus
• Student performance
• Seems to imply that this is how you move to next level
• Current format says all are responsible for student achievement
• Forces conversation on goals and specifying responsibilities
• Does provide a structure for supervision-may help clarify chain of command
• Implies goals are linked to long term plans of district.
• broadness (encompasses many roles)
• Component number 5 is useful – helps to narrow the discussion
• Information makes it more productive.
• Whoever you are supervising – like that you can discuss goals and can point goals out to them.  You can say “You need to work on this.” etc.
• Need multiple measures.
• Appropriate and valuable for use with direct reports-yes this will work for us to coach those who report to us.  More regular contact is better– within buildings – central office with multiple direct reports would be more problematic – especially with regard to student achievement

• A supervisor of 20 schools has less direct impact – again student growth – an issue – the other components would work better for district level administrators

• Appropriate for assistant principals, person in an administrative position
• Student Growth, Professional Development, Setting Goals sections may be applicable for department chairs

• Most principals can put in place a system to rate assistant principals
• Differentiation based on experience
• Works better in school than between Supt and Principal
• Vision – mission

• A lot of this is not easily quantifiable
• Data/criteria can be different, depending on role

 

Question #4:  In using the draft document, Professional Assessment for Educational Leaders as a framework for a locally developed evaluation instrument, what resources and materials would be needed to endure its success?

 

• Will there be an evaluation of this process? (There should be)
• Time & training for data analysis & usage
• Student data gathering & sharing is tricky to link to leader effectiveness
• Legal fees to resolve differences
• Networking w/ local agencies/advocacy groups (ex: CASDA)
• Time frame for full implementation
• Educate all stakeholders to standards & process
• Time-when will all components be addressed
• Time line for implementation
• Funding for training & mentoring for this process
• Professional Development-for everyone
• Model documents-rubrics, framework, benchmarks
• Training for School Boards
• Time needed
• Meaningful professional development, based on the individual goals of the educational leader
• Examples of assessment instruments
• Rubric
• Professional development training on the ISLLC standards, use of the document
• Developing a rubric
• Samples of an evaluative instrument
• Financial support
• Ongoing professional development support through such things as mentors, Leadership Academies, BOCES, legislation which mandates this support
• Superintendents need training also on the use of this process
• Make the documentation piece of the process more manageable by the use of MY Learning Plan
• Provisions for professional development, funding, specific to the assessment process
• Samples of assessment instruments, use of rubrics
• Go through this process for several years, then open it up for a revisit/tweak it as needed
• Extensive bibliography needed including research articles, books on educational leadership, highlighting the positive impact that these types of assessment systems play on improving student achievement
• Resources on how to use this type of document, incorporating this into an evaluation instrument
• Importance of ongoing dialogue among educational leaders on this topic
• State Ed. needs to facilitate quality professional development
• SED needs a reality check on what leaders do
• Provide cost effective professional dev.
• Data training
• Make data more accessible and user friendly
• RUBRIC:  examples needed of the evaluation tool
• More hours in the day/more days of the week!-restructuring of the school year
• Distance learning opportunities (due to state cutbacks these are needed to offer the same learning opportunities from programs that had to be cut)
• Better leader to student to teacher ratios
• Better, more reliable student growth orientated data starting with SED
• Demographics of the community with regard to student issues/achievement considered and examples on how to equalize
• Statewide in-service for all participants
• A process to ensure consistent implementation
• Funding for leadership academies, assistance for superintendent’s who will have to evaluate all educational leaders
• Professional organizations needed to help
• Specific professional development in the area
• Funding
• Creativity-PD, on line learning, webinars
• System within the system: built-in, effective support (what if you don’t meet the goal?)
• Administrative mentor program
• Administrative partnering (a team to bounce ideas)
• System for goal setting

• Conference – pertinent to assessment system
• Phase-In of the assessment system
• First phase - Orientation, all leaders; training and modeling of process
• Second phase – 100 % implementation and identification of start date
• On-going support for application and accountability
• Revision and updates of the plan
• Professional development for stakeholders – shared decision and awareness of new system
• Technology – software, hardware, training and tech support
• Time – effective timeline for implementation and effective timeline for professional development
• On-line clearinghouse – professional resources
• Financial assistance for presenters, materials, professional development library and substitutes as needed
• Regional BOCES better connected to local school districts
• Professional portfolio system statewide for assessment tool, evidence of goals, staff development and educational coursework
• Money for retreats/professional development
• Access to quality staff development
• Sustained and consistent application throughout administrative team
• Time
• Share best practices – what’s happening in other districts?
• Buy-in/collaboration from all
• Training for stakeholders (PTAs, etc)

