puzzle

Administrator Evaluation & Development Program

Introducation

Vision and Purpose of Administrator Evaluation

The West Hartford Public School System is committed to an administrator evaluation model that is designed to:

• Define leadership effectiveness in terms of 1) administrator practice, 2) teacher effectiveness and student achievement, and 3) perceptions of administrator’s leadership among key stakeholders.

• Provide an evaluation and support structure that will ensure effective leadership to improve student learning and staff effectiveness.

• Ensure that all students and teachers have competent, high quality leaders, who will build human capacities and challenge all educators to aspire to reach excellence.

The administrator evaluation plan is aligned with the revised Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation (2012, revision 2014, amended 2017) and approved by the State Board of Education. This plan is continuously reviewed by the administrator members of the Professional Learning and Evaluation Committee (PLEC). Feedback for revision will be actively sought from administrators within the district.

Goals of the Administrator Evaluation Process

To achieve this vision of administrator evaluation, the goals of this plan are to implement an evaluation system that will:

• Apply our district model of continuous improvement to the administrator development and evaluation process.

• Improve administrator practice individually and collectively.

• Advance student achievement for all students.

• Differentiate experiences for administrators across a continuum of professional performance needs.

• Promote collaboration in the service of improving learning for all.

• Provide meaningful and connected professional learning experiences that impact practice.

• Empower administrators with specific, objective information regarding their performance.

• Ensure that evaluations are fair, reliable, valid, holistic, and an accurate representation of an administrator’s leadership practice.

• Lead directly to administrator and teacher continuous growth and development.

The following principles were used to guide the design and development of the administrator evaluation plan:

• Student success is directly affected by instructional leadership and skill.

• The primary purpose of evaluation is to strengthen individual and collective practices in order to improve teaching and student learning.

• The evaluation of performance should primarily be about improvement from an established starting point.

• Continuous collaborative dialogue between an administrator and his/her evaluator is valuable for reflection and growth.

• Observation of leadership practice can lead to informed judgments about the quality and efficacy of administrators.

Beliefs and Core Values Statements

The beliefs and core values that undergird this evaluation system are grounded in the following core values identified in our mission framework:

• Set high standards

• Provide a safe environment

• Promote collaboration

• Embrace diversity

• Encourage intellectual risk taking

• Integrate technology effectively

• Demand integrity

• Support partnerships between home and school

• Foster personal wellness

• Inspire creativity and innovation

• Make all decisions in the best interest of students

We believe the success of the West Hartford Public Schools depends upon the reciprocal commitment of students, parents, teachers and leaders to develop all students, teachers, and administrators to their greatest potential.

Overview of the Administrator Evaluation Process

Overview and Timeline

This section describes the annual cycle for administrators and evaluators to follow as well as the process by which administrators and their evaluators collect evidence about practice and results. The process is developed to promote dedicated time for evaluators to observe practice and give feedback. The intention is for administrators and evaluators to focus on the depth and quality of the interactions that occur in the process, not solely the steps.

Administrators play an active, engaged role in their professional growth and development in the evaluation process as a cycle of continuous improvement. The following six steps represent the cycle:

• Step 1: Orientation and Context Setting

• Step 2: Leader Evaluation Plan Development and Objective Setting Conference

• Step 3: Plan Implementation and Evidence Collection

• Step 4: Midyear Formative Review (Plan Implementation/Evidence Collection continues)

• Step 5: Self-Assessment

• Step 6: Summative Assessment

Evidence from the summative evaluation and self-assessment become important sources of information for administrators’ subsequent objective setting, as the cycle continues into the next year. The timeline for process follows.

administrator overview and timeline

* September 15: Revised submission if significantly impacted by additional data and/or ratings

The timelines for the evaluation cycle may be subject to extension due to extenuating circumstances.

Six-Step Process for Administrator Evaluation: Step 1: Orientation and Context Setting – Complete by September 30th

The following four pieces will be in place for administrators to begin the evaluation process:

1. Student learning data - available for review by the administrator

2. Stakeholder survey data - available for review by the administrator

3. District, School, and Department Development and Performance Plans - already developed (including student learning goals)

4. Administrator Evaluation Program – (This document which includes: the rubric for assessing practice, instruments to gather feedback from stakeholders and alignment to rubric, process and calculations for integrating all elements into an overall rating).

Step 2: Leader Evaluation Plan Development / Obj. Setting Conference – Complete by November 7th

Administrators write a Leader Evaluation Plan by identifying two student learning objectives, two areas of focus for practice, and one survey target. This is accomplished by drawing on evaluatees’ SLOs, available data, prior evaluation results, and the District, School, or Department Development Plan.

