Measuring Principal Effectiveness

www.education.state.pa.us

Measuring Principal EffectivenessTom Corbett, Governor ▪ Carolyn C. Dumaresq, Acting Secretary of Education

Measuring Principal Effectiveness

07/01/14



Principal EffectivenessWhy Important and Why Now?

• Effective school leadership has an impact on developing a culture focused on student achievement. As noted in the Wallace Foundation report: “The School Principal as Leader”:

– “They [principals] have to be leaders of learning who can develop a team to deliver effective instruction.”

• Given Act 82, we are able to develop a Framework for Leadership in tandem with the deployment of the Danielson Framework for Teaching.

2



Principal Effectiveness Why Important and Why Now? (continued)

• Focusing on leadership and teaching frameworks concurrently enables schools more opportunities to enhance student achievement and promote collaboration.

• As the Commonwealth continues its work with the establishment of universal effectiveness frameworks, it is essential that building and system leaders have initial and on-going training to guarantee sustainability and reliability.

3



Multiple Measures Principal Effectiveness Ratings as Defined in Act 82

• For the overall principal effectiveness rating, we know that…– 50% will comprise the observation/practice piece (Framework

for Leadership).

– 15% will be derived from building level data (School Performance Profile – SPP).

– 15% will be determined by the relative strength of conversation regarding the connectedness between the average teacher observation/practice rating and teacher-level measures.

– 20% will incorporate Elective Data / SLOs for principals.(note: for 2014-14, elective data is optional)

4



Elective Data/SLOsDistrict Designed Measures and ExaminationsNationally Recognized Standardized TestsIndustry Certification ExaminationsStudent Projects Pursuant to Local RequirementsStudent Portfolios Pursuant to Local Requirements

Principal Effectiveness System in Act 82 of 2012

47

Building Level Data,

15%Correlation

Data Based on Teacher-Level

Measures,15%

Elective Data20%

Observa-tion/

Practice50%

Correlation Data/Relationship

Based on Teacher Level Measures

Building Level Data/School Performance Profile

Indicators of Academic AchievementIndicators of Closing the Achievement Gap, All StudentsIndicators of Closing the Achievement Gap,

Historically Underperforming StudentsAcademic Growth PVAASOther Academic IndicatorsExtra Credit for Advanced Achievement

Observation/ PracticeFramework for Leadership Domains

Strategic/Cultural LeadershipSystems LeadershipLeadership for LearningProfessional and Community Leadership

June 26, 2014



Observa-tion/ Prac-tice 80%

Student Perfor-mance 20%

Non Teaching Professional Employee Effectiveness System in Act 82 of 2012

6June 26, 2014

Observation and Practice

Planning and PreparationEducational EnvironmentDelivery of Service Professional Development

Student Performance/School Performance Profile(SPP)



Principal Effectiveness System

Framework for Leadership

7



Developing a Framework: Our Journey

Framework for

Leadership

Rev

iew

of E

xist

ing

Wor

k

From

Oth

er S

tate

sA

ct 45 – Core and

Corollary Standards

Review of Research and Other Experts Consulted

8



Developing a Framework: Our Journey Review of Previous Work

• Reviewed existing state models from North Carolina, Delaware, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Colorado.

• Analyzed elements of the various models from the following perspectives:

• The nine PA School Leadership Standards; Specifically the Core & Corollary Leadership Standards as mandated by Act 45 of 2007.

• The leader’s role in improving student achievement.• The desire for measureable and constructive feedback to staff.

• Conducted an extensive review of research linked to principal effectiveness.

9



Developing a Framework: Our Journey Review of Research

• Highlights from the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Report:

– Principals have the greatest indirect impact on student learning.– An emphasis is needed for evaluators to be accredited and reaccredited

after a set period of time to prevent rater drift.– Having multiple observers helps to validate the growth, improvement,

and evaluation process.

Resource: http://www.metproject.org/reports.php

10



Developing a Framework: Our Journey Review of Research (continued)

• Highlights from the RAND Corporation Report: “First Year Principals in Urban School Districts”:

– The report provided an analysis of the relationship between first year principals and achievement within urban school districts.

– Results showed that when a principal leaves, student achievement suffers 2-3 years.

Resource: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2012/RAND_TR1191.pdf

11




• Highlights from the Wallace Foundation Report: “The School Principal as Leader” include the following competencies for effective school leaders:

– Share a vision of academic success for all students.– Create a climate hospitable to education.– Cultivate leadership in others.– Improve instruction.– Manage people, data, and processes to foster school improvement.