• Educate all stakeholders to standards & process
• Time-when will all components be addressed
• Time line for implementation
• Funding for training & mentoring for this process
• Professional Development-for everyone
• Model documents-rubrics, framework, benchmarks
• Training for School Boards
• Rubrics under each goal(s)-Sub-group sections: good, great to excellent
• Mentors must be trained
• Training on how to evaluate
• What are examples & parameters to use this
• Obligation of district to provide professional development and mentoring for administrators
• State must provide the means $ to provide professional development and support to make this work
• SED must be required to provide the means (data) in a timely manner
• Equity of resources to make this real
• Evaluation has to be set in a context (BOE climate, # of times evaluated, resources committed)
• Context is considered (#1).  (#3) context embedded
• Needs to apply to all levels;  this is implied
• Where is the training for BOE to understand this-needs to happen
• Time to work out ‘bugs’.
• Need to be clear especially if this is statewide.
• We don’t need to be the same but we need to be consistent.
• Needs to be   date for full implementation.
• Time to implement.
• Time for professional development – want it available.
• Time to collect data, etc.
• Time to produce evidence.
• Data- we need flexibility about what we use to evaluate –state/local.
• Need different forms of data – not just testing.
• Student Growth –growth model needed
• Need support from Superintendents.
• Need support for collaboration from the Superintendent.
• Guidance Document?
• Need samples, models, technical assistance.
• Training – BOCES, Implementation Meetings?
• Professional Development needs to be available and supported.

• Money for PD is scarce; funding needed
• Ability to get out of the school is important
• Unfunded mandates need to be taken off the plate
• Strong superintendents with coaching skills important

• Resources will be lovely concept, we will not have them
• Leaders will not, cannot get out of their buildings-fix that
• SED must fund this – regional opportunities on how to implement and on how to understand; recognize  SED can promote the adoption of this if they provide resources, training
• True coaching needed - - need to help leaders learn to do this
• High stake decisions on home-made models much more support needed
• Superintendents, assistants will perceive the process differently
• Funding for professional development must be equitable in all districts
• Administrators from districts with a wealth of professional opportunities may be able to better implement improved student achievement
• Time needed to design an effective tool, training supervisors, & carryover into districts will be a major factor.
• Examples of other assessment systems ( i.e. Chicago)
• Mentoring of new administrators is desperately needed.
• There is a mindset change regarding the principal’s role as an instructional leader that must take place in Superintendents
• Principals’ time in the building must be respected.  Avoid pulling them out of the building for various meetings.
• Teachers & administrators must have training in the data collection process in improving student achievement.
• Data regarding professional development of individual teachers, administrators must be focused on student achievement and tracked in the district. 
• How can we streamline the record keeping of various data (professional dev., student achievement, etc?)

• Clear, consistent realistic and attainable expectations
• Legal resources (Help w time spent on mandated reporting, compliance issues)
• On-going professional development (pre-implementation and continuing support)
• Resources and PD should come from other than management
• Where is parent accountability?
• Will principals be provided with more support to remove non-performing staff?
• Where is the time for PD? Distractions!!
• Superintendents:  Ratios of Superintendents to principals not equal across the state – How can a Sup w 50 schools provide same support as one with 7?
• Rubric, guidelines, must be flexible!
• Money for PD, books, conferences, etc.
• Lack of collaboration between superintendent and principal is a problem; usually better between principal and asst. principal
• How objectify/rubric PD growth?
• Reasonable financial support to implement PD

• State reporting needs to be in concert with these measures of administrative effectiveness.
• Could provide examples overall

• Principals cannot get out of the building. Need more flexibility

• need money and support

• We need more sophisticated systems for consistent data collection
• Performance components do not match a coaching model – appears to be an accountability model more than a growth model – groups sees the teacher APPR model as an accountability model as well – Isn’t the district entitled to hold it’s  admin accountable, as we want to do with teachers – How will we write a document that uses the components to enforce the guiding principles of the ISLLC Standard 2 complex documents – We will need an example to understand how to do this

• Availability of funding for professional development

• Assumes superintendent is proficient in using data to effect change; needs to support others
• Time to collaborate

• PD-$, quality, access, time??
• Affordability of professional development

• Knowing and understanding ILLC Standards
• Practice
• Sample time line and documents
• Examples of multiple sources

• There needs to be a framework & exemplars and defined criteria for implementation or people will be all over the place in the process

• What support will SED provide to help districts make this happen?

