REPORT

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY MEETING AGENDA ITEM

TITLE: HCPSS Teacher and Principal Evaluation Pilot DATE: December 18, 2012

PRESENTERS:

Juliann Dibble, Director, Professional and Organizational Development Maria Finger-Elam, Evaluation Specialist L. Paul Lemle, President, HCEA Kathryn McKinley, Principal, Mount View MS and Past President HCAA William Ryan, Executive Director, School Improvement and School Administration Linda Wise, Deputy Superintendent, Curriculum, Instruction, and Administration

OVERVIEW: The Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) has worked collaboratively with the teacher [Howard County Educator Association (HCEA)] and administrator [Howard County Administrator Association (HCAA)] bargaining units to develop new teacher and principal evaluation frameworks. By December 26, the HCPSS will submit a revised plan for teacher and principal evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year to the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). This plan needs to be signed by the superintendent and by HCEA and HCAA. Evaluators will use the new frameworks to assess teachers and principals on measures of professional practice and student growth in the 2013-2014 school year. THE FUTURE DIRECTION: The results of the 2012-2013 pilot will be used to refine the evaluation frameworks and the information gathered will be presented to the Board of Education prior to June 1 when updated models will be submitted to the State. Submitted by:

Approval/ Concurrence:

Linda T. Wise Deputy Superintendent, Curriculum, Instruction, and Administration

Renee A. Foose, Ed.D. Superintendent

William H. Ryan, Executive Director, School Improvement and Administration

Juliann M. Dibble, Director, Professional and Organizational Development

2

Background

The Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) has committed to redesigning its teacher and principal evaluation systems to reflect the state and federal emphasis on including student growth in teacher/principal evaluations. Almost two years ago, the Student Growth Work Group (see Attachment A) began work on a new teacher evaluation system. The Principal Evaluation Work Group (see Attachment A) was convened during the 2011-2012 school year to create evaluation documents for principals. The Student Growth and Principal Evaluation Work Groups have held sessions in which teachers and administrators gave input into the design of the evaluations. The system and bargaining units operated in good faith and invested significant time, energy, and effort in creating models that would comply with the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) requirements and reflect the school system’s values and priorities. The new teacher and principal evaluations contain two significant elements: professional practice and student growth. The final evaluations will result in overall ratings of ineffective, effective, or highly effective. The HCPSS has been working with the Howard County Educator Association (HCEA) and the Howard County Administrator Association (HCAA) to develop evaluation frameworks that align with the Teacher and Principal Evaluation Guidebook which was initially released by MSDE in April with an update in September 2012. This school year, the HCPSS is piloting and will evaluate the new frameworks. This September, the HCPSS submitted models for teacher and principal evaluation. In both models MSA was 10% of student growth. In November 2012, the MSDE notified the HCPSS that the Maryland School Assessment (MSA) needed to be 20% of the evaluation for teachers and principals. The HCPSS and HCEA remain in agreement that 10% is the appropriate value for the use of MSA in the teacher evaluation. However, to comply with MSDE’s directive, the teacher evaluation proposal now reflects that English/Language Arts and mathematics teachers of grades 4-8 must have 20% of their evaluation comprised of their students' MSA performance. The State Model was presented in the Maryland ESEA Flexibility Request and specifies that 20% of the evaluation of a teacher teaching one or more assessed subjects/grades would be comprised of state assessment scores. It states that LEAs would have flexibility in assessing the non-growth measure components of the teacher evaluation model (professional practice), but strongly implies that no such flexibility would be allowed for the student growth measures (including the 20% determined by state assessments). The 20% state assessment requirement was reiterated at meetings between the HCPSS and the MSDE.

3

Based on the 20% state evaluation requirement, the HCPSS Principal Evaluation model was also adjusted to be in compliance. The student growth component is divided between student learning objectives and systemwide targets including Maryland School Assessment for elementary and middle school principals. By December 26, the Howard County Public School System will submit revised plans for principal and teacher evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year to the MSDE. If the school system and the bargaining units are unable to mutually agree upon models, the HCPSS would be required to use the State Models (Attachment B). The HCPSS must indicate which of the models, its own model or the State Model, it will be using beginning in the 2013-2014 school year for teacher and principal evaluation. Each model must be approved and signed by the respective bargaining unit and these decisions and the signatures must be communicated to the MSDE no later than December 26, 2012. The Proposed HCPSS Teacher Evaluation Framework The new teacher evaluation system will include the 2012 Danielson Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument (Domains 1-4) and Student Growth (Domain 5). Domains 1-4 encompass planning and preparation, classroom environment, delivery of instruction, and professional responsibilities. Interpersonal skills (a key component of the HCPSS’s prior evaluation system) are embedded in the framework’s Domains 1-4. Domain 5 will be a new domain measuring student growth in the following areas: literacy, mathematical practice, creative problem-solving/STEM, and content. Student growth will be evaluated using Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) and Maryland School Assessment (MSA) results of students in grades 4-8. When the state moves to the PARCC assessments, the HCPSS will use the results of the new assessments as one measure of student growth. The MSDE requires that Professional Practice and Student Growth each comprise 50% of the evaluation. SLOs will be created by each teacher in consultation with his or her principal in the area(s) of literacy, math practices, creative problem solving, and content. The SLOs will include metrics such as rubrics, checklists, locally designed assessments including leveled tasks, and standardized measures including benchmarks. In alignment with the feedback of teachers as expressed in focus group meetings, the HCPSS teacher evaluation model includes no school-level factors, so that teachers will only be evaluated on the performance of their own students. In the HCPSS model, for teachers of assessed areas grades 4-8, 80% of their evaluation is based on classroom level measures (Danielson 50% and one SLO 30%) and, for all other teachers, 100% of their evaluation is based on classroom level measures (Danielson 50% and two SLOs each 25% of the evaluation).

