Slide 1

Slide 2

Sub-heading ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Personnel Leader Proposed Adaptations

Slide 3

Common Titles for Personnel Leaders 1 Director of Human Resources Personnel Director Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Director of Professional Development

Slide 4

Components of Evaluation 2 ANNUAL SUMMATIVE RATING ANNUAL SUMMATIVE RATING OUTCOME RATING PRACTICE RATING Teacher Effectiveness Outcomes

Slide 5

Performance and Leadership Practice 3 GUIDELINES Leadership Practice comprises 40% of the summative rating Districts may generate ratings from evidence based on the Common Core of Leading (CCL) Use of a rubric is not required for Personnel administrators

Slide 6

Performance and Practice: Weighting of Standards 4 The CCL outlines six Performance Expectations (PEs) PE 3: Organizational Systems and Safety 50% All other PES (equally weighted) 50%

Slide 7

Focus Area Development 5 Proposed Adaptations Identify specific areas in which administrators want to improve Based on reflection on past performance and aligned with the CT Leadership Standards Includes action steps to move practice in support of the improvement of teaching and learning Support administrators in accomplishing their Student Learning Indicators and Stakeholder Feedback targets

Slide 8

Focus Area Example 6 P.E. 3 (C) Fiscal and Human Resources In order to provide professional learning opportunities for teachers and administrators that are grounded in the districts educator evaluation and support plan, I will use results from a needs assessment and develop a plan that will support continued improvement and retention of staff.

Slide 9

Stakeholder Feedback 7 GUIDELINES Stakeholder Feedback comprises 10% of the summative Rating Feedback from relevant stakeholders May use surveys, interviews, focus groups, other methods to gather stakeholder feedback Methods used to gather feedback must be valid and reliable Surveys must align with CT Leadership Standards

Slide 10

Stakeholder Feedback Groups 8 Suggested Stakeholder Groups for Personnel Program Leaders: - Building Administrators - Teachers

Slide 11

Sample Stakeholder Feedback Questions 9 On a scale of 1 (Disagree) to 5 (Agree), how would you rate the following statements The hiring practices of the Personnel Office align with the school and district vision, mission and goals Employee expectations and standards are clearly communicated through induction and evaluation Hiring processes and practice reflect and show vision and involve a variety of stakeholders The Personnel Office promotes new teacher growth through quality induction practices

Slide 12

Proposed Adaptations for Student Learning Outcomes 10 Guidelines Student Learning Outcomes comprises 45% of the summative rating Proposed Adaptations Two performance goals based on attainment of targets that support student learning

Slide 13

Recommendation for Student Learning Indicator 11 Sample Indicators Indicator 1: 90% of new teachers hired will maintain employment in the district after three years. Indicator 2: In the 2014-2015 school year, all new teachers will report that they have had the support needed to make their transition to teaching in this district successful and satisfying, based on a survey and focus group assessment.

Slide 14

A Development Guide for Student Learning Indicators 12

Slide 15

Teacher Effectiveness Outcomes 13 Guidelines Teacher Effectiveness outcomes comprises 5% of the summative rating Proposed Adaptations Rating is based on the percentage of district non-tenured teachers who meet or exceed their targets for their Student Learning Indicators

Slide 16

Teacher Effectiveness Outcomes 14 ExemplaryProficientDevelopingBelow Standard >80% of non-tenured teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the student learning objectives portion of their evaluation >60% of non-tenured teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the student learning objectives portion of their evaluation >40% of non-tenured teachers are rated proficient or exemplary on the student learning objectives portion of their evaluation