• New superintendents need mentoring in skills necessary to effectively lead a district.
• Word needs to get out to Superintendents that this is a collaborative effort that requires quality interpersonal relationship skills.

• Superintendents need effective training in the coaching process

• How are superintendents & “supervisors” being trained to ensure effective, professional, meaningful evaluations will take place?
• Exemplars needed in every area of the process
• Need training on use of data
• Mentors/critical friends
• Examples of various components
• Don’t want rigid guidelines; needs to fit your situation and district

 

Additional thoughts/concerns:

 

• Balance between supervisor and evaluator
• Building academies
• Universal thinking from administrators nationally

• Open ended system? Benchmarks?
• Things making this job difficult (reality check)
• BUDGET (cutting staff and programs are hurting kids)
• Punitive effect of schools that need improvement
• Resources should not be driven by those in need of improvement
• Where do Academies fit into this process?
• If not a low-performing school/district, these Academies may not be available
• This is a guide that each district would use to design its own evaluation tool.  How do we ensure consistency, equity? 
• Will SED have access to evaluations?
• What part of the overall evaluation score will be about student achievement?
• What will overall evaluation look like – narrative, scale?
• Will the Board of Education have access?
• Are evaluations FOIL-able?
• 360 evaluation must be carefully defined and thought out
• It will be too easy to take the ISLLC standards and cut and paste and say here’s our evaluation tool.
• How will this affect morale?
• Administrators’ bargaining unit should have shared input.
• Is the implementation of an administrative appraisal tied to state/federal funding?  If so, there will be pressure in some way, shape & form for administrators to comply.
• What happens if districts do not implement this?
• How is SED planning to monitor this process?
• Have they looked at Chicago public schools (Arne Duncan) as a sign of what is on the horizon?
• How are superintendents & “supervisors” being trained to ensure effective, professional, meaningful evaluations will take place?
• This can be a tool of growth if used correctly or a tool of torture if misused.
• If increased student achievement is the goal, let that be our one goal.  Let us, as professionals, decide what the tools are that we need.
• Student data gathering & sharing is tricky to link to leader effectiveness
• Professional growth may cost money & may be one-sided views
• We cannot guarantee improvement in school leadership if left to local decisions a lofty goal
• This is about half of what our school presently does:  - change takes time – low student achievement is slow to move  - comparing a school to others may always be negative if the gap is large  - how do you attract new administrators to a small city school

• Phrasing of Focus Questions is directed towards a positive response – doomed to success

• Could create much more work
• We hire administrators without enough, or good, teaching experience
• Leaders need to know what is going on in the classrooms-we need to see it happening and also need to manage
• Success in life not based on how many students got a 3 or 4-are we preparing them for the global world (i.e.-technology, bi-lingual at early levels)
• Budget cuts might impact student performance/achievement make sure the system accounts for the resources available

 

New York City Department of Education

Superintendent Feedback on Proposed Statewide Evaluation System

May 6, 2010

The NYC Department of Education convened a group of NYC superintendents to provide feedback on the proposed Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders.  A summary of trends is included below.  The actual feedback is included on the following pages.

Summary of Feedback

 

• Language is very vague throughout the document.  Language needs to be defined and clarified in order to make this a useful tool.

 

• Agreement that the focus on student performance is critical.  This component should be strengthened so that it is less vague or ambiguous.  Clarify focus on student progress in addition to absolute performance.

 

• Agreement that student performance, performance goals, and feedback are the most important components in this framework.

 

• Components 4 and 5 (focus on professional growth) seem redundant
• • Suggestion to remove these categories altogether, as growth can be included based on the last bullet in component 1 (under performance goals)
  • If the framework keeps a growth component, then merge components 4 and 5 into one category.  Ensure that professional growth is aligned to student performance and student data.

 

• Include weightings across the 5 components.  Re-order the components based on relative importance and weight.  Suggested weightings/order of importance include:
• • Student performance – give this the most weight because ensuring student progress is the most important
  • Performance goals – but this only works if there are clearly defined, measurable goals linked to student achievement
  • Feedback from multiple sources
  • If kept, Professional Growth 
  • If kept, Personalized Professional Focus

 

• Superintendents rated the current framework (without any of the suggested changes) on a scale of 1-5 with 1 = very ineffective and 5 = very effective
• • Two “2’s” – ineffective
  • Two “3’s” – neither effective nor ineffective
  • One “4” – effective but could use improvement

 

Contextual and Clarifying Questions/Thoughts

• Will this be a second kind of review or incorporated with our NYC review?  Principals would be crazed if there were 2 assessments (one using the city framework and another using the state framework).
• Some of the key components seem very similar to NYC’s system except this also includes professional growth.
• Prefer NYC DOE School Leadership Competencies to the ISLLC Standards
• Good that this is also applicable to APs

 

Very briefly, what were your initial reactions to/impressions of the proposed statewide professional assessment system?

