You are here: Home / About the Pilots / North Mason / North Mason Evaluation Models

North Mason Evaluation Models

Logo2

Right-click to download the video or click here to view or subscribe in iTunes.

State TPEP Teacher Workbook

North Mason’s Teacher Model

State TPEP Principal Workbook

North Mason’s Principal Model

State TPEP Teacher Workbook

Glossary

The What

Revised Teacher Evaluation Criteria: (Defined in RCW)
The Legislature passed E2SSB 6696 and Governor Gregoire signed the bill into law (RCW 28A.405.100) on March 29, 2010. The criteria form the backbone of the new evaluation system. The TPEP districts have used the evaluation criteria language and existing or new instructional frameworks to develop the rubrics. According to the RCW, “the four-level rating system used to evaluate the certificated classroom teacher must describe performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.”

Criteria Definitions: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
Based on feedback from experts and our TPEP districts, we have created definitions for each of the new teacher criterion. Each of the TPEP districts submitted definitions and we synthesized those into one brief sentence. This is intended to delineate the criteria in order to minimize the overlap between the criterion and create more consistency across the state in setting clear evaluation targets for teachers and principals as we move to statewide implementation.

Comprehensive Instructional Framework: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The comprehensive instructional framework (common language/model of instruction) provides districts with a way to talk about instruction that is shared by everyone in the district/ESD. Marzano states that teachers and principals use the instructional framework “to converse about effective teaching, give and receive feedback, collect and act upon data to monitor growth regarding the reasoned use of the strategies, and align professional development needs against the framework.” There are several instructional frameworks being utilized by the TPEP districts. Because the new teacher criteria are unique to Washington, the TPEP districts have aligned the instructional frameworks (and subsequently the rubrics) to the new state criteria.

Rubrics: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The rubrics (based on the instructional frameworks) are the clearly defined continuum that describes unsatisfactory through effective teaching practice based on the 8 teacher criteria. The rubrics should be used to train principals to identify strengths and weaknesses in practice based on clearly defined evidence and measures. These rubrics could take into account the variations of novice to expert teachers.

Measures and Evidence: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The measures and evidence are used to determine the “teacher’s performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.” The measures used in the evaluation system should have strong correlation to the criteria being evaluated. There are four areas under the “measures and evidence” section: classroom observation, teacher self-assessment, student growth data, other measures/evidence. This section should represent the district’s system for determining final summative evaluation score.

Final Summative Evaluation: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
The final summative evaluation is a critical definition in order to ensure consistency across the state as teachers are evaluated and data is submitted in aggregate. In the late fall 8 of the 9 TPEP sites and WASA submitted a summative evaluation statement for each of the 4 tiers. Similar to the standards- based system for students, clear targets for both the distinct criteria and the final summative evaluation will drive principals and teachers to a evaluation system that promotes growth and prevents stagnation.

(Back to top)

The How

Stakeholder Engagement:
The TPEP project has been a collaborative process from the beginning. Successful development and ultimately implementation has and will require looking at this process through multiple lenses. Please include any documents your district/consortium has used to incorporate authentic stakeholder engagement through the pilot development year. (This will include the norms and protocols you used in setting up your district’s TPEP steering committee).

Communication:
Communication is a key component to successful development and implementation of the new evaluation system. The collaborative approach at both the state and district levels is critical. Include the plan and documents that would explain your communication process.

Professional Development:
Looking at this new evaluation system as a process in continuous improvement, professional development to train the staff involved in the pilot will be key. Please include your district’s plan for ongoing professional development for your teachers, principals and district administrators involved in the 2011-12 TPEP pilot year.

Data:
Many aspects of the new teacher and principal evaluation system will depend heavily on the acquisition and use of data. Include a description of resources your district already uses relating to instructional data and any additional resources you will need to implement the new evaluation system. (Include any technology, databases related to teacher, student, and/or principal data).

Forms & Tools:
Many parts of the new evaluation system will require changing the forms and tools used in the evaluation process. Please include and forms and tools developed for the new evaluation process. (Please note which ones are electronic and which are paper-based). Examples: Principal observation tools (pre, during and post), MOUs, artifact collection and observation tools, parent or student surveys, etc.)