2 – 2 – 1 Objective Setting:

6 step process objective setting
6 step process objective setting 2

Administrators will start with the outcomes they want to achieve by setting two student learning objectives and one target related to stakeholder feedback. While administrators are rated on all four domains of the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric, they will identify two specific focus areas of growth to facilitate professional conversation about their leadership practice with their evaluators. At least one of the practice focus areas will be in Domain 1: Instructional Leadership, given its paramount role in driving student achievement. Administrators may identify the areas of focus for their practice that will help them accomplish their Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) and survey targets. In this manner, administrators can connect improvement in the practice focus areas to the outcome objectives and survey targets, creating a logical through- line from practice to outcomes.

Objective Setting Conference – Complete by November 7

After administrators complete the Leader Evaluation Plan, they meet with their evaluators to discuss and agree upon the selected outcome objectives, practice focus areas, and survey target. This meeting is an opportunity to explore questions such as:

• Are there any assumptions about specific objectives that need to be shared because of the local school context?

• Are there any elements for which Effective performance will depend on factors beyond the control of the administrator? If so, how will those dependencies be accounted for in the evaluation process?

• What are the sources of evidence to be used in assessing administrator performance?

Evaluators and administrators also discuss the appropriate resources and professional development needs to support administrators in accomplishing the objectives. Leader Evaluation Plans are comprised of: objectives, rationale, strategies, activities, evidence of success, resources, and supports. In the event of any disagreement, the evaluator has the authority and responsibility to finalize the objectives, supports, and sources of evidence to be used. While the Leader Evaluation Plan is to be completed by administrators, evaluators may suggest additional objectives as appropriate.

Assessing the Leader Evaluation Plan

Administrators can consider the following questions when assessing the likelihood of the Leader Evaluation Plan driving continuous improvement:

• Are the objectives clear and measurable so that you will know whether you have achieved them?

• Can you see a through-line from the District Development Plan to the School and/or Department Development Plan(s) to the Leader Evaluation Plan?

• Do the practice focus areas address growth needs for the administrator? Is at least one of the focus areas addressing Domain 1: Instructional Leadership?

Step 3: Plan Implementation and Evidence Collection – Complete October - June

As the administrator implements the Leader Evaluation Plan, he/she and the evaluator both collect evidence about the administrator’s practice. This will include at least two site visits (possibly more). During these visits, the evaluator will observe, collect evidence, and analyze the work of the administrator as well as engage in ongoing feedback and dialogue. Site visits should be purposeful and allow for professional conversation about an administrator’s practice. The evaluator should provide timely feedback after each visit. The administrator and evaluator will use their professional judgment to determine appropriate sources of evidence and ways to collect evidence.

The minimum number of observations for administrators in West Hartford Public Schools will be:

• Two observations for all tenured administrators (i.e, serving at least two years in their role)

• Four observations for all non-tenured administrators and any tenured administrators who have received ratings of Developing or Below Standard in the prior year

Step 4: Midyear Formative Update and Conference – Complete by March 7th

When interim student assessment data are available for review, the administrator and evaluator participate in a Midyear Formative Conference with explicit discussion of progress toward student learning targets, as well as areas of performance related to the CT School Leadership Standards. In preparation for the meeting:

• The administrator completes the Midyear Conference Update form to promote dialogue. He/she analyzes available student achievement data for progress made with SLOs and reflects on focus areas and survey target progress and efforts.

• The evaluator reviews observation and feedback notes to identify key themes for discussion.

If there are any changes in the context (e.g., a large influx of new students) that could impact the accomplishment of objectives, they should be discussed during this meeting and objectives may be changed, if needed.

Step 5: Self-Assessment

In the spring, the administrator reflects on his/her practice on each of the four Domains and Indicators within each. For each Indicator, the administrator determines whether he/she:

• Needs to grow and improve practice;

• Has some strengths, but needs to continue to grow and improve;

• Is consistently effective; or

• Can empower others to be effective

The administrator should also review the identified focus areas and determine whether progress is being made. The focus areas should be identified and reflected upon more deeply than other areas. The administrator submits the Self-Assessment just prior to the End-of-Year Summative Review Conference and this has the potential to inform his/her rating for the year.

Step 6: Summative Review Conference – Complete by June 15th

End-of-Year Summative Review Conference

The administrator and evaluator meet to discuss the Self-Assessment and all evidence collected over the course of the year. During the meeting, the evaluator shares strengths and growth areas. After the meeting, the evaluator assigns a rating, based on all available evidence (see next section for rating methodology).

The evaluator completes the Summative Evaluation Report, shares it with the administrator, and adds it to his/her personnel file. Any written comments the administrator requests to be added may be attached within two weeks of receipt of the report. Summative ratings must be completed for all administrators by June 15th of a given school year. Initial Ratings are based on all available data and are made in the spring. Since some components may not be completed at this point, the following can guide how the evaluator will determine a rating:

• If Stakeholder Feedback survey results are not yet available, then the Leadership Practice rating should count for 50% of the preliminary rating.