4

HCPSS Teacher Evaluation ModelCharlotte Danielson’s Framework For Teaching and Learning

Professional Practice (50%)

Domain 1 Planning and Preparation

12.5%

Domain 3 Instruction

12.5%

Domain 2 Classroom

Environment12.5%

Domain 4 Professional

Responsibilities12.5%

Literacy

• Reading• Writing• Speaking and Listening•Differentiation

Mathematical Practices

• Overarching Habits• Reasoning and Explaining• Modeling and Using Tools• Seeing Structure and Generalizing

• Differentiation

Creative Problem Solving in Support of MD STEM

Standards of Practice

• Understanding Challenges• Generation of Ideas• Preparation for Action• Application of Technology• Differentiation

Content

• Assessments• Performance-Based Tasks•Differentiation

l

Qualitative Measures

S a da ds o ac ce

Quantitative Measures:Student Learning

Objectives andMSA

Maryland School Assessments (for teachers grades 4-8 who are teachers of record for mathematics and/or English Language Arts) 20%

Domain 5Student Growth

(50%)

tiive

Student Learning Objectives – for teachers of assessed areas 30%; for all others two SLOs 25%, 25%

5

Differences Between the HCPSS and State Models

For Teachers Grades 4-8 who are teachers of record for mathematics

and/or English Language Arts HCPSS MODEL

STATE MODEL Planning & Preparation 12.5% 12.5% Instruction 12.5% 12.5% Classroom Environment 12.5% 12.5% Professional Responsibilities 12.5% 12.5% Total Professional Practice 50% 50% Maryland School Assessment 20% 20% Student Learning Objective (SLO) 30% 20% School Progress Index (SPI) 0% 10% Total Student Growth 50% 50% TOTAL 100% 100%

For All Other Teachers HCPSS MODEL Planning & Preparation 12.5% 12.5% Instruction 12.5% 12.5% Classroom Environment 12.5% 12.5% Professional Responsibilities 12.5% 12.5% Total Professional Practice 50% 50% Maryland School Assessment 0% 0% Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) 50% (25%, 25%) 35% School Progress Index (SPI) 0% 15% Total Student Growth 50% 50% TOTAL 100% 100%

Importantly, for teachers not responsible for MSA-assessed content, the locally developed model does not include MSA. This is not true of the state model, which incorporates the School Progress Index, -- a schoolwide measure based on state accountability measures including MSA and HSA. Differences in HCPSS and MSDE model:

� In the State model, all teachers will have the School Progress Index, a measure of achievement, gap reduction, and student growth (at the elementary and middle school level) included in their evaluation. The Growth Indicator is replaced with College and Career Readiness at the high school level.

� The School Progress Index will account for 10% percent of the overall evaluation for MSA assessed teachers and 15% for non-assessed teachers.

6

o MSA assessed teachers have control of 80% of their evaluation in the HCPSS model, but only 70% in the State model. This results in the evaluation of MSA assessed teachers consisting of 30% MSA outcomes.

o Non-assessed teachers have control of 100% of the evaluation in the HCPSS model, but only 85% in the State model.

� The School Progress Index is a school-wide measure; all teachers within a school will receive the same score on this measure regardless of individual performance.

� In sum, teachers will be accountable for student performance for all students within the physical school building, not just their assigned students.

� The HCPSS model has an established scoring system and rubric. This established rubric was designed to maximize transparency and ease of understanding. The results of the pilot will inform cut scores for effectiveness ratings in order to ensure that the evaluation is fair to teachers.

� The scoring system for the State model has yet to be developed. The State will determine cut scores without the benefit of conducting pilot evaluation and analyses. The State indicates that the raw score will be converted to a scale score. It is not clear how much information will be provided to the subject of evaluation (teacher).

Below, are the key differences between the two models:

State Model HCPSS Model

Danielson Same criteria; MSDE controls cut scores

Same criteria; HCPSS controls cut scores

Maryland School Assessment

MSDE determines growth HCPSS determines growth

Student Learning Objectives

MSDE provides guidance HCPSS provides guidance

School Progress Index (SPI) Composite score including: • Achievement • Growth • Gap Reduction(ES/MS) • College & Career Readiness (HS)

Not included

Overall Scoring method in development; MSDE controls cut scores

Scoring method determined; HCPSS controls cut scores

7

The Proposed HCPSS Principal Evaluation The HCPSS will also implement a new principal evaluation system during the 2013-2014 school year. The HCPSS professional practice measures for principals will contain two main components based on the Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework (Framework). The Framework provides twelve professional practice outcomes on which to base principal expectations. The HCPSS’s first component aligns with the Framework’s first eight outcomes and focuses on providing effective instructional leadership and an organized, clear, and supportive learning environment. The HCPSS’s second component aligns with the Framework’s last four outcomes and involves providing leadership driven by strong communication, management, and ethics. For principals, the HCPSS plans on looking at growth towards rigorous school improvement targets and the successful achievement of teacher-level student learning objectives. The school improvement targets based on Goal 1 and Goal 2 include performance on state assessments and college entrance examinations, graduation rate and participation in advanced-level programs. The MSDE requires that Professional Practice and Student Growth each comprise 50% of the evaluation.

HCPSS Principal Evaluation ModelProfessional Practice

Student GrowthOutcome 13

Maryland Instructional Framework

Outcomes 1 -8

Communication, Management and Ethics

Outcomes 9 - 12

Demonstrate Student Growth

School Improvement Targets25%

Elementary and Middle SchoolMSA Targets (Math and Reading) – 20%

MSA (Science) – 5%

High SchoolHSA Targets (Alg., Bio., & Eng. 10) – 10%

Grad. Rate, College Entrance Exams, & GT/AP Targets – 15%

• Demonstrates progress towards school improvement targets

Demonstrate Student Growth

Student Learning Objectives25%

• Ensures progress on all individual, departmental/team student learning objectives

Qualitative Measures 2-4 Selected (10 – 25%)

Quantitative Measures

8

Next Steps

The HCPSS continues to collaborate with HCEA and HCAA to establish meaningful evaluations for staff members. The HCPSS will submit a report to the MSDE containing the HCPSS models for the teacher and principal evaluations by December 26, 2012. The HCPSS is implementing professional learning plans which began this year, and will continue strategically supporting all teachers and leaders with high quality professional learning in their schools, offices, and programs. During the 2012-2013 school year, the HCPSS will provide customized professional learning experiences on the 2012 Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument. The Office of Professional and Organizational Development, in collaboration with other staff, has created a professional learning plan for all teachers and evaluators in consultation with the Danielson Group and will continue to build and implement these plans (Attachment C). School Administration is working to build capacity with principals and their evaluators through a comprehensive plan (Attachment C). This professional learning is a multi-year process and the professional learning plans will continue to be refined.