(Back to top)

Visual Model Diagram

Teacher Evaluation Model Visual.jpg

Click to expand image.

(Back to top)


Revised Criteria & Definitions


Revised Teacher Evaluation Criteria Criteria Definitions
1. Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement. PLANNING: The teacher sets high expectations through instructional planning and reflection aligned to content knowledge and standards. Instructional planning is demonstrated in the classroom through student engagement that leads to an impact on student learning.
2. Demonstrating effective teaching practices. INSTRUCTION: The teacher uses research-based instructional practices to meet the needs of ALL students and bases those practices on a commitment to high standards and meeting the developmental needs of students.
3. Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs. REFLECTION: The teacher acquires and uses specific knowledge about students’ individual intellectual and social development and uses that knowledge to advance student learning.
4. Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum. CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: The teacher uses content area knowledge and pedagogy to design and deliver curricula, instruction and assessment to impact student learning.
5. Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment. CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT: The teacher fosters and manages a safe, culturally sensitive and inclusive learning environment that takes into account: physical, emotional and intellectual well-being.
6. Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning. ASSESSMENT: The teacher uses multiple data elements (both formative and summative) for planning, instruction and assessment to foster student achievement.
7. Communicating and collaborating with parents and school community. PARENTS AND COMMUNITY: The teacher communicates and collaborates with students, parents and all educational stakeholders in an ethical and professional manner to promote student learning.
8. Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving. PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE: The teacher participates collaboratively in the educational community to improve instruction, advance the knowledge and practice of teaching as a profession, and ultimately impact student learning.

(Back to top)


Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements

These statements support teacher self-reflection, inform and structure professional conversations, and suggest areas for further professional growth.

1 Professional practice at Level 1 shows evidence of not understanding the concepts underlying individual components of the criteria. This level of practice is ineffective and inefficient and may represent practice that is harmful to student learning progress, professional learning environment, or individual teaching practice. This level requires immediate intervention.
2

 Professional practice at Level 2 shows a developing understanding of the knowledge and skills of the criteria required to practice, but performance is inconsistent over a period of time due to lack of experience, expertise, and/or commitment. This level may be considered minimally competent for teachers early in their careers but insufficient for more experienced teachers. This level requires specific support.
3

 Professional practice at Level 3 shows evidence of thorough knowledge of all aspects of the profession. This is successful, accomplished, professional, and effective practice. Teachers at this level thoroughly know academic content, curriculum design/development, their students, and a wide range of professional resources. Teaching at this level utilizes a broad repertoire of strategies and activities to support student learning. At this level, teaching is strengthened and expanded through purposeful, collaborative sharing and learning with colleagues as well as ongoing self-reflection and professional improvement.
4

 Professional practice at the Level 4 is that of a master professional whose practices operate at a qualitatively different level from those of other professional peers. Teaching practice at this level shows evidence of learning that is student directed, where students assume responsibility for their learning by making substantial contributions throughout the instructional process. Ongoing, reflective teaching is demonstrated through the highest level of expertise and commitment to all students’ learning, challenging professional growth, and collaborative leadership.

Adapted from “Framework for Teaching Levels of Performance Sample Operational Definitions” created by Pam Rosa, Danielson Group Associate.

(Back to top)

North Mason’s Teacher Model

Introduction

During negotiations in June, 2009, the North Mason Education Association and the North Mason School District agreed to form a joint task force to review the teacher evaluation process. During the following year this task force read a wide range of research, studied Charlotte Danielson’s Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice and, very importantly, created a philosophy statement, upon which we based our work.

Our Philosophy
The North Mason School District Evaluation Task Force believes that the evaluation process will:

  • Foster a working culture that promotes greatness and a climate of trust
  • Support and celebrate professional growth and development as well as
    encourage teacher self-reflection and goal setting
  • Have explicit standards with a clear rubric that is appropriate to all grades and
    content areas
  • Use multiple sources of information as evidence of instructional mastery
  • Be a “Natural Harvest,” manageable and realistic.