• If the Teacher Effectiveness ratings are not yet available, then Student Learning should count for 50% of the preliminary rating.

• If none of the summative student learning indicators can yet be assessed, then the evaluator should examine the most recent interim assessment data to assess progress and arrive at an assessment of the administrator’s performance on this component.

Summative Four-Level Matrix Rating System

Each administrator will receive a summative rating annually in one of four levels:

1. Exemplary: Substantially exceeding indicators of performance;

2. Effective: Meeting indicators of performance;

3. Developing: Meeting some indicators of performance, but not others; or

4. Below Standard: Not meeting indicators of performance

Effective rating represents fully satisfactory performance and proficiency. It is considered the rigorous standard expected for most experienced administrators. Effective administrators in West Hartford can be characterized as:

• Meeting expectations in Domain 1: Instructional Leadership

• Meeting expectations in at least two other domains

• Meeting and making progress on one target related to stakeholder feedback

• Meeting and making progress on two student learning objectives aligned to school and district priorities

• Having more than 60% of teachers Proficient (Effective) on the student growth portion of their evaluation

Exemplary rating is reserved for performance that significantly exceeds Effective and could serve as a model for leaders throughout West Hartford or the state.

Developing rating indicates performance is meeting proficiency in some components, but not others. Improvement is necessary and expected.

Below Standard rating indicates performance is below proficiency on all components or unacceptably low on one or more components.

For further explanation of Developing and Below Standard ratings and the ramifications of these ratings, see the Individual Improvement and Remediation subsection of the Administrator Support Process.

Determining the Summative Rating

The process for determining summative evaluation ratings has three categories of steps:

1. Determining Overall Practice rating

2. Determining Overall Outcomes rating

3. Combining the two into an Overall rating

Evaluators will utilize an auto-calculating spreadsheet to combine scores earned in each component of the process and derive the overall summative rating.

1. Overall Practice: Leadership Practice (40%) + Stakeholder Feedback (10%) = 50%
The Overall Practice rating derives from an administrator’s performance on the four Domains of the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric including two focus areas and one stakeholder feedback survey target. As shown in the Summative Ratings Report, evaluators rate the Domains. This forms the basis for the Leadership Practice rating.

2. Overall Outcomes: Student Learning (45%) + Teacher Effectiveness (5%) = 50%
The Overall Outcomes rating derives from combining the results of the two student learning objectives measured by locally-determined indicators with the rating for teacher effectiveness that aligns with the percentage of teacher evaluatees meeting their SLO’s.

3. Overall: Practice (50%) + Outcomes (50%) = 100%
The Overall rating combines the Overall Practice and Overall Outcomes ratings using the matrix on the next page. If the two categories are highly discrepant, the superintendent should examine the data and gather additional information in order to determine a final rating.

determining the summative rating

 

Administrator Evaluation Categories

Overview

The evaluation of administrators, as well as supports for their ongoing growth and development, are based on the four categories from the CT state model, SEED, 2015 (System for Educator Evaluation and Development):

Category 1 Leadership Practice (40%)
Based on a foundation of the Common Core of Leading: CT School Leadership Standards, this category uses the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric (four domains, multiple indicators and attributes)

Category 2 Stakeholder Feedback (10%)
Assessed by survey with measures that align to the CT School Leadership Standards

Category 3 Student Learning (45%)
Assessed by progress on locally determined measures (2 student learning objectives – SLOs)

Category 4 Teacher Effectiveness Outcomes (5%)
Measured by the degree to which teachers met their student learning objectives (SLOs)

administrator evaluation categories overview

 

Category 1: Leadership Practice (40%)

Leadership practice is based upon a foundation of the the Common Core of Leading: Connecticut School Leadership Standards, adopted by the Connecticut State Board of Education in June of 2012. The national Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards are used as their foundation and define effective administrative practice through six Performance Expectations. The CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric is used for this plan as it provides a common language and operationalizes the Standards.

CT School Leadership Standards: Six Performance Expectations

1. Vision, Mission, and Goals: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by guiding the development and implementation of a shared vision of learning, a strong organizational mission, and high expectations for student performance.

2. Teaching and Learning: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by monitoring and continuously improving teaching and learning.

3. Organizational Systems and Safety: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by managing organizational systems and resources for a safe, high-performing learning environment.

4. Families and Stakeholders: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by collaborating with families and stakeholders to respond to diverse community interests and needs and to mobilize community resources.

5. Ethics and Integrity: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by being ethical and acting with integrity.

6. The Education System: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students and advocate for their students, faculty and staff needs by influencing systems of political, social, economic, legal, and cultural contexts affecting education.