Resource:http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/effective-principal-leadership/Documents/The-School-Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf 12




• Highlights from the April 2010 Policy Brief, Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER):

– More effective principals are able to staff schools with more effective teachers.– Experience is a predictor of principal effectiveness.– The principal's job is complex; Effectiveness depends on sense of efficacy on

tasks and how time is allocated for tasks.– Principal evaluations of teachers can offer valuable feedback on teacher

performance, as opposed to student test scores alone.

Resource:http://www.caldercenter.org/publications/calder-policy-brief-8.cfm

13



Developing a Framework: Our Journey Engaging Stakeholders and Expertise

• Educational experts from national, state, and local levels have provided guidance throughout the process. Expertise employed includes:

– Engagement with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Education Lab (REL) to facilitate collaboration with other states and to provide expertise in the validation of the Pennsylvania Framework for Leadership.

– Partnership with the Gates Foundation to provide resources and expertise.

– Seeking independent review of materials by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) from a systematic / sustainability perspective.

14



Developing a Framework: Our Journey Engaging Stakeholders and Expertise (continued)

• Expertise includes: – Collaborated with superintendents and principals within and outside

Pennsylvania to ensure a “practical” application of the Framework for Leadership.

– Conducted stakeholder meetings (which include superintendents and principals) representing LEAs of various sizes and locations throughout the Commonwealth.

15



Developing a Framework: Our Journey Review of Research and Other Experts Consulted

Research Experts

• Measures of Effective Teaching (MET)

• RAND Corporation Report: “First Year Principals in Urban School Districts”

• Wallace Foundation Report: “The School Principal as Leader”

• April 2010 Policy Brief, Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER)

• Mid-Atlantic Regional Education Lab (REL)

• Mathematica

• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

• American Institute of Research (AIR) – Matt Clifford

• Stakeholders (superintendents and principals) representing LEAs of various sizes and locations throughout the Commonwealth.

16



Developing a Framework: Our Journey Conducting Pilot Phases

Various phases were implemented to pilot the Framework for Leadership and additional supporting materials. Obtaining direct feedback from the field during each of these phases has been a critical piece. • Phase I (2011 – 12)

– Feedback from a mini pilot indicated the need to develop a more robust framework and provide supporting resources.

• Phase II (2012 – 13)– Included 194 LEAs (districts, career and technical centers, charter schools).– 1,982 principals participated.

17



Developing a Framework: Our Journey Conducting Pilot Phases (continued)

• Phase III (2013-14)– Included 240 LEAs (districts, career and technical centers, charter schools).– 1121 Principals, 423 Assistant Principals participated

• Both Phase II and III– Surveys used to obtain qualitative feedback (process, structure of Framework for

Leadership, resources, etc.).– Quantitative research conducted by Mathematica (through the Mid-Atlantic REL)

to validate the Framework for Leadership.– Phase II Quantitative Research Results Indication that the Framework for

Leadership has good internal consistency. The domains within the Framework for Leadership tend to capture a similar underlying leadership quality.

18



Framework for Leadership Incorporating Act 82 of 2012

• Within Act 82, new requirements for Educator Effectiveness have been defined for teachers, principals, and education specialists. Specific to the principal are the evaluation categories of Planning and Preparation, School Environment, Delivery of Service, and Professional Development.

• Utilizing the expertise previously identified, a Framework for Leadership was developed with a defined domain and component structure. An alignment of this framework structure to the Act 82 legislated categories was completed.

19



Framework for LeadershipAlignment with Act 82

20



Framework for Leadership Domains

• The Framework for Leadership establishes a set of four leadership domains:

• Domain 1: Strategic/Cultural Leadership• Domain 2: Systems Leadership• Domain 3: Leadership for Learning• Domain 4: Professional and Community Leadership

• The Framework for Leadership contains specific components (with corresponding descriptors) to be included in each of the four domains.

21



Domain 1: Strategic/Cultural Leadership With Components

Domain Descriptor: Principals/school leaders systemically and collaboratively develop a positive culture to promote student growth and staff development. They articulate and model a clear vision of the school’s culture that involves students, families, and staff.

Components Included in Domain:– Creates an Organizational Vision, Mission, and Strategic Goals – Uses Data for Informed Decision Making – Builds a Collaborative and Empowering Work Environment– Leads Change Efforts for Continuous Improvement– Celebrates Accomplishments and Acknowledges Failures

22



23



Domain 2: Systems LeadershipWith Components

Domain Descriptor: Principals/school leaders ensure that there are processes and systems in place for budgeting, staffing, problem solving, communicating expectations and scheduling that result in organizing the work routines in the building. They must manage efficiently, effectively and safely to foster student achievement.