The task force continued that year by developing a list of the “What” gets measured and a description of “How” the process would work. From there, rubrics were drafted. At the same time, teachers and administrators were developing a district instructional model, which was regularly studied by the task force to ensure that the evaluation system and instructional model were well aligned in both language and description.
For the 2010-2011 school year, NMSD was named as one of the pilot districts for the TPEP project. With the support of OSPI and partner organizations, the task force worked to align the district’s developing rubrics with the state eight criteria, began developing the principal rubric and implemented two rounds of teacher observations with 16 pilot teachers and 7 administrative evaluators. Task Force co-chairs also provided information to various stakeholders and sought their input.

As North Mason gears up for the 2011-2012 school year, there are plans to pilot the most recent comprehensive teacher evaluation system with 25% of the teaching force.

(Back to top)


Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks

✓ Danielson

❒ Marzano

❒ 5-D (Center for Educational Leadership)

❒ McRel

❒ Other (Teaching as Leadership, National Board, Star Protocol, BERC, etc)

Our instructional framework is a custom combination of Danielson, and Marzano as well as influenced by BERC’s Powerful Teaching andLearning. It is also interesting to note that the Center for Educational Leadership, who created the 5D framework, did an instructional scan that revealed that our district did not have a common understanding of our instructional framework. When our Teacher Evaluation Task Force (prior to the TPEP Project) began writing the teacher evaluation rubric in 2009‐2010, the district’s instructional leadership team worked on a common instructional model in parallel work. The two documents were shared multiple times between the two work groups in order to assure alignment. Our Instructional Model is attached.

During the development of the teacher rubric, Charlotte Danielson’s framework was used as the basis for the bulk of our teacher rubric. Once North Mason received the TPEP grant, the TPEP Task Force realigned the rubric to meet the eight state criteria and later worked to align the language in the district instructional model to match the state teacher evaluation rubric.

Update
Initially we wrote our own Instructional Model and Evaluation Framework, primarily based on Danielson. After much discussion and a teacher survey, the North Mason School District has decided to adopt the Danielson Framework and teacher evaluation rubrics as our model for the pilot. We will be adding a few elements that we feel we can’t live without, but will not make any changes to her work.

Learn more about Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching.

(Back to top)


Rubrics

The rubrics were originally created with five domains and later modified to clearly reflect the state’s eight criteria. It was during that revision that we realized we needed to add some additional components, particularly in the Parent & Community section.

Our rubric, which is attached, is used during the entire year as a reference tool and at the end of the year as a summative rating tool. The rubric may also be used along with the observation tool during the formal observations. There is also a self‐evaluation/reflection tool to be used in conjunction with the rubric.

NMSD is in the process of creating a “How To” document that will spell out the process and how each tool is used.

Learn more about the Danielson framework and rubrics.

(Back to top)


Measures & Evidence

Observation Self-Assessment Other Measures & Evidence Student Growth Data
An observation tool is available for use during the formal observations. In addition it is our expectation that evaluators will make multiple informal class visits of approximately 10 minutes in durations. These shorter observations will be captured in an email to the teacher. A self‐assessment and reflection tool has been developed to allow for meaningful pre‐ and post‐ observation conversations. We created a document with limited and quantifiable measures. We envision this document being used when the element is not observable or when there is a disagreement on the score between the teacher and the principal. Our multiple measures document includes evidence of student growth. However, our rubric clearly reflects that assessment data is used by the teacher to inform instruction.

(Back to top)


Final Summative Evaluation

System for Determining Final Summative Teacher Rating

❒ Proficiency Progression Model: This model requires choosing one or more criteria that are most critical for the proficiency the first year of implementation/teaching. Subsequent years would stair step proficiency requirements by adding criteria. This model can be combined with other models.

❒ Qualitative/Holistic Model: This model requires collection of artifacts and observation by the evaluator and holistically deriving a qualitative rating on the 4 tiers for each teacher.

❒ Mathematical Formula Model: This model uses a mathematical algorithm to add up each component and divide by the number of indicators/components to drive out a number for each criterion. The same process is completed for the criteria to finalize a summative rating.

