DPAS II

Document Sample
DPAS II Powered By Docstoc
					DPAS II


  Updated Training for DPAS II for
  Administrators
Educator Accountability
 Educator Professional Development
  and Accountability Act of 2000
   Established DPAS II for all educators
   Required that the system have no more
    than 5 components, with one component
    addressing student improvement.
   Required that evaluators be properly
    trained and credentialed.
DPAS II Pilot
 Regulations apply only to the two
  districts piloting DPAS II
   Appoquinimink
   Caesar Rodney
 During the pilot, any rating received
  on a Summative Evaluation is not
  included in the determination of a
  pattern of ineffective administration.
Who is an Administrator?
 For the purposes of DPAS II, an
  administrator is a professional
  employee of a school board serving in
  a supervisory capacity which involves
  the oversight of an instructional
  program.
Administrator
 Inexperienced – less than three years
  of service as an administrator
 Experienced – three or more years of
  service as an administrator
 Role Experienced – three or more
  years of service as an administrator
  in the role in which employed
DPAS II for Administrators
 Four Components
   Each component weighted equally
   Taken together, the components of the DPAS II
    system provide a strong focus on teaching and
    learning
   Components 2 through 4 directly relate to an
    administrator’s daily responsibilities
   Component 1 examines the administrator’s
    performance in light of national standards for
    school leaders
Components
  Component 1 – Leader Standards
  Component 2 – Goals and Priorities
  Component 3 – School or District
   Improvement Plan
  Component 4 – Measures of Student
   Achievement
Component 1 – Leader Standards
 Assesses the administrator’s
  performance against six national
  standards
 Establish a context in which
  administrators focus on components
  2, 3, and 4
 Assessed through an electronic
  survey
Component 1
 School Leader Survey
   Provides judgment about 4 components
    of professional practice for each of six
    school leader standards
   Survey completed by:
     Administrator completes a self-assessment
     Teachers who are supervised by the
      administrator complete an anonymous
      survey by April 1
     Evaluator completes a survey
Component 1
 School Leader Survey
   All surveys are forwarded electronically
    to the evaluator, who develops a
    composite score of the data from the
    three surveys
   Evaluator develops a summary
    assessment in the spring of the year
Components 2, 3 and 4
 Components 2, 3 and 4 are intentionally
  aligned with the school improvement plan
  and the district strategic plan
 Designed to work together to reinforce and
  support improved student performance and
  to drive continuous improvement
 Data and evidence collected by
  administrator as part of the process should
  be a natural harvest of the administrator’s
  ongoing work.
Component 2 – Goals and Priorities
 Sources of Goals
   Most should be linked directly to an
    administrator’s school or district improvement
    plan
   Should be focused on improving practice and
    student performance
   May include a goal based on leader standards
   May focus on unique school or district conditions
   May result from the administrator’s self-
    reflection
Component 2 – Goals and Priorities
 Substance of goals should:
   Connect to ISLLC Standards for School Leaders
   Be organizationally grounded
   Emphasize the direct contributions of the
    administrator
   Be anchored in analysis of data
   Be limited in number
   Have a longitudinal focus
   Be challenging
   Be mutually determined
Component 2 – Goals and Priorities
 Process
   Spotlights mutual determination
   Features ongoing dialogue between the
    administrator and the evaluator
   Delineates clearly expected
    performances
   Specifies evidence that will be provided
   Establishes criteria for success
Component 3 – School or District
Improvement Plan
 Process mirrors that employed in
  Component 2
 Evaluator and administrator review
  school or district improvement plan
  and identify specific goals and targets
 An agreed upon timeline for
  achievement of targets will be
  developed
Component 4 – Student
Improvement
 Achievement and improvement in 3
  broad areas grounds this part of the
  system
   School Accountability
   DSTP data
   Other measures of student achievement
Process

          Summative
                         Goal
          Evaluation
                        Setting
              &
                       Conference
          Conference