Based on the research questions detailed on the Educator Effectiveness Field Test Document, the HCPSS will collect data from the pilot to inform the year of full implementation in 2013 –2014 (Attachment D). Special attention will be given to the extent to which the proposed scoring system and individual elements/domains provide fair, consistent, and reliable estimates of educator effectiveness. Once the models have been solidified, community outreach sessions will continue to be held to share information about the pilot with interested stakeholders. Teacher and principal focus groups will be convened to share lessons learned from the pilots and gather additional input. The HCPSS will refine its teacher and principal evaluation models using what is learned during the pilot and further MSDE direction. The HCPSS will submit an update to the MSDE with a revised teacher and principal evaluation plan for the 2013-2014 school year and beyond no later than June 1, 2012. Conclusion HCPSS staff will continue to focus on providing all teachers with the resources and supports needed to ensure that all students are provided a rigorous education that will prepare them for college and future careers. As information about the pilot emerges, evaluation plans will be refined and staff will keep the Board informed.

9

ATTACHMENT A: Work Group Members Student Growth Workgroup

� Linda Wise, Deputy Superintendent, Curriculum, Instruction, and Administration

� Rebecca Amani-Dove, Director, Communications � David Burton, Principal, Long Reach HS � Patricia Daley, Executive Director, Special Education and Student

Services � Juliann Dibble, Director, Professional and Organizational Development � Clarissa Evans, Executive Director of School Improvement and Curriculum � Maria Finger-Elam, Evaluation Specialist � Maleeta Kitchen, Teacher, Running Brook ES � Doug Lea, Teacher, Deep Run ES and Waterloo ES � L. Paul Lemle, Howard County Educator Association (HCEA) President � Kathryn McKinley, Principal, Mount View MS � Colleen Morris, Teacher, Guilford ES � William Ryan, Executive Director, School Improvement and Administration � Kristin Terry, Teacher, Harper’s Choice MS � Troy Todd, Principal, Running Brook ES � Rick Wilson, Howard County Administrator Association (HCAA) President

and Principal, Folly Quarter MS Principal Evaluation Workgroup

� William Ryan, Executive Director, School Improvement and Administration

� Rebecca Amani-Dove, Director, Communications � Nan Brown, Assistant Principal, Bonnie Branch MS � David Burton, Principal, Long Reach HS � Juliann Dibble, Director, Professional and Organizational Development � Clarissa Evans, Executive Director of School Improvement and Curriculum � Arlene Harrison, Administrative Director � Cher Jones, Principal, Dunloggin MS � Addie Kaufman, Principal, Marriotts Ridge HS � Kathryn McKinley, Principal, Mount View MS � Daniel Michaels, Administrative Director � Marion Miller, Administrative Director � Ron Morris, Principal, Stevens Forest ES � Kevin Mulroe, Intern, Professional and Organizational Development � Kimberlyn Pratesi, Principal, Dayton Oaks ES � Scott Ruehl, Principal, Mount Hebron HS � Troy Todd, Principal, Running Brook ES � Brian Vanisko, Assistant Principal, Jeffers Hill ES � Lisa Veslany, Assistant Principal, Howard HS � Rick Wilson, Principal, Folly Quarter MS

10

ATTACHMENT B: State Default Models

State Teacher Evaluation ModelProfessional Practice

Planning and Preparation

12.5%

Classroom Environment

12.5%

Instruction

12.5%

Professional Responsibilities

12.5%

Elementary/Middle School Teacher

Two Content Areas

• 10% - Reading MSA (Class)

•10% - Math MSA (Class)

•20% - Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)

•10% - School Index

Elementary/Middle School Teacher

One Content Areas

ELA• 20% - Reading MSA (Class)•20% - Student Learning

Objectives (SLOs)•10% - School Index

MATH•20% - Math MSA (Class)•20% - Student Learning

Objectives (SLOs)•10% - School Index

Elementary/Middle School Teacher

Non-Tested Subject

• 35% - Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)

•15% - School Index

`

High School Teacher

• 35% - Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)

•15% - School Index

l

50% Qualitative Measures

Non Tested Subject Teacher

50% Quantitative Measures

Student Growth

or or

or

11

Principal Evaluation State Model Professional Practice Value

Range Assigned

Value Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework Outcome

1. Facilitate the Development of a School Vision

2%–10%

2. Align All Aspects of a School Culture to Student and Adult Learning 2%–10%

3. Monitor the Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment 2%–10%

4. Improve Instructional Practices Through the Purposeful Observation and Evaluation of Teachers

2%–10%

5. Ensure the Regular Integration of Appropriate Assessments into Daily Classroom Instruction

2%–10%

6. Use Technology and Multiple Sources of Data to Improve Classroom Instruction

2%–10%

7. Provide Staff with Focused, Sustained, Research-based Professional Development

2%–10%

8. Engage All Community Stakeholders in a Shared Responsibility for Student and School Success

2%–10%

Communications, Management, and Ethics 9. Manage and Administer the School

Operations and Budget in an Effective and Efficient Manner

2%–10%

10. Communicate Effectively in a Variety of Situations and Circumstances with Diverse Audiences

2%–10%

11. Understand, Respond to, and Help influence the Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural Context of the School Community

2%–10%

12. Promote the Success of Every Student and Teacher by Acting Within a Framework of Integrity, Fairness, and Ethics

2%–10%

Total Score

(Must equal

50%)

12

Student Growth

Annual Student Growth Measures: 50%

Elementary/Middle School High School Other (Special Centers, Pre-K etc.)

Student Learning Objectives

20% Student Learning Objectives

30% Student Learning Objectives

35%

MSA: Reading 10% School Performance Index

20% School Performance Index

15%

MSA: Math 10%

School Performance Index

10%

13

ATTACHMENT C: Professional Development Plans

Teacher Evaluation Pilot Professional Learning Plan

Outcomes Indicators

Tea

cher

s

DO

I Eva

luat

ors

DO

I Ins

tr.

Men

tors

Activities Persons

Responsible Timeline Measures of Success 1. Develop and implement orientation to the professional learning plan that supports the pilot of the new teacher evaluation process.

1.1 Identify relevant roles and responsibilities involved with professional learning.

X X X Centrally create and define roles and responsibilities of all stakeholder groups and disseminate to Division of Instruction and the Office of Human Resources. Communicate roles and responsibilities with all stakeholder groups.

SGW/SST SST/Pilot principals

Sept 2012 Mid Aug-Mid Sept 2012

Orientation occurs. Centrally created communication plan is developed and implemented during the 2012-2013 school year.

1.2 Define relevant professional learning activities and follow up for the 2012-2013 school year.

X X X As part of goal setting process, identify, schedule, register for, and prioritize requisite professional learning experiences.

Pilot participants and supervisors

Oct 30, 2012

Pilot participants complete goal-setting activities.