❒ Percentage and/or Points Model: This model assigns percentages or points to each form of evidence (Example: Observations are worth 65%, Artifacts 15%, Impacts on Student Learning 15% and self reflection/reflection 5%)

❒ Raw Score Model: This model uses appropriate evidence (observation, artifacts, impact on student learning, self-assessment) to derive a raw score for each criterion. Those criterion scores are then added up to create a summative raw score. Summative rating is defined through a Raw Score Range (Example: Level 1: 8-13 Level 2: 14-19 Level 3: 20-26 Level 4: 27-32)

✓ Raw Score/Conditions Hybrid Model: This model combines the above raw score model with certain district level conditions (example: cannot be overall proficient with one unsatisfactory criterion score or unsatisfactory in safety criterion automatic overall unsatisfactory)

❒ Conditions Model: This model puts certain evaluation conditions depending on the contract status of the teacher.

❒ Other: Many of the above models can be combined or altered to fit the needs of your district evaluation model.

The task force has created a document, which is attached, explaining our version of this summative evaluation determination. The document is in draft form but we do plan to pilot it during the 2011‐12 school year.

North Mason’s Teacher Summative Evaluation Form by State Criteria (PDF).
North Mason’s Teacher Summative Evaluation Form by Framework for Teaching Domain (PDF).

(Back to top)


Community and Stakeholder Engagement

Internal School Community – The Task Force consists of staff from each school building who carry the information both to the teachers and bring the teacher feedback back to the Task Force. In addition, the principal member of the task force manages the two‐way communication between building administrators and the task force. This dialogue also allows the building administration to support the task force members in their communication with teachers in the buildings. (For example, ensuring the topic is on the agenda.) Also, during the current school year 16 teachers have been piloting the new evaluation system and the task force has asked them to communicate and share their experiences with their colleagues in their buildings.

Community at large – In addition to a couple of newspaper stories that have been published, task force members have presented information and collected input at various community and parent meetings. (For example North Mason Kiwanis Club.)

Parent and Family – The committee co‐chairs have presented at three of the four school parent groups to provide information and gather feedback on the new teacher/principal evaluation system. In addition, the Assistant Superintendent held a similar session with a high school leadership class, in which students had the same opportunity to learn about the new system and to provide feedback to the Task Force.

The feedback from the community and parent meetings was compiled into the attached document titled “Stakeholder Feedback”.

School Board – At the beginning of the 2009‐2010 school year, the NMSD Board of Directors provided the Superintendent with input as to what they would like to see in a new teacher evaluation system. The Superintendent keeps the school board apprised of the activities of the TPEP Task Force.

(Back to top)


Communication

See above.

(Back to top)


Professional Development

Evaluators, task force members, mentors and coaches will go through inter‐rater reliability training. In addition, those groups and all pilot teachers will have in‐depth training on the rubric, other forms, and the process. Training will be ongoing throughout the school year of the pilot.

View North Mason’s PD plan for teachers (PDF).

(Back to top)


Data

Final evaluation data will be collected and entered into a database. The purpose of collecting the data is to help focus professional development and other district decisions.

(Back to top)


Tools & Forms

North Mason’s Teacher Evaluation Portfolio – Download the Tools & Forms bundled as one PDF
Teacher Evaluation Pilot – Process and Document Instruments (PDF)
Formal Classroom Observation Pre-Conference Tool (PDF)
Goals Summary (PDF)
Informal Classroom Observations Rubric (PDF)
NMSD Instructional Model based on Danielson Framework (PDF)
Optional Observation Tool (PDF)
Post-Observation Conference Summary (PDF)
Post-Observation Conference Tool (PDF)
Rubric Reference Document (PDF)
Teacher Rubric (PDF)
North Mason’s Teacher Summative Evaluation Form by State Criteria (PDF).
North Mason’s Teacher Summative Evaluation Form by Framework for Teaching Domain (PDF)
2011-2012 MOU (PDF)
2010-2011 MOU (PDF)

(Back to top)


Contact Information

Contacts for North Mason School District:

(Back to top)

State TPEP Principal Workbook

Glossary

The What

Revised Principal Evaluation Criteria: (Defined in RCW 28A.405.100)
The Legislature passed E2SSB 6696 and Governor Gregoire signed the bill into law (RCW 28A.405.100) on March 29, 2010. The criteria form the backbone of the new evaluation system. The TPEP districts have used the evaluation criteria language and resources such as AWSP’s document “Evaluating Principal Leadership in a Performance-Based School” to develop the rubrics. According to the RCW, “the four-level rating system used to evaluate the principal must describe performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.”

