Central Office Administrator Development and Evaluation Adaptations for Central Office...

Central Office Administrator Development and Evaluation

Adaptations for Central Office Administrators

Connecticut State Department of Education

Objectives for Session

• Participants will…• Understand how to implement the

Connecticut Guidelines as they pertain to CO administrators

• Become familiar with resources to support district implementation

• Understand the role central office administrators play in creating district coherence

2


Why Adaptations Were Developed

• Legislation requires that all 092 administrators be evaluated.

• The CT Guidelines and the SEED model for 092 evaluation were clearly developed with building based administrators in mind.

• In order to meet requirements in a coherent and meaningful way, appropriate adaptations needed to be made to the guidelines.


How the Adaptations Were Developed

• A special work group convened in May 2013.• 12 educators experienced in varied central office roles served

on the work group.• The work group used a “critical friends” approach to reviewing

the work for each of the 6 defined areas of 092 central roles.• The work group engaged other practitioners in reviewing and

providing feedback.• The SDE vetted the recommendations and convened a meeting

with both work group members and other stakeholders.• Further refinements were made.• These recommendations were made available in the fall of

2014 for a permissive pilot.


Big Ideas in the State Model

Focus on what

matters most

Emphasize growth over

time

Leave room for

judgment

ConsiderImplement-

ation at least as much as design

5


The Foundations Of Administrator Evaluation

• Focuses on what matters most: student learning, leadership practice, supporting and developing teachers, school and program leaders

• Uses multiple measures of leadership effectiveness

• Applies to administrators in a position requiring an 092 endorsement

6


Components Of Evaluation

7

ANNUAL SUMMATIVE

RATING

OUTCOME RATING

PRACTICE RATING

Teacher Effectiveness Outcomes


Leadership Practice (40%)

CT Leadership Standards form the basis for the analysis of professional practice. For central office administrators the weighting can adjusted to reflect roles and responsibilities. The weighting of performance expectations can be determined at the district level within Guideline parameters.

8


The CT Leadership Standards

• Based on the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards

• 6 Performance Expectations:– Vision, Mission and Goals– Teaching and Learning – Organizational Systems and Safety– Families and Stakeholders– Ethics and Integrity – The Education System

9

Connecticut State Department of Education 10

Evidence Collection For Practice Rating

Minimum of:

• Two site visits • Four observations for any administrator new

to their district, school, their position, or who has received ratings of Developing or Below Standard

• Site visits: Frequent & Purposeful


Stakeholder Feedback (10%)

• Feedback from stakeholders can be gathered in a variety of ways:

Surveys (most common method)Focus groupsInterviews

• Feedback enables administrator to collect data relevant to leadership practice

• Sample questions for central office role are available at ctseed.org

11


Stakeholder Feedback

Function Principals Teachers Parents Students Others

Special Ed. X X

X

Curriculum X X

Personnel X X

Business X X

Athletic Dir. X Coaches

Adult Ed. X X

12


STUDENT LEARNING: Indicators of Student Learning (45%)

Central office administrator

Broad discretion for a minimum of two student learning goals: Indicators may be - group of schools,- group of students- subject area most relevant to the

administrator’s job responsibilities

Through the ESEA Flexibility Renewal process, the CSDE is requesting continued flexibility from the US Department of Education, at least through the 2015-16 school year, regarding the requirement to incorporate the state test as a measure of student growth in educator evaluation for teachers and administrators in tested grades and subjects.

13


Teacher Effectiveness Rating (5%)

• The proposed adaptation for determining a rating is based on the percentage of principals, assistant principals, directors and teachers who meet or exceed their student learning targets.

14


Evidence collection

Evidence is derived from three main sources:• observation of the administrator during

leadership activities• the examination of artifacts of the

administrator’s work• information gathered through supervisory

conferences.

15


Your Turn

• With a partner discuss:–Goal setting process–Evidence for professional practice–Expectations for achieving a proficient

level for the professional practice rating

16


Focus Area

17

A focus area:• identifies an area in which an administrator wants

to improve• includes action steps to move practice in support to

the improvement of teaching and learning• supports the administrator in the accomplishment

of their Student Learning Indicators and Stakeholder Feedback target

• is not required under the CT Guidelines


Case Study

• Review the case study• Make note of connections between artifacts

and Leadership Standards• Discuss your observations and generate ideas

for additional artifacts

18


Planning Considerations

With your Professional Development and Evaluation Committee (PDEC):

-discuss required student learning goals-discuss the approach to the evaluation of

professional practice: weighting of Performance Expectations

-discuss stakeholder feedback survey or process-include at least one central office administrator on the PDEC

19


Coherence

How can the system for evaluation and professional development for central office administrators contribute to coherent practices in school districts or otherwise connect to the central theme of this conference?

20


Contact information

Michael Galluzzo Betty Osga Sharon Fuller Assistant Executive Educational Consultant Educational Consultant Director, CAS [email protected] Talent Office, CSDE [email protected] [email protected]

21

mailto:[email protected]



Central Office Administrator Development and Evaluation Adaptations for Central Office...

Documents

Transcript of Central Office Administrator Development and Evaluation Adaptations for Central Office...