2. Increase proficiency with the Charlotte Danielson, Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument.

2.1 Demonstrate increased content knowledge of the four domains within the Charlotte Danielson, Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument.

X X X Provide systemic overview of the Charlotte Danielson, Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument. Develop and implement site-based professional learning modules that deepen understanding of the four Danielson domains and the HCPSS fifth domain, Student Growth. Integrate discussion about domains into existing structures such as collaborative planning time, program implementation period, school improvement team meetings, etc. Develop and facilitate differentiated professional learning experiences and develop customized resources. Engage in relevant professional learning.

POD & Danielson Group and their collaborators POD Pilot principals POD & Danielson Group and their collaborators All pilot participants

Ongoing Aug 2012 (pilot)/ Ongoing Ongoing Sept 2012– June 2013 Ongoing

Structured interviews with focus groups, professional learning evaluations, and the Teacher Evaluation Pilot Surveys will provide evidence of pilot participants increased content knowledge and application of the Charlotte Danielson, Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument.

2.2 Apply the components of the Charlotte Danielson, Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument for

X X X Assess student learning through the Danielson framework. Integrate the Danielson framework into the evaluation process (goal setting, mid year, and final evaluation

All pilot participants

Oct 2012-June 2013

Effective and Highly Effective teacher and Principal Ratings. Demonstrated student growth in all pilot participants classrooms and schools.

14

Outcomes Indicators

Tea

cher

s

DO

I Eva

luat

ors

DO

I Ins

tr.

Men

tors

Activities Persons

Responsible Timeline Measures of Success purposes of continuous improvement of instructional practice.

conferences). Use Danielson framework to organize collection of student data and analysis of student work.

2.3 Understand the components of the Charlotte Danielson, Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument relevant to observation processes.

X X X Develop and facilitate differentiated professional learning experiences and provide access to relevant resources. Engage in relevant professional learning.

Danielson Group with POD All pilot principals

Oct 2012-June 2013

Evaluation indicates increased confidence in using the Charlotte Danielson, Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument. Observer and evaluator classroom observations indicate consistent scoring,

2.4 Apply the components of the Charlotte Danielson, Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument to observation processes.

X X X Monitor systemic and school-based development of consistent observer and evaluator ratings. Calibrate systemic ratings for Highly Effective, Effective, and Ineffective. Provide critical feedback to pilot participants using the Danielson framework.

School Administration/POD

Oct 2012-June 2013

Data will reveal more consistent observer and evaluator ratings over time and between evaluators.

3. Develop competency with the HCPSS fifth domain, Student Growth.

3.1 Demonstrate understanding of the four indicators within the domain of Student Growth.

X X X Provide systemic overview of Student Growth domain. Develop and implement site-based module that deepens understanding of the Student Growth domain. Integrate discussion about the Student Growth domain into existing structures such as collaborative planning time, PIP time, school improvement team meetings, etc. Develop and facilitate differentiated professional learning resources and experiences about relevant domain indicator(s). Engage in relevant professional learning regarding Disciplinary Literacy. Engage in professional learning regarding Math Practices. Engage in professional learning regarding Creative

OOA/POD/DOI OOA/POD/DOI Pilot participants SST, POD, and DOI leaders All pilot participants

Oct 2012-Ongoing

Overview occurs for all pilot participants. Site-based module facilitated in all pilot schools by Teacher Development Liaison. Data indicates increased use of self-directed resources. Results of various pilot evaluation instruments will reflect the extent to which participants felt supported in their professional learning.

15

Outcomes Indicators

Tea

cher

s

DO

I Eva

luat

ors

DO

I Ins

tr.

Men

tors

Activities Persons

Responsible Timeline Measures of Success Problem Solving. Engage in professional learning regarding Content Knowledge.

3.2 Display understanding of the essential components of a Student Learning Objective (SLO) and the relationship between measuring student growth and assessing teacher effectiveness.

X X X Develop and implement an SLO training module.

OOA/POD/DOI Modules implemented in all pilot schools. Work infused in CPD course on Student Growth.

3.3 Apply understanding of SLOs.

X X X Develop, refine, and/or review SLOs as appropriate.

Pilot participants Evaluation will indicate increased consistency in writing SLOs as well as increased confidence and understanding.

4. Standardize processes of observation, evaluation, and critical feedback.

4.1 Implement changes to the teacher evaluation process.

X X X Incorporate common language within observation and evaluation processes.

All pilot participants

Evaluation will indicate increased understanding by teachers and observers/ evaluators of the new evaluation process.

4.2 Complete comprehensive professional learning for teacher evaluators and/or observers.

X X Develop and implement a training module for teacher evaluators and observers. Complete requisite training.

POD & Danielson Group All DOI leaders

Observer and evaluator ratings will increase in consistency and accuracy over time. Observers and evaluators will indicate increased confidence in the new teacher evaluation process.

4.3 Demonstrate understanding of the essential components of Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished.

X X X Develop performance assessment. Complete performance assessment.

Danielson Group DOI leaders

Assessment results will show mastery of ratings by all DOI leaders.

5. Develop understanding of the new teacher evaluation process.

5.1 Display knowledge of the relevant components, weighted percentages, and mathematical calculations within new teacher evaluation process (Professional Practice and Student Growth)

X X X Develop and implement a training module for teacher evaluators and observers. Complete requisite training.

POD & Danielson Group All pilot participants

Systemic and site-based sessions occur. 100% of pilot participants complete training.

16

Outcomes Indicators

Tea

cher

s

DO

I Eva

luat

ors

DO

I Ins

tr.

Men

tors

Activities Persons

Responsible Timeline Measures of Success 5.2 Display

knowledge of requirements, roles, and responsibilities of the new evaluation process.

X X X Develop a comprehensive implementation guide/checklist for new yearlong evaluation process. Successfully complete relevant requirements within the yearlong evaluation process.

DOS/SST All pilot participants

Evaluation results.

5.3 Display knowledge of Ineffective, Effective, and Highly effective Final Evaluation Ratings.

X X X Develop a comprehensive implementation guide/checklist for new yearlong evaluation process. Successfully complete relevant requirements within the yearlong evaluation process.

All pilot participants

Aug 2012-Ongoing

All pilot participants will indicate increased knowledge of final evaluation ratings through instruments used in the pilot evaluation.

6. Develop ability to use the new teacher evaluation template.

6.1 Demonstrate understanding of all web-based forms.

X X X Develop accessible and functional web-based forms. Develop and integrate tutorial into training module for teacher evaluation.