Criteria Definitions: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
The Criteria Definitions for the state’s principal criteria are being developed by AWSP and will be available soon. The research-based definitions are an extension of the AWSP document “Evaluating Principal Leadership in a Performance-Based School.”

Rubrics: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The rubrics (based on the instructional frameworks) are the clearly defined continuum that describes unsatisfactory through effective teaching practice based on the 8 teacher criteria. The rubrics should be used to train principals to identify strengths and weaknesses in practice based on clearly defined evidence and measures. These rubrics could take into account the variations of novice to expert teachers.

Measures and Evidence: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The measures and evidence are used to determine the principal’s performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.” The measures used in the evaluation system should have strong correlation to the criteria being evaluated. There are four areas under the “measures and evidence” section: observation, perception data, student achievement growth data, and other measures/evidence. This section should represent the district’s system for determining final summative evaluation score.

Final Summative Evaluation: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
The final summative evaluation is a critical definition that increases consistency across the state as principals are evaluated and data is submitted in aggregate. Similar to the standards-based system for students, clear targets for both the distinct criteria and the final summative evaluation will drive districts to and evaluation system that promotes growth and prevents stagnation.

(Back to top)

The How

Stakeholder Engagement:
The TPEP project has been a collaborative process from the beginning. Successful development and ultimately implementation has and will require looking at this process through multiple lenses. Please include any documents your district/consortium has used to incorporate authentic stakeholder engagement through the pilot development year. (This will include the norms and protocols you used in setting up your district’s TPEP steering committee.)

Communication:
Communication is a key component to successful development and implementation of the new evaluation system. The collaborative approach at both the state and district levels is critical. Include the plan and documents that would explain your communication process.

Professional Development:
Looking at this new evaluation system as a process in continuous improvement, professional development to train the staff involved in the pilot will be key. Please include your district’s plan for ongoing professional development for your teachers, principals and district administrators involved in the 2011-12 TPEP pilot year.

Data:
Many aspects of the new teacher and principal evaluation system will depend heavily on the acquisition and use of data. Include a description of resources your district already uses relating to instructional data and any additional resources you will need to implement the new evaluation system. (Include any technology, databases related to teacher, student, and/or principal data.)

Forms & Tools:
Many parts of the new evaluation system will require changing the forms and tools used in the evaluation process. Please include and forms and tools developed for the new evaluation process. (Please note which ones are electronic and which are paper-based). Examples: Observation protocols (pre, during and post), MOUs, artifact collection and observation tools, parent or student surveys, etc.)

(Back to top)

Visual Model Diagram

Principal Evaluation Model Visual 6 17

Click to expand image.

(Back to top)

AWSP Summative Principal Ratings

Below are two approaches to explaining the summative evaluation levels for principals. Each combines in some way the scores of the state’s eight principal evaluation criteria and the school’s student achievement data (or data from other agreed upon annual school goals).

Norm’s Example

Norm is a famous principal from years past. He tends to see things (and people) in terms of how close to, or far away from, normal they are. Norm-referenced tests were named after him. Norm looked at this task through the lens of comparison—that is, comparing principals or schools to each other. His proposal reflects this bias and thus limits the number of principals who can achieve a level-four rating. Norm helped Kim Marshall and Anacortes develop their descriptions.

Level 1 – Unsatisfactory: A first-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are relatively low, and whose student achievement data show no growth, or relatively limited growth compared to other schools. There will likely be a few “unsatisfactory” principals each year in most districts.