           Leader       Mid-Year
          Standards    Conference
            Survey
Procedures
 Determine administrators to be
  evaluated and their status
 Administrator submits completed goal
  form prior to August 15, based on the
  Summative Evaluation conference
  held during the summer. New
  administrators should complete the
  goal form within one month of
  employment
Procedures
 Administrator and evaluator meet within
  one month of summative conference, and
  no later than September 15 to agree upon
  goals. For superintendents, conference
  with the Board will take place prior to June
  30
 Mid-year conference will be held in
  December or January
 Written summary of mid-year conference
  prepared by the evaluator
Procedures
 Evaluator and administrator agree on who
  will complete Leader Standards Survey
 Survey completed by April 1
 Evaluator develops a composite of data
  from survey
 Administrator compiles student
  achievement data and progress on goals
  and submits to evaluator at least one week
  in advance of summative conference
Procedures
 Summative Conference
   Held during the summer (Superintendent and
    Board will hold a summative conference no later
    than June 15)
   All four components reviewed and discussed
   Initiate discussion of goals for the upcoming
    year.
   Evaluator completes Summative Evaluation
    Form and forwards to administrator within one
    week of conference
Waiver Process
 DPAS II features an annual process,
  but certain aspects may be waived for
  experienced educators whose
  performance is at least satisfactory.
   One year cycle for inexperienced
    administrators
   Two year cycle for experienced
    administrators whose performance is
    satisfactory
Waiver Year
 During a waiver year, the goal setting
  process and conference continue
 Evaluator and administrator meet at least
  four times over the two-year cycle
   Summer or early fall of year 1 for agreement on
    goals
   Mid year each year to discuss progress
   End of year 2 to for summative conference
 The Leader Standards survey is conducted
  in the spring of year two
Component Performance Levels
 Satisfactory Performance
   Clear and convincing evidence that the
    administrator has met established targets;
   Demonstrated flexibility in adapting to unusual
    circumstances;
   School leader know what to do and does it;
   Administrator understands the concept
    underlying the component and implements it
    well
Component Performance Levels
 Unsatisfactory Performance
   Little or no evidence of achievement of
    established targets
   Administrator does not yet appear to
    understand the concepts underlying the
    component and was unable to meet the
    established targets
Summative Performance Levels
 Effective
   Four satisfactory ratings among the four
    components
 Needs Improvement
   One unsatisfactory rating among the four
    components
 Ineffective
   Two or more unsatisfactory ratings
    among the four components
Pattern of Ineffective
Administration
 Needs
                         Effective     Ineffective   Ineffective


  Improvement            Needs
                         Improvement
                                       Needs
                                       Improvement
                                                     Ineffective

  rating for a third     Needs         Ineffective   Needs
  consecutive year       Improvement                 Improvement


  results in a pattern   Needs
                         Improvement
                                       Ineffective   Ineffective


  of ineffective         Ineffective   Ineffective   Ineffective

  administration         Ineffective   Ineffective   Needs
                                                     Improvement

                         Ineffective   Needs         Ineffective
                                       Improvement

                         Ineffective   Needs         Needs
                                       Improvement   Improvement
Improvement Plan
 Developed when an administrator
  receives:
   An overall rating of Needs Improvement
    or Ineffective on the Summative
    Evaluation
   A rating of Unsatisfactory on any
    component of the Summative Evaluation
Improvement Plan
 Must include:
   Definition of specific deficiencies
   Measurable goals for improving
    deficiencies to satisfactory level
   Evidence that must be provided or
    behaviors that must be demonstrated
   Procedures for evaluating and
    documenting improvement
   Timeline
   Record of judgment and date completed
Development of Improvement Plan
 Expectation of mutual development
 Both evaluator and administrator
  complete a preliminary Assistance
  Plan
 Meet to bring two preliminary plans
  together into one final Assistance
  Plan
 If consensus cannot be reached, the
  evaluator will develop the Plan.
Appeal Process
 An administrator may appeal any rating on
  the Summative Evaluation, either a
  component rating or the overall rating
   Must submit additional information specific to
    the point pf disagreement in writing within 10
    days
   If the differences cannot be resolved, the appeal
    is forwarded to the supervisor of the evaluator.
   If the Superintendent is also the evaluator, the
    appeal is directed to him/her
   The decision of the evaluator is final

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:2/12/2012
language:
pages:31