Leadership Practice Domain Weightings

Given that improving teaching and learning is at the core of what effective educational administrators do, Domain 1: Instructional Leadership (CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric) is weighted more heavily than other domains, with its weight at least twice as much as other domains for building principals. Therefore, it comprises the largest portion of the Leadership Practice rating. The weighting of the other domains varies for other categories of administrators based on the specific responsibilities of their roles. Following are the domain weightings for each category of administrators in the district.

Principals and Directors

Instructional Leadership 40%

Talent Management 20%

Organizational Systems 20%

Culture and Climate 20%

Assistant Principals

Instructional Leadership 30%

Talent Management 20%

Organizational Systems 20%

Culture and Climate 30%

Content Area Department Supervisors

Instructional Leadership 40%

Talent Management 30%

Organizational Systems 20%

Culture and Climate 10%

Pupil Services Department Supervisors

Instructional Leadership 30%

Talent Management 30%

Organizational Systems 20%

Culture and Climate 20%

Observation Protocol

Evaluators must conduct at least two observations for tenured administrators and at least four observations for non-tenured administrators and those who have received ratings of Developing or Below Standard in the prior year. The evaluator will observe, collect evidence, and analyze the work of the administrator based upon the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric and engage in ongoing feedback and dialogue. Observation protocol is consistent for Central Office administrators, Director, Principals, and Assistant Principals. Site visits should be purposeful and allow for conversation about an administrator’s practice. The evaluator will provide timely feedback after each visit. The administrator and evaluator will use their judgment to determine appropriate sources of evidence and ways for collection.

Evaluators of administrators will be trained in-district through an ongoing plan addressing the content of the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric, conducting effective observations, and providing high quality feedback to administrators. Additionally, they will collectively identify patterns for improvement relative to the Rubric to be used for professional learning for administrators. In order to arrive at ratings, all administrators are measured against the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric which describes leadership actions across four performance levels for each of the four domains, the corresponding indicators, and attributes. Administrators and evaluators do not need to complete the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric at the attribute level for any evaluation process. The Rubric will be used for all administrators, including Central Office. The four performance levels are:

Exemplary: The Exemplary level focuses on the concepts of developing capacity for action and leadership beyond the individual leader. Collaboration and involvement from a wide range of staff, students and stakeholders are prioritized as appropriate in distinguishing Exemplary performance from Effective performance.

• Effective: The rubric is anchored at the Proficient level using the Indicator language from the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric. (For use in West Hartford, the term, Effective will be synonymous with Proficient in the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric).

Developing: The Developing level focuses on leaders with a general knowledge of leadership practices but most of those practices do not necessarily lead to positive results.

Below Standard: The Below Standard level focuses on a limited understanding of leadership practices and general inaction on the part of the leader

Examples of Evidence for the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric are provided from CSDE for each element. While these Examples of Evidence can be a guide, they should not be used as a checklist.

Leadership Practice Ratings Determination

Summative ratings are based on the evidence for each domain in the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric. Evaluators collect written evidence about and observe the administrator’s leadership practice across the four domains of the rubric. Specific attention is paid to improving teacher effectiveness through teacher evaluation and leadership performance areas identified as needing development. This is accomplished through the following steps, undertaken by the administrator being evaluated and by the evaluator completing the evaluation:

1. The administrator and evaluator meet for an Objective-Setting Conference to identify focus areas for development of the administrator’s leadership practice (using CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric).

2. The administrator collects evidence about his/her practice and the evaluator collects evidence about administrator practice with particular attention on the identified focus areas for development. The evaluator follows the observation protocol identified previously.

3. The administrator and evaluator hold a Midyear Formative Conference, with a focused discussion of progress toward effectiveness in the focus areas identified for development.

4. Toward the end of the school year, the administrator reviews all information and data collected and completes a Summative Self-Assessment for review by the evaluator. This Self- Assessment identifies areas of strength and continued growth as well as progress on the focus areas.

5. The Summative Evaluation Conference is held to discuss all evidence to date.

6. Following the conference, the evaluator uses the preponderance of evidence to assign a summative rating of Exemplary, Effective, Developing or Below Standard for each of the four domains. The evaluator then assigns an Overall Practice Rating (including Stakeholder Feedback) and generates a summary report of the evaluation.

Category 2: Stakeholder Feedback (10%)

The CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric provides the foundation for administrators to seek feedback from stakeholders. Stakeholder feedback will include surveys of the following groups:

category 2-stake holder feedback

Process for Identifying Stakeholder Feedback

1. Review the options for feedback to be used for administrator evaluation in the Staff and Parent Surveys, the Student Survey, and the CT School climate Surveys.

2. Select ONE survey measure as a target for improvement and consider prior data in determining the target.

3. Based on the content, identify the group(s) appropriate for feedback (parent, students, staff and/or staff).

4. Principals and Assistant Principals may select the same survey target. Department Supervisors, Directors, Central Office Administrators can select an area and survey respective groups using all statements identified.