Components Included in Domain: – Leverages Human and Financial Resources– Ensures a High Quality, High Performing Staff – Complies with Federal, State, and LEA Mandates – Establishes and Implements Expectations for Students and Staff – Communicates Effectively and Strategically – Manages Conflict Constructively– Ensures School Safety

24



Domain 3: Leadership for LearningWith Components

Domain Descriptor: Principals/school leaders ensure that a Standards Aligned System is in place to address the linkage of curriculum, instruction, assessment, data on student learning and teacher effectiveness based on research and best practices..

Components Included in Domain: – Leads School Improvement Initiatives– Aligns Curricula, Instruction, and Assessments – Implements High Quality Instruction – Sets High Expectations for All Students – Maximizes Instructional Time

25



Domain 4: Professional and Community Leadership

With Components

Domain Descriptor: Principals/school leaders promote the success of all students, the positive interactions among building stakeholders and the professional growth of staff by acting with integrity, fairness and in an ethical manner..

Components Included in Domain: – Maximizes Professional Responsibilities Through Parent Involvement and

Community Engagement – Shows Professionalism– Supports Professional Growth

26



Types of EvidenceUsed to Support the Framework

For each of the components within the Framework for Leadership, possible sources of evidence have been identified…

– Principals / School Leaders (identified in Act 82) Evidence is provided as examples that LEAs can choose to bring to formative and summative evaluation sessions. NOT intended to be a “checklist.” Other sources of evidence can be determined locally.

– CTC Directors (identified in Act 82) A need existed to address the specific needs of CTCs, hence an expanded version of the Types of Evidence document was created. Again, other sources of evidence can be determined locally

– Supervisors (not identified in Act 82) The evidence document developed for principals / school leaders will be beneficial. Other sources of evidence based upon an individual’s unique role and function can be determined locally.

27



ConnectednessBetween the Leadership and Teacher Frameworks

• There is a broad connection between the Framework for Leadership and the Teacher Framework that warrants close inspection. Although the differences are obvious in that they apply to different positions in the educational system, they have imperative systemic goals in common. The visual below illustrates this connectedness:

Framework for

Leadership

Framework for Teaching

Strategic Discussions

Area of

Commonality 28



ConnectednessBetween the Leadership and Danielson Frameworks (continued)

• The two overlapping circles of principal and teacher effectiveness create an area of commonality. This area of commonality requires alignment of goals, effort and resources in a system that is student-centered. In the list below, eight essential factors contribute to this area of commonality:

– Vision– Common Standards– High Expectations for All– Instruction– Assessment– Collaboration– Safety and Security– Professionalism 29



Possible Guiding QuestionsTo Help Inform the Process

• To ensure that principal and teacher effectiveness remain connected; highly strategic discussions regarding the eight essential factors must occur among all partners.

• Two Possible Guiding Questions documents have been created to help inform both the vertical and horizontal discussions that should occur within the evaluative process for teachers and principals. More specifically these documents include…– Strategic Discussions Between Supervising Administrators and

Principals / School Leaders– Strategic Discussions Between Principals / School Leaders and

Teachers.

30



Process for Principal Effectiveness Assistance to Implement the Framework for Leadership

The steps outlined below are intended to incorporate current LEA principal evaluation processes and enrich them with the Framework for Leadership. In addition, an LEAs comprehensive plan can be blended with the Framework for Leadership to attain principal effectiveness.

The process identified is provided to spur some thoughts as to the individual discussions that occur between a supervising administrator and principal/school leader. The actual process/discussions that occur should be determined locally. It is not mandatory to use this process, nor should it be viewed as a “checklist” to be followed. It is provided solely as a resource.

31



Process for Principal Effectiveness Assistance to Implement the Framework for Leadership (continued)

Steps for Supervising Administrators (those conducting evaluations)…

1. Complete training offered by your Intermediate Unit.

2. Review your current LEA evaluation process and incorporate the Framework for Leadership, Types of Evidence, and Possible Guiding Questions/Connectedness documents into your process.

3. The principal/school leader (person being evaluated) reviews the Framework for Leadership with you to determine agreed upon components based upon data and previously identified professional development needs. A recommendation is to include a minimum of two components per domain. This forms the basis of the evaluation.