Technology Office POD

July 2012 Aug 2012

Web-based tool developed and accessible. All DOI leaders participate in requisite training.

6.2 Apply understanding of web-based forms.

X X X Use web-based forms to support goal setting, mid-year, and final evaluation documentation, ensuring timely and accurate data input.

All pilot participants

Oct 2012-Ongoing

Successful completion of all evaluation data in web-based tool. Results of multiple evaluation instruments will indicate increased ability to use all web-based forms and systems.

6.3 Identify and use available supports (as appropriate) for teacher evaluation, including collaboration with the Danielson Group, online certification, and other accessible resources for developing proficiency with teacher evaluation system.

X X X Compile and incorporate relevant supports within teacher evaluation training module. Use available supports as appropriate.

POD and Danielson Group All pilot participants

Aug 2012-Ongoing

Successful implementation of yearlong plan. Evaluation results used to refine process for the 2013-2014 school year.

7. Engage in collaborative learning and problem solving with other pilot participants.

7.1 Attend and participate in site-based, systemic, and web-based professional learning and forums to support my success.

X X X Use existing structures (level meetings, PLCs, etc.) and develop new structures needed (online) to support cross-pilot site sharing and identification of best practices.

School Administration/ POD

Aug 2012-Ongoing

Results of multiple evaluation instruments will indicate participants consistently access all structures in place to collaborate and problem solve.

7.2 Access X X X All pilot Sept 2012- Results of multiple

17

Outcomes Indicators

Tea

cher

s

DO

I Eva

luat

ors

DO

I Ins

tr.

Men

tors

Activities Persons

Responsible Timeline Measures of Success resources as appropriate.

participants and alDOI leaders

Ongoing evaluation instruments will indicate participants consistently access all structures in place to collaborate and problem solve.

18

Professional Learning Plan - Pilot 2012-2013 Principal Evaluation

Outcomes Indicators Prin

cipa

ls Pr

inci

pal

Eva

luat

ors

SST

Activities Persons Responsible Timeline

Measures of Success

1. Develop understanding of the new principal evaluation process.

1.1. Display knowledge of the relevant components, weighted percentages, and mathematical calculations within new principal evaluation process (Professional Practice and Student Learning).

X X X Provide a workshop for all Pilot Principals and eventually all principals at leadership meetings.

Admin Directors All pilot participants

Workshop feedback

1.2. Display knowledge of requirements, roles, and responsibilities of the new evaluation process.

X X X Develop a comprehensive implementation guide for the new year-long evaluation process. Successfully complete relevant requirements within the year-long evaluation process.

Prin. Eval Workgroup

Sept. 1, 2012 Evaluation results

1.3 Display knowledge of Ineffective, Effective, Effective Final Evaluation Ratings.

X X X Develop a comprehensive implementation guide for new year-long evaluation process.

Prin. Eval Workgroup

Aug 2012-Ongoing

2. Increase proficiency with the MSDE Instructional Leadership Framework.

2.1. Demonstrate increased content knowledge of the nine outcomes within the MSDE Instructional Leadership Framework and four outcomes identified by MSDE as critical to effective leadership – Communication, Management and Ethics.

X X X Provide systemic overview of Professional Practice Outcomes. Overview with Pilot Principals Overview at Leadership 1 & 2

Admin Directors Admin Directors Admin Directors

Ongoing Sept.–Oct. 2012 (pilot)/ Ongoing - April 2013

Professional Learning Evaluations

3. Develop competency with HCPSS Student Learning Objectives.

3.1. Display understanding of the essential components of a Student Learning Objective (SLO) and the relationship between measuring Student Learning and assessing teacher effectiveness.

X X X Develop and implement an SLO trainings during Leadership 1 and 2 meetings,

SAPE/POD/DOI Sept. and Nov.

Feedback from trainings.

3.2. Apply understanding of SLOs. X X X Develop, refine, and/or review SLOs as appropriate.

SAPE/POD/DOI Evaluation will require 100% of teams/ departments to develop SLOs by Jan. 30th.

4. Engage in collaborative learning and problem solving with other pilot participants

4.1. Attend and participate in systemic professional learning and forums to support participants success.

X X X Use existing structures (level meetings, PLC) to support cross- pilot site sharing and identification of best practices.

School Administration/ POD

Aug 2012-Ongoing

4.2. Access resources as appropriate. X X X All Pilot Participants All Leadership 1 and 2 Participants

Sept 2012-Ongoing

19

ATTACHMENT D: Evaluation Plans Office of Accountability Evaluation Project Profile Evaluation Project Information Evaluation Title Teacher Evaluation-Pilot Study Evaluation Contact Evaluation Sponsor Maria Finger-Elam Evaluation Project Overview Focus Area/Scope The focus of this evaluation is the Teacher Evaluation Pilot occurring during

the 2012-2013 academic year. There are 10 total HCPSS schools included in this pilot; 4 elementary, 3 middle, and 3 high school.

Evaluation Purpose(s) 1. To determine the extent to which the new evaluation model changes the overall teacher evaluation process; especially as it relates to time requirements for both teachers and administrators.

2. To determine the effectiveness of efforts made to facilitate the transition to the new model for both teachers and administrators. -Professional Development opportunities -Ongoing support, guidance and troubleshooting -Clarity of process (communication) -Support in alleviating additional time requirements

3. To determine the extent to which the new evaluation model provides credible and useful ratings of teacher effectiveness.

4. To determine the best model to use, in terms of weight assigned to specific elements, to gauge teacher effectiveness.

Description of the Product/Service/Program that is being evaluated

The proposed pilot is designed to begin the process of introducing the new evaluation model that will be fully implemented during the 2013/14 school year. This pilot will include approximately 120 teachers and 11 principals. The changes to the educator effectiveness evaluation model include:

1. Using 4 domains as opposed to five to measure professional practice (fifth domain, ‘Interpersonal Skills’, was absorbed into other four)

2. A fifth domain was added to measure student learning through the use of teacher developed Student Learning Objectives

3. For teachers of MSA test subjects, the student learning component also includes an estimate of change in MSA performance for current students across a two-year period.