Stakeholder feedback is based upon the indicators and attributes in the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric. Survey content must be valid and reliable. Survey statements are designed using direct language from the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric at the Proficient level. All survey data will be kept anonymous. A minimum of four statements for each area is required.

Process for Administration and Analysis of Surveys:

Principals and Assistant Principals

  • Principals will receive an electronic copy of parent and staff surveys in the spring. Part I of the parent and staff surveys will be the CT School Climate Survey and Part II will be aligned to the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric. Student surveys will be hard copies and are represented by the CT School Climate Survey.
  • Principals will distribute the survey using a timeframe of approximately two weeks (send reminders to increase return rate).
  • Principals and assistant principals will disaggregate the data, analyze results, and reflect on feedback based on the survey target prior to completing the selfassessment and the final evaluation conference.

Department Supervisors, Central Office, and Directors

• Administer a brief survey to staff that includes all questions from the Department Supervisor survey along with a set of additional questions developed by the individual department supervisor in consultation with their evaluator at the fall goal-setting conference.

• Distribute the survey using a timeframe of approximately two weeks.

• Analyze results and reflect on feedback based on the survey target prior to completing the self-assessment and the final evaluation conference. Department supervisors should share their survey results with their building principal(s).

Stakeholder Feedback Ratings Determination

More than half of the ratings should be based on an assessment of improvement over time (if prior data is available). For new administrators, the rating should be based on a reasonable target using district averages of similar schools’ situations. The evaluator and administrator will determine what constitutes a rating in the context of the target. The evaluator assigns a rating based on the following scale:

Below Standard: Made little or no progress toward the target

Developing: Made some progress but did not meet target

Effective: Met the target

Exemplary: Exceeded the target

Sample Stakeholder Feedback Measure, Target, Results, and Rating

Measure and Target: % of parents/guardians agreeing or strongly agreeing with the survey statements related to family, community and stakeholder engagement will increase from 74% to 80%.

Results (Target Met?) : Yes. Results showed an increase from 74% to 81% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statements. Rating: Effective

Category 3: Student Learning (45%)

The Student Learning category will be assessed by progress on locally-determined measures. The Student Learning rating is derived from the outcomes of two student learning objectives (SLOs). Administrators establish two SLOs on measures they select. State mastery test data will be used to inform goal-setting and professional learning. It will NOT be used as a measure of SLO/goal attainment or to calculate the final summative rating.

The following parameters apply:

• All measures align to Common Core State Standards. In instances where there are no such standards, administrators must provide evidence of alignment to research-based learning standards or state and national standards. If there is a national assessment, this may be used as a student learning objective.

• SLOs - written in SMART format (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timely).

• SLOs - at least one of the measures must focus on student outcomes from subjects and/or grades not assessed on state-administered assessments.

• SLOs High School Administrators - one measure must include the cohort graduation rate and the extended graduation rate, as defined in the state’s approved application for flexibility under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Two Student Learning Objectives – Locally-Determined Measures

category 3 - student learning

SLO Indicator/Assessment Selection

Within these parameters, administrators have broad discretion in selecting indicators (Evidence of Success in the Leader Evaluation Plan) including, but not limited to:

• District-adopted assessments not included in the state accountability measures (e.g., commercial content area assessments, Advanced Placement examinations, International Baccalaureate examinations). In subsequent years, student performance or growth on state-administered assessments (Subgroup, Subject, School, or District Performance Index) may be used.

• Students’ performance or growth on school or classroom-developed assessments in subjects and grade levels for which there are not available state assessments.

• Students’ progress toward graduation in the school using strong predictive indicators, including but not limited to 9th and/or 10th grade credit accumulation and/or the percentage of students that pass 9th and/or 10th grade subjects most commonly associated with graduation.

SLO Development Process

The process for selecting measures and creating SLOs should strike a balance between alignment to West Hartford’s student learning priorities and a focus on the most significant school-level student learning needs. The process is as follows (described for principals):

• The district establishes the District Development Plan including student learning priorities for a given school year based on available data. This may span multiple years.

• The principal uses available data to craft a School Development Plan for the school. This is done in collaboration with other stakeholders and includes a manageable set of clear student learning targets.

• The principal chooses student learning priorities for his/her own evaluation that are (a) aligned to the District Development Plan (unless the school is already doing well against those priorities), (b) aligned with the School Development Plan, and (c) aligned to all or a subset of evaluatees’ SLOs.

• The principal chooses measures that best assess the priorities and develops clear and measureable SLOs for the chosen assessment/indicators.

• The principal shares the student learning objectives with her/his evaluator, informing a conversation designed to ensure that:

1. The objectives are adequately ambitious and there is adequate data that can be collected to make a fair judgment about whether the administrator met the objectives.