32




4. Map out an agreed upon observation schedule and types of evidence to be collected throughout the year by you and the principal/school leader for each agreed upon component.

5. Meet midway through the year to discuss progress in collecting evidence relative to the agreed upon components (and other components upon which evidence has been collected). Provide written and/or oral feedback. If needed, based on data and feedback, make any necessary adjustments. Types of Evidence and Possible Guiding Questions/Connectedness documents are available to help frame the conversations.

33




6. The principal/school leader completes an End of Year (EOY) self-assessment by highlighting areas within the defined performance levels of the Framework for Leadership based upon evidence that support these performance levels. You should also complete an independent EOY assessment based upon evidence you collected relative to the principal’s/school leader’s performance.

7. Conduct an End of Year (EOY) meeting with the principal/school leader to compare your assessment with the principal/school leader’s self-assessment to determine the final evaluation ratings for each of the domains (areas of disagreement should be resolved by a review of the evidence). Note: A domain rating is not intended to be an average of the component ratings for that domain; rather, it is based upon the preponderance of evidence presented for that domain. 34




8. Enter final domain ratings into the Principal Effectiveness Rating Tool.

9. Opportunities exist to use the results of the EOY meeting to inform possible Principal SLOs for the following year.

35



Alignment with PILPossible Approaches

• Following the completion of initial training on the Danielson Framework for Teaching and certification for inter-rater reliability, principals will receive reinforcement of these concepts within the PIL program.

• Incorporate teacher evaluation information into NISL Course 1(part of Principal Induction).– Currently PIL Induction participants must complete an Administrative

Leadership Project (ALP). – As the ALP must be focused on improving student achievement, we would

require that participants connect their individual ALP back to a specific domains in the evaluation tool.

– Potential of creating a Professional Learning Community for the participants through SAS.

36



Alignment with PILPossible Approaches

• Incorporate training on the Framework for Leadership into Course 1, Unit 3 (Principal Induction) where participants must focus on the elements of Standards-Based Instructional Systems, as found on SAS.

• Incorporate training on the Framework for Leadership into Course 1, Unit 4 (Principal Induction) where participants could actually focus on the use of the framework in each of the domains.

37



Principal Effectiveness InstrumentAlignment with Act 82 and PIL Program

38




Correlation Data

39



• It was recommended that we adopt a process that focuses on the conversation between the supervising administrator and the principal / school leader based on the principal’s knowledge, understanding and intended use of the evidence / data presented.

• The rating for correlation data is based on a qualitative assessment by the supervising administrator of the level of understanding (0, 1, 2, or 3) of the quantitative analysis conducted by the principal / school leader.

Correlation Data Based Upon Teacher Level Measures



• To aid the supervising administrator in assigning a correlation rating (0, 1, 2, or 3), a Performance Level Descriptor Chart has been developed.

• This chart will provide guidance for rating the conversation between the supervising administrator and the principal / school leader regarding the connectedness between Teacher Level Measures and Observation and Practice (Framework for Teaching) ratings.

• Teacher Level Measures “shall include, but not be limited to any combination of one or more of the following data”

• Building Level Data / SPP• Teacher Specific Data (PVAAS, etc.)• Elective Data / Principal SLOs

Correlation Data Based Upon Teacher Level Measures




Elective Data / SLOs

42



• PDE will provide a template, guidance and direction to facilitate the completion of the SLO document.

• The template will consist of expandable boxes that will be used by the principal to complete the measureable goal(s) as stated in the SLO including, but not limited to: historical information relating to the selection of the goal, performance indicators, performance measures, action plans, and a rating scale that will be developed in collaboration between the supervising administrator and the principal.

Elective Data / SLOBased Upon Teacher Level Measures



Rating ToolUseful for Determining a Principal / School Leader’s Rating

• A rating tool (PA 82-2) has been developed that incorporates all aspects of the Principal Effectiveness System such that a final rating for a principal can be determined.

• Final ratings and all supporting evidence/documentation for individuals will be kept at the local level. Only aggregate ratings information will be submitted to PDE.

• The rating tool for Non Teaching Professional Employees (PA 82-3) has also been developed.

• The rating tool reflects a similar design as the one developed for teacher evaluation (PA 82-1).

44



The mission of the Pennsylvania Department of Education is to lead and serve the educational community, to enable each individual to grow into an inspired, productive, fulfilled lifelong learner.

45

Measuring Principal Effectiveness

Documents

Transcript of Measuring Principal Effectiveness