• Correlates to NYC DOE accountability tools
• • Component of performance goals already being used with NYCDOE principals, specifically around  student outcomes
  • Student achievement captured through Progress Report
  • Feedback captured through School Survey
• Very vague language within draft framework – not very easy to read
• • Would be difficult to rate school leaders using this current language
  • E.g., “measurable” in goals section should be defined and should reference specific data and percentages within each goal
• Does not include anything about parental involvement (or lack of)
• Component 3: Feedback from Multiple Sources
• • Good to require conversation between supervisor and educational leader
  • Need to clarify what kind of “feedback” will be included
  • Who will collect feedback?  How do we ensure that it is being collected properly? 
  • How will this data inform the leader being evaluated?  How will it impact the review process?
• Component 4: Professional Growth
• • Calls for a lot of dialogue and review of PDP in a reflective manner more so than what is currently occurring in the field
  • This is different from the current superintendent role in NYC – We would need to incorporate the role of the Network Leader to make this work in NYC

 

Which sections/portions of the draft document, Professional Assessment for Educational Leaders:

… provide meaningful focus, direction and support for you in developing and evaluating principals in your district as instructional leader?

 

• Component #1: Performance Goals
• • Most vague section of the proposed components
  • Important that it explicitly states that actions should only be taken that are “research-based” as opposed to what feels good and is comfortable 
  • Achievement of goals needs to be evaluated based on evidence
• Component #2: Student Performance
• • Important to be very explicit
  • Good that it is data-driven, includes multiple indicators, and asks for the actions taken by the school leader to address the needs of his/her community of learners
• Component #4: Professional Growth
• • Issue of alignment – This cannot happen in a vacuum.  Must be aligned to student performance and tied to Component #3 Feedback from Multiple Sources 
  • If included, this should reference how principals’ growth area(s) are manifested in the school/student data
  • Documentation could show growth over time as to the development  or lack thereof of an individual and can lend itself to discontinuance/denial, 3020a, or extension of tenure

 

… need to be clarified or modified in order to provide meaningful focus, direction and support for you in developing and evaluating principals in your district as instructional leaders?

 

• Component #1: Performance Goals
• • Need to clarify and define language – for example:
  • • What does “relevant” mean?
    • “Goals should be manageable in number” – how many?
    • How much does each goal weigh?
  • Need more specifics regarding content of the goals
  • Goals needs to be substantive and complex in order to hold people accountable
  • • Need to be a challenge to accomplish
    • May be helpful to include a rubric as to what makes an effective goal – could help school leaders create goals
• Component #2: Student Performance
• • Too vague – difficult to understanding key points of this component
  • Important to focus on student growth more than absolute performance
  • Is this component solely evaluated on the state assessment, core areas and Regents?
  • • If this is the case, what will there be measures for achievement for lower schools?  Need to ensure that we do not leave out K-2 grades
    • Need space for NYC DOE to define own standards of how to evaluate student performance
  • Clarify what is meant by “equity” – is this achievement of various subgroups in each district and school?
• Component #3: Feedback from Multiple Sources
• • Need clarity here – who, about what, how collected
  • Should be collected on an ongoing basis throughout the school year
• Component #5 – Professional Growth – Who evaluates this and what is the evidence?
• May need to include school leaders’ ability to develop teachers and develop curriculum 
• Need to include relevant weighting across the 5 areas
• • Give student performance (Component #2) the most weight – ensuring that students are progressing should be most important
  • Performance Goals (component #1)
  • • Only weight this heavily if there are clearly defined, measurable, meaningful goals – not if there are “fluff” goals
  • Feedback from Multiple Sources (component #3)
  • If kept, Professional Growth (component #4) should be 4th
  • If kept, Personalized Professional Focus (#5) should be last
  • Re-order components based on order of relative weight (so in order above)

 

Is there anything that you would remove?

• Redundancy throughout about the ISLLC Standards
• Last bullet in Performance Goals is the same thing as all of Component #5 Personalized Professional Focus
• • Remove last two components (#4 and #5 about growth) altogether and just keep this bullet as part of performance goals OR
  • Combine standards #4 and #5 – not helpful as two distinct categories
  • • Individual professional growth should link to needed school’s growth (so can be linked to goals component)
    • If kept, component #4 should be driven by evident needs of school and embedded in student progress

 

In using the draft document, Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders as a framework for a locally developed evaluation instrument, what resources and materials should NYSED provide to ensure its success?