2. The objectives are based on a review of student characteristics (e.g., mobility, attendance, demographic and learning characteristics).

3. The resources are appropriate to supporting the administrator in meeting the targets.

• The principal and evaluator collect interim data on the SLOs to inform a midyear conversation, summative data, and summative ratings.

Examples of Student Learning Objectives

examples of student learning objectives

Student Learning Rating Determination (45%)

Based on this process for locally-determined indicators, administrators receive a rating as follows:

Below Standard: Met no objectives or Met one objective and did not make substantial progress on the other

Developing: Met one objective and made substantial progress on the other

Effective: Met both objectives or Made excellent progress on both objectives Or Met one objective and made excellent progress on the other

Exceeded: Met both objectives and substantially exceeded at least one target

Category 4: Teacher Effectiveness Outcomes (5%)

Teacher Effective Outcomes constitute 5% of an administrator’s evaluation in West Hartford Public Schools. Teacher effectiveness is measured by the degree to which an administrator’s evaluatees meet their own student learning objectives (SLOs).

Improving teacher effectiveness is central to an administrator’s role in driving improved student learning outcomes. In addition to measuring the actions that administrators take to increase teacher effectiveness - from hiring and placement to ongoing professional development to feedback on performance - the administrator evaluation model also assesses the outcomes of that work.

As part of Connecticut’s teacher evaluation state model, teachers are assessed, in part, on their accomplishment of SLOs. This is the basis for assessing administrators’ contribution to teacher effectiveness outcomes. Administrators should discuss the strategies for setting ambitious SLOs with their evaluators.

Ratings for Teacher Effectiveness Outcomes

Below Standard: < 40% of teachers are rated Effective or Exemplary on the student growth portion of their evaluation

Developing: 41 – 60% of teachers are rated Effective or Exemplary on the student growth portion of their evaluation

Effective: 61 - 80% of teachers are rated Effective or Exemplary on the student growth portion of their evaluation

Exceeded: > 80% of teachers are rated Effective or Exemplary on the student growth portion of their evaluation

Administrators who do not directly evaluate teachers will derive 100% of their Overall Outcomes rating from the Student Learning portion (outcomes from two student learning objectives).

Administrator Support Process

Initial Training and Orientation

Each fall, administrators will have opportunities to familiarize themselves with the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric, collaborate on writing Leader Evaluation Plans, and receive an update on changes in the plan. Throughout the year, administrator members of the Professional Learning and Evaluation Committee (PLEC) will be available to support individuals wanting assistance with any aspect of the program. Ongoing calibration and training on conducting effective observations is an integral part of establishing high expectations and consistent evaluation practice throughout West Hartford.

Administrators will be oriented to the process of administrator evaluation in West Hartford annually in August as part of Extended Leadership In-Service meetings. This will include changes to our District Development Plan which may inform changes to School/Department Development Plans as well as inform Leader Evaluation Plans.

New Administrator Induction Process

New administrators are identified as those being new to the district or new to the position within the district, and are considered to be “non-tenured” for the first two years in their role. They will receive ongoing support from their evaluator and others in order to help them acclimate to West Hartford Public Schools and/ or their new position. The following represents the major components to the support provided:

• Identification of Needs - The new administrator will identify the needs of the district, school, and/or department by using information about student achievement, budget, staffing, school culture, and the community.

• The administrator will be provided with training in data identification, collection, and analysis as well as training in teacher supervision and evaluation. A mentor will provide support for the needs identification process.

• Collaborative Objective Setting and Orientation (July – October) with evaluator

• Mentor – An administrator mentor will be assigned and regular, ongoing meetings will be scheduled for support with all aspects of the administrator’s role (see Role of Mentor in next section).

• Central Office Administrator Support – Central office administrators will meet monthly with new administrators to provide support in all areas

Role of the Mentor in the Evaluation Process

Each new administrator in West Hartford Public Schools will be provided with a mentor to assist him/her in achieving proficiency in the position. The mentor will be selected based upon a review of needs and demonstrated leadership skills. The mentor will be an experienced administrator, but will not be the administrator’s evaluator. Mentor duties for new administrators are as follows:

• Meet with the newly appointed or promoted administrator before the beginning of the academic year, preferably on or before administrators return to work in August

• Provide support to the new administrator for writing the Leader Evaluation Plan (objective setting)

• Meet on a consistent basis with the new administrator and be prepared to meet more frequently as the new administrator requires

• Provide additional support pertaining to the evaluation process

Additionally, a mentor is available upon request to any administrator at any stage of the evaluation process. In addition, administrators in the Administrator Assistance Program will be provided a mentor as described in the Individual Improvement and Remediation section.