Outcomes (or client/customer impacts)

1. Overall perceptions of participants of the new evaluation model. 2. Feedback to improve the implementation of the new evaluation

model to the larger system population. 3. Determination of the reliability and usefulness of data generated

from new evaluation system. Performance measures that can show outcome attainment/progress

1. Results from teacher and administrator surveys. 2. Analysis of data collected through interviews and focus groups 3. Analysis of data comparing time requirements of old and new

evaluation model. 4. Analysis of data to identify correlation between teacher

20

effectiveness ratings and student perceptions of teacher quality. 5. Comparison of overall effectiveness ratings based on the metric

(50/50 or 60/40) used to determine ratings. Evaluation Goals/Questions See attached document Methodology This study is a program evaluation and is considered non-experimental

research. This study is a non-experimental design because it only includes one group that is not chosen at random. As relations between several variables will be analyzed, this may be described as a correlational study. Data will be collected using multiple methods, including: observations, surveys, interviews and focus groups. Both qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to analyze the data.

Type(s) of information/data being collected

1. Surveys will be administered to both teachers and administrators participating in the pilot program.

2. Structured interviews will be conducted with participating teachers and administrators regarding changes in instructional practice (for teachers) and instructional leadership (for administrators).

3. Final teacher effectiveness ratings for pilot participants (from previous evaluation and pilot year).

4. Students of participating teachers will be administered a survey on their perceptions of teacher effectiveness.

5. Pilot teachers will be asked to keep a log detailing time spent throughout the year on their evaluation (planning, meetings, etc.). This log will be monitored during pilot year and beyond to identify changes based on increased familiarity with framework.

6. Principals at pilot and non-pilot schools will be asked to keep a log detailing time spent throughout the year on teacher evaluations.

7. Observations of planning, monitoring, and review meetings between teachers and principals may be conducted.

8. Content analysis of teacher evaluation documentation for pilot and selected non-pilot teachers will be conducted.

Instrumentation Both the evaluation model and the student perception survey have been demonstrated as valid and reliable measures. The teacher/administrator perception surveys administered throughout the year will be developed by HCPSS staff; as no generalizations of a population will be made using these instruments, estimates of reliability and validity are not necessary.

How information/data are being analyzed

1. Survey data will be analyzed using basic descriptive methods (frequencies and means).

2. Information collected from interviews, content analyses, and focus groups will be coded to identify specific themes and analyzed using basic descriptive methods (frequencies).

3. Comparisons of time requirements between pilot participants in the pilot and full implementation years will be analyzed using analysis of variance technique.

4. Comparisons of new and old teacher effectiveness ratings will be analyzed using a chi-square technique.

5. Relation between teacher effectiveness ratings and student perceptions will be analyzed using correlations or simple linear regression.

21

6. Additional exploratory analyses may be conducted using both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Limitations of the evaluation Some of the limitations of this evaluation include: 1. Lack of random assignment/selection (selection bias) 2. Potential issues with sample size 3. Time constraints related to data collection and reporting

Proposed Timeline June/July 2012 Develop and finalize research plan December 2012 Develop surveys and other data collection instruments January 2013 Administer surveys on perceptions of model introduction/planning stage Ongoing 2012/13 SY Observations of meetings between principals and teachers Ongoing 2012/13 SY Administration of surveys related to overall perceptions May 2013 Conduct analyses using effectiveness ratings for pilot year June/July 2013 Submit first draft of pilot evaluation report

22

Teac

her E

valu

atio

n Pi

lot R

esea

rch

Que

stio

ns

Q

uest

ion

Con

stru

ct

Popu

latio

n In

stru

men

tatio

n/M

etho

d T

imef

ram

e D

id n

ew e

valu

atio

n fo

rmat

impa

ct te

ache

rs’

effe

ctiv

enes

s rat

ings

? If

so, h

ow a

nd to

wha

t ex

tent

? W

hat a

re th

e sp

ecifi

c m

echa

nism

s tha

t in

fluen

ce o

vera

ll ra

tings

of t

each

er

effe

ctiv

enes

s?

Rel

iabi

lity/

Con

sist

ency

Te

ache

rs

-Com

pare

pre

viou

s rat

ings

to

ratin

g du

ring

pilo

t yea

r -A

naly

sis o

f ove

rall

teac

her

ratin

gs a

nd ra

tings

on

spec

ific

dom

ains

-Q

uant

itativ

e in

vest

igat

ion

(e.g

., ch

i -squ

are

anal

ysis

) -Q

ualit

ativ

e ex

plor

atio

n

End

of 2

012/

13 S

Y—

once

eva

luat

ions

are

co

mpl

ete

How

did

tim

e re

quire

men

ts d

iffer

in th

is

eval

uatio

n m

odel

for t

each

ers i

n th

e pi

lot y

ear

com

pare

d to

pre

viou

s eva

luat

ion

mod

el?

How

do

tim

e re

quire

men

ts c

hang

e ba

sed

on

fam

iliar

ity w

ith n

ew m

odel

?

- Per

cept

ion

of ti

me

requ

irem

ents

thro

ugho

ut

proc

ess (

plan

ning

, pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t, th

roug

hout

yea

r)

- Act

ual d

iffer

ence

in ti

me

requ

irem

ents

(p

lann

ing,

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t, th

roug

hout

yea

r)

Tim

e Te

ache

rs

-Sur

veys

-F

ocus

Gro

ups

-Int

ervi

ews

-Tim

e tra

ckin

g ap

p (a

cros

s thr

ee

scho

ol y

ears

)

Ong

oing

201

2/13

SY

How

did

tim

e re

quire

men

ts d

iffer

in th

is

eval

uatio

n m

odel

for a

dmin

istra

tors

com

pare

d to

the

prev

ious

eva

luat

ion

mod

el?

How

do

time

requ

irem

ents

cha

nge

base

d on

fam

iliar

ity w

ith

new

mod

el?