• Weight associated with each component
• Rubrics for each category
• Clearly articulated purpose directly from the Commissioner – help frame the conversation
• Build in opportunities for ongoing feedback from the superintendents and principals to the state about the evaluation system
• • Data gathering to inform trends and next steps around framework

 

Based on our discussion and your review of the proposed framework, how would you rank the framework on a scale of 1-5 (1 = very ineffective, 5 = very effective) as they stand today (without any changes)?

• Two “2’s” (ineffective)
• Two “3’s” (neither effective nor ineffective)
• One “4” (effective but could use improvement)

 

 

 

 

TO:                    Commissioner Steiner, Senior Deputy Commissioner King, Deputy Commissioner Frey

FROM:              Amy McIntosh

CC:                    Robert McClure, John White, Tracy Breslin

DATE:               May 12, 2010

RE:                     New York City Department of Education Feedback on the Proposed Statewide School Leader Evaluation System

Thank you for providing the NYC Department of Education with an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed statewide Professional Assessment System for Educational Leaders.  We appreciate the desire to create a robust and rigorous statewide evaluation system for school leaders.  We especially appreciate that the framework includes student performance data as a key criterion for principal evaluation, and that this section includes references to absolute performance, growth, and equity.  This is critical in order to ensure that we hold each and every school leader accountable for student achievement and outcomes.  We also applaud the fact that the system would apply to all school administrators and, as such, could strengthen what all school systems do to evaluate both principals and assistant principals.

To further strengthen the proposed framework, we recommend the following:

 

• Alignment with Race to the Top Proposals – This proposed framework is not consistent with proposed bills or Race to the Top plans.  Align this framework by including a four-point rating scale, mandatory weightings of components, value-added growth models, and other critical components.
•  
• Differentiated Rating Categories – Build off of the strong foundation recently negotiated statewide for teachers, and include a mandatory four-point rating scale (highly effective, effective, developing, and ineffective) in order to differentiate performance.  Set minimum required student performance and growth floor percentages for each rating category so that, for example, a school leader cannot receive an effective rating if student growth is less than X in a given year.
•  
• Student Performance – Strengthen this section by including a clearer focus on student growth in addition to absolute performance and clarifying exactly what should be evaluated. 
• Change the headline from “Student performance should be emphasized as a priority” to read “School leaders will be evaluated based on concrete evidence of student performance and progress using state standardized test results and other objective data including graduation rates, credit accumulation, Regents pass rates, etc.”
• Require a minimum weight of 50% of the overall school leader evaluation to be attributed to student performance data including achievement, growth (or progress toward graduation in high school), and equity.

 

• Consequences and Incentives – Include consequences and incentives to maximize the evaluation system’s impact and drive changes in school leader behavior.  Mandate differential compensation for highly effective school leaders and those who agree to take on SINI/SURR school turnarounds.  Mirror the newly negotiated teacher evaluation system by including language to expedite 3020-a hearings for school leaders rated ineffective or developing for two consecutive years and include expedited dismissal after one year for individuals in excess.
•  
• Development Categories (#4 and #5) – In order to hold school leaders accountable for student outcomes, we believe that it is more effective to align development opportunities to evaluations but not include developmental goals as part of the formal evaluation process. 
• We recommend removing these two categories but encouraging school systems to ensure that school leaders receive regular feedback and focus on specific growth areas aligned to their evaluation results and student outcomes.  In this approach, the assessment would focus on student outcomes (performance and growth), achievement of goals, and feedback from multiple stakeholders.
• If the state decides to keep the development categories, then we suggest:
• Merging categories 4 and 5 into one component focused on school leader professional skills and development,
• Making this a non-mandatory component of summative evaluation of school leaders, and
• Enabling school systems to identify their own research-based competency model(s) that align to the ISLLC Standards.

 

• Statewide Requirements – Include specific requirements to ensure that certain components of this evaluation framework are not subject to local collective bargaining negotiations.  We recommend the following statewide requirements:
• Student outcomes carry a minimum weighting of 50% of the total evaluation,
• Evaluations must be differentiated along a mandatory 4-point rating scale,
• Consequences (e.g., expedited 3020-a hearings) for low performance, and
• Differential compensation for school leaders based on evaluations.

 

• Language – Clarify language in all components in order to ensure that there is a consistent and shared understanding throughout the state of what each component includes.  Strengthen language in headlines to focus readers on key components.  Clear, concise, and direct language will increase the effectiveness of the framework.