Evaluation-Based Professional Learning

The district Model of Continuous Improvement is the process by which we design and deliver administrator development, support, and learning. Aligned with the Board of Education goals, the district mission and core values, this process serves to support continuous and ongoing professional learning that is informed by data collection, analysis, collaboration, and reflection. The work of improvement is a continuous process over the life of an administrator’s career. The Model of Continuous Improvement highlights the role of professional learning as central with collaboration as the means to continuous individual administrator growth as well as teacher and student growth and development.

Professional Learning and Evaluation Committee (PLEC)

According to the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE), “in order to achieve results for educators and students, professional learning must shift from documented hours spent in professional development to sustained, authentic, job-embedded professional learning measured by evidence of impact on practice and student growth.” In the West Hartford Public Schools, the Professional Learning and Evaluation Committee (PLEC) shares responsibility for the development, evaluation, and updating of the district’s comprehensive professional learning plan and participation in the development/adoption of the district educator evaluation and support program. The Professional Learning and Evaluation Committee (PLEC) is a collaborative committee comprised of teachers, administrators, and representative other certified personnel bargaining units. It originates and regularly updates the Curriculum & Staff Improvement (CSI) professional development calendar and other district activities in efforts to determine how professional development is designed, monitored, and evaluated within the district.

The responsibilities of PLEC include:

• Analyze and synthesize key needs and issues that contribute to professional learning, educator and student growth, and district and/or school development

• Provide information for recommendations, when warranted, to the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

• Assist in the effort to improve effective communication across the schools related to teacher development and professional learning

• Formulate recommendations regarding the curriculum and staff improvement calendar

• Review and approve revisions to the district’s Teacher Evaluation and Development Program (TEVAL) and the Administrator Evaluation and Development Program (AEVAL)

• Monitor the suitability and applications of the West Hartford Professional Development Plan and Connecticut State Department of Education Guidelines

Career Development and Continuous Professional Growth

West Hartford Public Schools is deeply committed to ongoing, comprehensive career development and professional growth in order to promote excellence in school leadership. Professional growth and career development opportunities are established each year based on the needs of administrators. These opportunities offer choices to administrators that are directly linked to their evaluation objectives. Additionally, training is provided for conducting effective observations and offering high quality feedback to teachers as part of the supervision and evaluation process.

Individual Improvement and Remediation – Definition of Effectiveness/Ineffectiveness

West Hartford Public Schools’ Administrator Evaluation Plan defines administrator effectiveness utilizing annual summative ratings. A tenured administrator shall generally be deemed effective if he/she receives at least two sequential ratings of Effective or Exemplary. A tenured administrator shall generally be deemed ineffective if he/she receives at least two sequential Developing ratings or one Below Standard rating at any time.

If an administrator’s performance is Developing or Below Standard, a collaboratively developed plan with such administrator, an evaluator, and an exclusive bargaining representative chosen pursuant to Section 10- 153b of the 2012 Supplement (CGS) will be created. Said administrator may be placed in the Administrator Assistance program, or employment may be terminated through nonrenewal or termination. Administrator Assistance is a program designed to provide an administrator with the help necessary to meet the requirements of the position. The administrator and evaluator can propose professionally certified district personnel to provide assistance and support in the Administrator Assistance process. After consultation with the administrator and their bargaining unit representative, the evaluator will provide, in writing, to the administrator the following information:

• A statement of the objective(s) to be accomplished with the indicators of success. The objective(s) should be aligned to the CT School Leadership Standards;

• A statement defining the amount and kind of assistance and the frequency of observations and conferences, which will generally be no fewer than one per school week. Assignment of a mentor as appropriate may be an element of such assistance;

• A statement identifying resources, support and other strategies to be provided;

• A timeline not to exceed 60 days. Days of absence for either evaluator or evaluatee shall be added to extend the timeline.

When the timeline has expired, the designated evaluator will complete the Administrator Assistance Evaluation Report, which includes the job status decision and a rating. The evaluator will analyze the preponderance of evidence for the objective(s) based upon the CT School Leadership Standards using the CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric and apply a rating as follows:

Below Standard: Made little or no progress towards meeting objective(s)

Developing: Made some progress, but did not meet objective(s)

Effective: Met Objective

Exceeded: Substantially exceeded objective(s)

If said administrator receives a rating of Effective or Exemplary based upon the preponderance of evidence after the 60 days, the administrator will move out of the Administrator Assistance Plan and back to his/her normal evaluation cycle. If said administrator does not receive a rating of Effective or Exemplary, the decision may result in a return to Administrator Assistance - NOT to exceed another 60 days,- or a recommendation to the Superintendent that contract termination proceedings be initiated in accordance with Section 10-151, Connecticut Education laws (Copies available in school offices and the Human Resources Office).