-Per

cept

ion

of ti

me

requ

irem

ents

dur

ing

the

plan

ning

pha

se

-Per

cept

ion

of ti

me

requ

irem

ents

thro

ugho

ut th

e ye

ar

Tim

e A

dmin

istra

tors

-S

urve

ys

-Int

ervi

ews

-Tim

e tra

ckin

g ap

p (a

cros

s thr

ee

scho

ol y

ears

)

Beg

inni

ng a

nd e

nd o

f 20

12/1

3 SY

How

are

teac

her e

ffect

iven

ess r

atin

gs li

nked

to

stud

ent o

utco

mes

? -S

tude

nt p

erce

ptio

ns o

f cla

ssro

om e

ffect

iven

ess

-Lin

k pe

rfor

man

ce o

n sp

ecifi

c do

mai

ns to

in

divi

dual

con

stru

cts o

n st

uden

t per

cept

ion

surv

ey

Rel

evan

ce/P

redi

ctab

ility

Te

ache

rs

Stud

ents

-T

each

er E

ffect

iven

ess R

atin

gs

-Stu

dent

Per

cept

ion

Surv

ey

-Ana

lyze

d us

ing

eith

er c

orre

latio

n or

sim

ple

regr

essi

on

End

of 2

012/

13 S

Y

23

Wha

t are

teac

hers

’ ove

rall

perc

eptio

ns o

f the

ne

w e

valu

atio

n m

odel

? -P

rofe

ssio

nal D

evel

opm

ent

-Eas

e of

tran

sitio

n -S

uppo

rt an

d gu

idan

ce

Logi

stic

s Te

ache

rs

-Sur

veys

-F

ocus

Gro

ups

-Int

ervi

ews

Ong

oing

201

2/13

SY

Wer

e te

ache

rs a

dver

sely

aff

ecte

d by

tim

e re

quire

men

ts?

If so

, how

? Ti

me

Teac

hers

-S

urve

ys

-Foc

us G

roup

s -I

nter

view

s

Ong

oing

201

2/13

SY

Doe

s the

new

mod

el e

nabl

e te

ache

rs to

co

ntin

uous

ly im

prov

e th

eir p

rofe

ssio

nal p

ract

ice

thro

ugho

ut th

e ye

ar?

-P

lann

ing

proc

ess/

goal

setti

ng

-Ong

oing

mon

itorin

g -E

OY

eva

luat

ion

revi

ew

-Diff

eren

ces b

etw

een

old

and

new

mod

el

Con

tinuo

us

Impr

ovem

ent

Teac

hers

-S

urve

ys

-Obs

erva

tions

-C

onte

nt A

naly

sis o

f SLO

do

cum

enta

tion

Ong

oing

201

2/13

SY

Doe

s the

new

mod

el e

nabl

e ad

min

istra

tors

to

prov

ide

inst

ruct

iona

l lea

ders

hip

to th

eir

teac

hers

?

Con

tinuo

us

Impr

ovem

ent

Adm

inis

trato

rs

-Int

ervi

ews

-Obs

erva

tions

O

ngoi

ng 2

012/

13 S

Y

Do

ratin

gs o

f tea

cher

effe

ctiv

enes

s cha

nge

base

d on

wei

ght a

ssig

ned

to e

ach

elem

ent?

C

onsi

sten

cy

Teac

hers

-C

ompa

rison

of p

oint

allo

catio

n an

d fin

al e

ffec

tiven

ess r

atin

g us

ing

50/5

0 an

d 60

/40

mod

els

-Chi

-squ

are

anal

ysis

End

of 2

012/

13 S

Y

24

Office of Accountability Evaluation Project Profile Evaluation Project Information Evaluation Title Principal Evaluation Pilot-Study Evaluation Contact Evaluation Sponsor Maria Finger-Elam Evaluation Project Overview Focus Area/Scope The focus of this evaluation is the Principal Evaluation Pilot occurring

during the 2012-2013 academic year. There are 20 HCPSS Principals invited to participate in this pilot; 9 elementary, 8 middle, and 3 high schools.

Evaluation Purpose(s) 1. To determine the extent to which the new evaluation model changes the overall Principal evaluation process; especially as it relates to time requirements for both Principals and Administrative Directors.

2. To determine the effectiveness of efforts made to facilitate the transition to the new model for both Principals and Administrative Directors. -Professional Development opportunities -Ongoing support, guidance and troubleshooting -Clarity of process (communication) -Support in alleviating additional time requirements

3. To determine the extent to which the new evaluation model provides credible and useful ratings of principal effectiveness.

4. To determine the best model, in terms of weight assigned to specific elements, to use to gauge principal effectiveness.

Description of the Product/Service/Program that is being evaluated

The proposed pilot is designed to begin the process of introducing the new evaluation model that will be fully implemented during the 2013/14 school year. This pilot will include approximately 20 principals. The changes to the principal effectiveness evaluation model include:

1. Principals will be allowed to choose between two and four outcomes, out of a possible 12, related to Professional Practice upon which to be evaluated. These outcomes are derived from The Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework for Principals.

2. An additional domain was added to evidence student learning. Within this domain, there are three indicators designed to evidence student growth.

3. The first indicator of student growth is a Principal’ Progress on System Targets.

4. In addition, a portion of a Principal’s evaluation will consist of the extent to which his/her teaching staff met their Student Learning Objectives.

5. The final element of student growth is the Student Performance Index estimate. This estimate is calculated and provided based on a formula developed by MSDE.

Outcomes (or 1. Overall perceptions of participants of the new evaluation model.

25

client/customer impacts) 2. Feedback to improve the implementation of the new evaluation model to the larger system population.

3. Determination of reliability and usefulness of data generated through the new evaluation system.

Performance measures that can show outcome attainment/progress

1. Results from principal and Administrative Director surveys 2. Analysis of data collected through interviews and focus groups 3. Analysis of data comparing time requirements of old and new

evaluation model Evaluation Goals/Questions See attached document Methodology This study is a program evaluation and is considered a quasi-experiment.

This study is a quasi-experimental design because it includes the comparison of two independent groups; however, these two groups were not chosen at random. Data will be collected using multiple methods, including: observations, surveys, interviews and focus groups. Both qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to analyze the data.

Type(s) of information/data being collected

1. Surveys will be administered to both principals in the pilot evaluation and Administrative Directors.

2. Structured interviews will be conducted with participating principals and Administrative Directors regarding changes in administrative practice (for principals) and administrative leadership (for Administrative Directors).

3. Final principal effectiveness ratings for pilot participants (from previous evaluation and pilot year).

4. Pilot and non-pilot principals will be asked to keep a log detailing time spent throughout the year on their evaluation (planning, meetings, etc.).

5. Observations of planning, monitoring, and review meetings between principals and Administrative Directors may be conducted.

6. Content analysis of principal evaluation documentation for pilot and selected non-pilot principals will be conducted.

Instrumentation The principal/Administrative Director perception surveys administered throughout the year will be developed by HCPSS staff; as no generalizations of a population will be made using these instruments, estimates of reliability and validity are not necessary.

How information/data are being analyzed

1. Survey data will be analyzed using basic descriptive methods (frequencies and means).

2. Information collected from interviews, content analyses, and focus groups will be coded to identify specific themes and analyzed using basic descriptive methods (frequencies).

