DPAS II

1
DPAS II

• Updated Training for DPAS II for Administrators

2
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.

3
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.

4
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.

5
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

6
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
  administrators daily responsibilities
• Component 1 examines the administrators
  performance in light of national standards for
  school leaders

7
Components

• Component 1 Leader Standards
• Component 2 Goals and Priorities
• Component 3 School or District Improvement Plan
• Component 4 Measures of Student Achievement

8
Component 1 Leader Standards

• Assesses the administrators performance against
  six national standards
• Establish a context in which administrators focus
  on components 2, 3, and 4
• Assessed through an electronic survey

9
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

10
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

11
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 administrators ongoing work.

12
Component 2 Goals and Priorities

• Sources of Goals
• Most should be linked directly to an
  administrators 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 administrators
  self-reflection

13
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

14
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

15
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

16
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

17
Process
18
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

19
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

20
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

21
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

22
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

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
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

27
Pattern of Ineffective Administration

• Needs Improvement rating for a third consecutive
  year results in a pattern of ineffective
  administration

Effective Ineffective Ineffective
Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Ineffective
Needs Improvement Ineffective Needs Improvement
Needs Improvement Ineffective Ineffective
Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective
Ineffective Ineffective Needs Improvement
Ineffective Needs Improvement Ineffective
Ineffective Needs Improvement Needs Improvement
28
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

29
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

30
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.

31
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