When the additional timeline, if any, has expired, the designated evaluator will complete the Administrator Assistance Evaluation Report, which includes the job status decision and a rating. The evaluator will analyze the preponderance of evidence for the objective(s) based upon the CT School Leadership Standards using the Common Core of Leadership Evaluation Rubric and apply a rating as follows:

Below Standard: Made little or no progress towards meeting objective(s)

Developing: Made some progress, but did not meet objective(s)

Effective: Met Objective

Exceeded: Substantially exceeded objective(s)

If said administrator receives a rating of Effective or Exemplary based upon the preponderance of evidence after the additional 60 days, the administrator will move out of the Administrator Assistance Plan and back to his/her normal evaluation cycle. If said administrator does not receive a rating of Effective or Exemplary, the evaluator shall make a recommendation to the Superintendent that contract termination proceedings be initiated in accordance with Section 10 -151, Connecticut Education laws.

Administrators assigned to Administrator Assistance are fully protected by the right of due process, by the right of appeal as set forth in the evaluation program, and for a claim that there was a violation of the procedures of the evaluation program, by the grievance process.

Appeal Process - Dispute Resolution Procedure

The right of appeal is a required element in the evaluation process and is available to every participant when an evaluator and administrator cannot agree on objectives, the evaluation period, feedback on performance and practice, the professional development plan, or final summative rating. To initiate an appeal, either party must submit Appeal Worksheet I (Appendix I) to the Executive Director of Human Resources. Within three (3) school days of receipt of the appeal, the Executive Director of Human Resources will send copies of the appeal to the other party. Using Appeal Worksheet II (Appendix I), the Executive Director of Human Resources will schedule a joint meeting of the parties involved promptly, generally within seven school days of the original receipt of the appeal. When an appeal is brought to the Executive Director of Human Resources, the following will occur:

1. An Appeal Committee, consisting of three (3) administrators serving on the Professional Learning and Evaluation Committee (PLEC) (one of which will be the Superintendent or his/her designee and one appointed as chairperson), will meet with both parties simultaneously.

2. The parties will present their concerns, talking with each other only through the committee chair.

3. When the committee is satisfied that they have sufficient information, they will recess to formulate a recommendation.

4. When the Appeal Committee has reached consensus, the chairperson will prepare the written recommendation on Appeal Worksheet III (Appendix I) which will be delivered to both parties by the committee chair within three (3) school days.

5. If the Appeal Committee cannot reach consensus within the time limits set forth above, the decision on the appeal shall be made by the Superintendent.

6. The decision of the Appeal Committee (or the Superintendent) shall be final, except when the dispute involves an allegation that there has been a violation of the procedures of the evaluation program and the recommendation of the Appeal Committee (or the Superintendent) is not acceptable to the administrator. In such case, the administrator may initiate a Type B Grievance. Given the need for prompt resolution of disputes and completion of the evaluation process, the decision of the Appeal Committee (or the Superintendent) shall be implemented and the administrator’s evaluation shall be subject to review upon completion of the grievance procedure.

The procedures outlined above are designed to assist and support administrators to be successful in meeting the high performance standards of West Hartford. In the event that termination is recommended, the following dismissal procedures will generally be appropriate:

• The administrator’s evaluator and the Executive Director of Human Resources will forward a dismissal recommendation to the Superintendent. If the Superintendent is the evaluator, such a recommendation will come directly from the Superintendent.

• The Superintendent will meet with the administrator and the evaluator to counsel the administrator to resign from employment by the West Hartford Public Schools.

• The Executive Director of Human Resources will be available for support and counsel throughout the process.

• If the administrator agrees to resign, employment is terminated.

• If the administrator does not agree to resign, the Superintendent will proceed with the dismissal process according to the State Statute 10-151.

The Board of Education maintains the right to terminate an administrator for cause (State Statute 10-151).

Department Supervisor Stakeholder Feedback Survey Questions

Introduction

Each year, Department Supervisors administer a staff survey to all members of the department he/she oversees. The survey was revised for the 2019-2020 school year and includes questions from the school staff survey, questions from the District Department Survey options, and up to 5 additional questions the Department Supervisor may customize to align with their annual goals.

All survey questions will be identified in the fall and shared with the Department Supervisor’s evaluator during the annual goal-setting meeting. When the survey results are collected in the spring, the results must be shared with the principals of each building the Department Supervisor serves and with the Department Supervisor’s evaluator.

Part 1-School Climate Survey Questions

school climate survey questions

 

Part 2 - Questions Personalized to the Department Supervisor’s Yearly Goals

Department Supervisors have the option to add up to six survey questions that align to the department supervisor’s focus for the year. Questions should be designed, shared and finalized with the Department Supervisor’s evaluator at the annual goal setting conference in the fall.

Part 3 - Open Ended Responses

Please provide additional feedback regarding your Department Supervisors work this year.