Level 2 – Emerging: A second-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria show some deficiencies, and whose student achievement growth data are acceptable but not stellar. Or, a second-level principal is one whose ratings from the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement data show no growth or limited growth compared to other schools.

Level 3 – Effective: A third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are strong, but whose student achievement growth data are only acceptable. Or, a third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement growth data are strong compared to other schools.

Level 4 – Distinguished: A fourth-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are high compared to other principals, and whose student achievement growth data are strong, as compared to data from other schools. There will likely be a few “distinguished” principals each year.

Stan’s Example

Stan is a retired distinguished principal who determines value by using a set of standards, rather than comparing people to each other. In fact, Stan’s name is short for his birth name, “Standard” (not “Stanley”… strange parents). Stan’s proposal reflects the philosophy that all individuals are capable of gaining proficiency in all eight evaluative criteria, and thus allows for an unlimited number of principals to achieve a level-four rating. Stan helped North Thurston, Kennewick, North Mason and the Consortium develop their descriptions.

Level 1 – Unsatisfactory: A first-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are low, and whose student achievement data show limited or no growth. There may be no “unsatisfactory” principals each year, or there may be many.

Level 2 – Emerging: A second-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria show some deficiencies, and whose student achievement growth data are acceptable but not stellar. Or, a second-level principal is one whose ratings from the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement data show limited or no growth.

Level 3 – Effective: A third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are strong, but whose student achievement growth data are only acceptable. Or, a third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement growth data are strong.

Level 4 – Distinguished: A fourth-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are strong, and whose student achievement growth data are strong. There may be no “distinguished” principals each year, or there may be many.

(Back to top)

North Mason’s Principal Model

Revised Principal Criteria & North Mason Definitions


Revised Principal Evaluation Criteria
1. Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff. The principal uses multiple data sources to develop, monitor and improve a school culture of collaboration dedicated to improving instructional practices in every classroom.
2. Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap. The principal analyzes student data to support an instructional core and a system of intervention designed to close the achievement gap through the implementation of research‐based instruction, grading and classroom management strategies.
3. Leading the development, implementation, and evaluation of a data-driven plan for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements./font> The principal leads stakeholders to develop a data‐driven written plan of key work, using multiple data elements, leading to effective instructional improvement reflected in improved student learning for all.
4. Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment with state and local district learning goals. The principal is knowledgeable of current curriculum, instruction and assessment practices. The principal creates systems that are aligned to research‐based practices and state/local learning goals that are focused on student achievement results.
5. Monitoring, assisting, and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices. The principal leads the improvement of instructional practice, aligned with the district instructional model and research‐based practices that lead to high levels of student learning through a system of data collection, providing clear feedback, and opportunities for teacher reflection.
6. Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities. The principal aligns and manages available resources, including personnel and time, to advance the district’s and school’s key work.
7. Partnering with the school community to promote student learning. The principal nurtures culturally responsive school‐community partnerships through effective communication and actively engages with various stakeholder groups.
8. Providing for school safety. The principal creates, implements, and facilitates systems and strategies that promote high expectations for safety, so that all stakeholders are physically and emotionally supported.

(Back to top)

Leadership Framework

The North Mason School District has actually used a rubric for principal evaluations for several years. This rubric was brought from another district to ours and was based on the state’s current principal evaluation criteria. With that document as a starting point, the superintendent and two principals began by incorporating Marzano’s 21 Responsibilities for Principals, deleting some cells that no longer were relevant as they enhanced the new rubric. They then organized the document into sections reflecting the new eight criteria as indicated in 6696. They then looked at the AWSP document, Evaluating Principal Leadership in a Performance-Based School (PDF) (updated 3/8/12 with rubrics), to see what was missing, as Marzano’s list did not speak to all eight criteria. The two principals on the team got feedback from their colleagues, and in May, 2011, the rubric was again revised to incorporate principal and AIR feedback in terms of content and formatting.