3. Comparisons of time requirements between pilot and non-pilot participants will be analyzed using analysis of variance technique.

4. Comparisons of new and old principal effectiveness ratings will be analyzed using a chi-square technique.

5. Additional exploratory analyses, using both quantitative and qualitative methods, may be conducted.

Limitations of the evaluation Some of the limitations of this evaluation include: 1. Lack of random assignment/selection (selection bias) 2. Potential issues with sample size

26

3. Time constraints related to data collection and reporting Proposed Timeline August 2012 Develop and finalize research plan December 2012 Develop surveys and other data collection instruments January 2013 Administer surveys on perceptions of model introduction/planning stage Ongoing 2012/13 SY Collection of time logs from principals Ongoing 2012/13 SY Observations of meetings between principals and Administrative Directors Ongoing 2012/13 SY Administration of surveys related to overall perceptions May 2013 Conduct analyses using effectiveness ratings for pilot year June/July 2013 Submit first draft of pilot evaluation report

27

Prin

cipa

l Eva

luat

ion

Pilo

t Res

earc

h Q

uest

ions

Que

stio

n C

onst

ruct

Po

pula

tion

Inst

rum

enta

tion/

Met

hod

Tim

efra

me

Did

new

eva

luat

ion

form

at im

pact

prin

cipa

ls’

effe

ctiv

enes

s rat

ings

? If

so, h

ow a

nd to

wha

t ex

tent

? W

hat a

re th

e sp

ecifi

c m

echa

nism

s tha

t in

fluen

ce o

vera

ll ra

tings

of p

rinci

pal

effe

ctiv

enes

s?

Rel

iabi

lity/

Con

sist

ency

Pr

inci

pals

-C

ompa

re p

revi

ous r

atin

gs to

ra

ting

durin

g pi

lot y

ear

-Ana

lysi

s of o

vera

ll pr

inci

pal

ratin

gs a

nd ra

tings

on

spec

ific

dom

ains

-Q

uant

itativ

e in

vest

igat

ion

(e.g

., ch

i -squ

are

anal

ysis

) -Q

ualit

ativ

e ex

plor

atio

n

End

of 2

012/

13 S

Y—

once

eva

luat

ions

are

co

mpl

ete

How

did

tim

e re

quire

men

ts d

iffer

in th

is

eval

uatio

n m

odel

for p

rinci

pals

in th

e pi

lot y

ear

com

pare

d to

pre

viou

s eva

luat

ion

mod

el?

How

do

tim

e re

quire

men

ts c

hang

e ba

sed

on

fam

iliar

ity w

ith n

ew m

odel

?

- Per

cept

ion

of ti

me

requ

irem

ents

thro

ugho

ut

proc

ess (

plan

ning

, pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t, th

roug

hout

yea

r)

- Act

ual d

iffer

ence

in ti

me

requ

irem

ents

(p

lann

ing,

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t, th

roug

hout

yea

r)

Tim

e Pr

inci

pals

-S

urve

ys

-Foc

us G

roup

s -I

nter

view

s -T

ime

track

ing

app

(acr

oss t

hree

sc

hool

yea

rs)

Ong

oing

201

2/13

SY

How

did

tim

e re

quire

men

ts d

iffer

in th

is

eval

uatio

n m

odel

for A

dmin

istra

tive

Dire

ctor

s co

mpa

red

to th

e pr

evio

us e

valu

atio

n m

odel

? H

ow d

o tim

e re

quire

men

ts c

hang

e ba

sed

on

fam

iliar

ity w

ith n

ew m

odel

? -P

erce

ptio

n of

tim

e re

quire

men

ts d

urin

g th

e pl

anni

ng p

hase

-P

erce

ptio

n of

tim

e re

quire

men

ts th

roug

hout

the

year

Tim

e A

dmin

istra

tive

Dire

ctor

s -S

urve

ys

-Int

ervi

ews

-Tim

e tra

ckin

g ap

p (a

cros

s thr

ee

scho

ol y

ears

)

Beg

inni

ng a

nd e

nd o

f 20

12/1

3 SY

Wha

t are

prin

cipa

ls’ o

vera

ll pe

rcep

tions

of t

he

new

eva

luat

ion

mod

el?

-Pro

fess

iona

l Dev

elop

men

t -E

ase

of tr

ansi

tion

-Sup

port

and

guid

ance

Logi

stic

s Pr

inci

pals

-S

urve

ys

-Foc

us G

roup

s -I

nter

view

s

Ong

oing

201

2/13

SY

Wer

e pr

inci

pals

adv

erse

ly a

ffect

ed b

y tim

e Ti

me

Prin

cipa

ls

-Sur

veys

O

ngoi

ng 2

012/

13 S

Y

28

requ

irem

ents

? If

so, h

ow?

-Foc

us G

roup

s -I

nter

view

s D

oes t

he n

ew m

odel

ena

ble

prin

cipa

ls to

co

ntin

uous

ly im

prov

e pr

ofes

sion

al p

ract

ice

thro

ugho

ut th

e ye

ar?

-P

lann

ing

proc

ess/

goal

setti

ng

-Ong

oing

mon

itorin

g -E

OY

eva

luat

ion

revi

ew

-Diff

eren

ces b

etw

een

old

and

new

mod

el

Con

tinuo

us

Impr

ovem

ent

Prin

cipa

ls

-Sur

veys

-O

bser

vatio

ns

-Con

tent

Ana

lysi

s of p

rinci

pal

eval

uatio

n m

onito

ring

docu

men

tatio

n

Ong

oing

201

2/13

SY

Doe

s the

new

mod

el e

nabl

e A

dmin

istra

tive

Dire

ctor

s to

prov

ide

adm

inis

trativ

e le

ader

ship

to

prin

cipa

ls?

Con

tinuo

us

Impr

ovem

ent

Adm

inis

trativ

e D

irect

ors

-Int

ervi

ews

-Obs

erva

tions

O

ngoi

ng 2

012/

13 S

Y

Do

ratin

gs o

f prin

cipa

l eff

ectiv

enes

s cha

nge

base

d on

wei

ght a

ssig

ned

to e

ach

elem

ent?

C

onsi

sten

cy

Prin

cipa

ls

-Com

paris

on o

f poi

nt a

lloca

tion

and

final

eff

ectiv

enes

s rat

ing

usin

g 50

/50

and

60/4

0 m

odel

s -C

hi-s

quar

e an

alys

is

End

of 2

012/

13 S

Y