(Back to top)


Rubrics

In developing the attached Principal rubric, the work group started by listing the elements, then determining what description would define a Proficient/ Satisfactory principal at a Level 3. They then write level 4 for most elements. However, it was decided that for some of the management descriptors, a level 3 was sufficient. Because the NMSD has set priorities for what they want principals to be fabulous at (elements directly related to student achievement), some of the management cells stop at a 3.

This rubric is still in draft form. We are concerned that there are too many elements, so the work group is currently defining “power standards” for principals. This will lead to some editing of the rubric.

(Back to top)


Measures & Evidence

School-Based Observation Self-Assessment Other Measures & Evidence Student Growth Data
While some of the elements lend themselves to direct observation, we anticipate that much of the final rating will come from other evidence/ multiple measures. In terms of self-assessment, the rubric will be used in planning conferences, mid-point conferences and a final evaluation conference for principals to highlight their perception of where they are in each of the elements. During the course of the year, it is expected that principals would gather artifacts as evidence. These artifacts may include perception surveys of various stakeholder groups. (Please see “Other Measures and Evidence” for additional information.) Please see the attached Other Measures and Evidence document.

This document is still in a rough draft form. It is our plan to list two or three quantifiable measures/ evidence for each element within each of the eight criteria.

We are also considering how the principal might gather a “Collection of Evidence” that demonstrates proficiency, but where the contents would be a “natural harvest” of their work.
Please see criteria eight in the rubric.

(Back to top)

System for Determining Final Summative Principal Rating

❒ Proficiency Progression Model: This model requires choosing one or more criteria that are most critical for the proficiency the first year of implementation/teaching. Subsequent years would stair step proficiency requirements by adding criteria. This model can be combined with other models.

❒ Qualitative/Holistic Model: This model requires collection of artifacts and observation by the evaluator and holistically deriving a qualitative rating on the 4 tiers for each teacher.

❒ Mathematical Formula Model: This model uses a mathematical algorithm to add up each component and divide by the number of indicators/components to drive out a number for each criterion. The same process is completed for the criteria to finalize a summative rating.

❒ Percentage and/or Points Model: This model assigns percentages or points to each form of evidence (Example: Observations are worth 65%, Artifacts 15%, Impacts on Student Learning 15% and self reflection/reflection 5%)

❒ Raw Score Model: This model uses appropriate evidence (observation, artifacts, impact on student learning, self-assessment) to derive a raw score for each criterion. Those criterion scores are then added up to create a summative raw score. Summative rating is defined through a Raw Score Range (Example: Level 1: 8-13 Level 2: 14-19 Level 3: 20-26 Level 4: 27-32)

❒ Raw Score/Conditions Hybrid Model: This model combines the above raw score model with certain district level conditions (example: cannot be overall proficient with one unsatisfactory criterion score or unsatisfactory in safety criterion automatic overall unsatisfactory)

❒ Conditions Model: This model puts certain evaluation conditions depending on the contract status of the teacher.

❒ Other: Many of the above models can be combined or altered to fit the needs of your district evaluation model.

View North Mason’s Principal Evaluation Summative Scoring form (PDF).

(Back to top)


Community and Stakeholder Engagement

The TPEP project has been a collaborative process from the beginning. Successful development and ultimately implementation has and will require looking at this process through multiple lenses. Please include any documents your district/consortium has used to incorporate authentic stakeholder engagement through the pilot development year. (This will include the norms and protocols you used in setting up your district’s TPEP steering committee).

(Back to top)


Communication

Overview
Communication is a key component to successful development and implementation of the new evaluation system. The collaborative approach at both the state and district levels is critical. Include the plan and documents that would explain your communication process.

(Back to top)


Professional Development

Looking at this new evaluation system as a process in continuous improvement, professional development to train the staff involved in the pilot will be key. Please include your district’s plan for ongoing professional development for your teachers, principals and district administrators involved in the 2011-12 TPEP pilot year.

(Back to top)


Data

Many aspects of the new teacher and principal evaluation system will depend heavily on the acquisition and use of data. Include a description of resources your district already uses relating to instructional data and any additional resources you will need to implement the new evaluation system.

(Back to top)


Tools & Forms

(Back to top)


Contact Information

Contacts for North Mason School District:

(Back to top)