Leader Evaluation and Professional Growth Program MSAD 55

Leader Evaluation and Professional Growth Program MSAD 55 Updated August 2017

There seems little doubt that both district and school leadership provides a critical bridge between most educational reform initiatives and their consequences for students. Of all the factors that contribute to what students learn at school, present evidence led us to the conclusion that leadership is second in strength only to classroom instruction. Furthermore, effective leadership has the greatest impact in those circumstances (e.g., schools in trouble ) in which it is most needed. ~How Leadership Influences Student Learning by Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom

Leader Evaluation and Professional Growth Program Updated August 2017 23 State House Station 137 South Hiram Road Augusta, ME 04333-0023 Hiram, ME 04041 (207) 624-6600 (207) 625-2490 www.maine.gov/doe/excellence www.sad55.org/evaluation

Contents Page Maine Schools for Excellence Vision... 2 LEPG Program: Purpose and Goals... 3 LEPG Evaluation Process and Timeline... 4 Step 1: Expectations and Goal Setting... 6 Step 2: Ongoing Collection of Evidence, Feedback, and Monitoring of Growth... 7 Step 3: Reflection and Rating... 13 Step 4: Plans and Pathways... 15 Summative Effectiveness Rating... 17 Leader Evaluation and Professional Growth Rubric... 20 References... 22 Appendix A - LEPG Program Required Training... 23 Appendix B - Form 1 Goal-Setting... 24 Appendix C - Form 2 LEPG Self-Reflection... 26 Appendix D - Form 3 Pre-Observation Protocol for Post-Observation Conference... 32 Appendix E - Form 4 LEPG Post Observation Protocol for a Post-Observation Conf.. 34 Appendix F - Form 5 LEPG Artifact Submission Form... 40 Appendix G - Form 6 School Goal... 42 Appendix H - Form 7 School Goal Review... 43 Appendix I - Form 8 LEPG Professional Growth Goal Review... 44

Maine Schools for Excellence Vision Improving student learning and educator effectiveness is at the heart of the Maine Schools for Excellence (MSFE) initiative, which is assisting two cohorts of districts in their design and implementation of comprehensive human capital management systems. The vision of MSFE is as follows: To enhance educator effectiveness and student learning For the benefit of all stakeholders, including students, educators, parents, and the community By developing an integrated and coherent human capital management system that aligns with the district mission and includes the following key features for all educators: regular, specific measurement and feedback; ongoing, targeted professional development; and fair and equitable recognition and rewards So that schools can better attract and retain high-performing educators and benefit from a workforce of teachers and administrators who are aligned in purpose, teamed in their efforts, and motivated to succeed in delivering highquality instruction to students The Leader Evaluation and Professional Growth (LEPG) program is part of the evaluation and professional growth component of the human capital management system for all educators. The name reflects the interdependence between performance evaluation and professional learning and growth, which are essential to the development of school leaders, assistant leaders, and other school leaders. The LEPG program is a central component in districts efforts to build a leadership pipeline, which systematically builds teacher-leader skills to prepare future leaders. The LEPG program also can contribute to leadership preparation, hiring, induction, and compensation by clearly communicating leadership performance expectations. LEPG annual results also can be used by districts to inform changes to policy, culture, or other supports within the school or district environment, as these supports relate to school leaders. The LEPG program also complements and supports the teacher evaluation and professional growth (TEPG) program, specifically by providing a guide to how school leaders assess and enhance teaching effectiveness. In this way, the LEPG program reflects leaders responsibilities to effectively manage one of the school s most precious resources, the teachers who work within it. MSAD 55

LEPG Program: Purpose and Goals LEPG includes a set of core leadership evaluation components, which serve as a foundation for our district s leadership evaluation and professional development program. The LEPG reflects five purposes: Integrate emerging best practices from MSFE districts and nationally into a comprehensive, manageable evaluation and professional growth program. Fully satisfy the requirements of the TIF 3 grant and Maine legislation LD 1858, An Act to Ensure Effective Teaching and School Leadership. Encourage development of a shared language about school-level leadership, principals roles and responsibilities, and organizational direction Support the continuous improvement of schools, instruction, and student learning. Support principals professional growth and human capital decisions regarding principal hiring, retention, compensation, and promotion. The LEPG program and associated design processes encourage development of a shared language about school leadership, leaders roles and responsibilities, and organizational direction within and across school districts. This work will support the continuous improvement of schools, instruction, and student learning. The LEPG program also is intended to support leaders professional growth and human capital decisions regarding leader hiring, retention, compensation, and promotion. Figure 1. LEPG Framework for Evaluation (Clifford, Sherratt, and Fetters 2012) The framework shows the relationship between leader practice, direct and indirect influences. The model recognizes that leaders are directly responsible and highly influential on the instructional environment and affect that environment by managing educator talent through systematic processes, assuring organizational effectiveness, and engaging parents and community in the process of teaching. Indirectly, through the efforts of others, leaders influence student learning. MSAD 55

LEPG Evaluation Process and Timeline In accordance with national guidelines for principal evaluation design (NAESP and NASSP, 2012), the LEPG program emphasizes annual systematic performance assessment, formative feedback on performance from evaluators, and professional growth linked to evaluation results. The evaluation and professional growth process can be illustrated in four overlapping steps (see Figure 2). Specifically, the LEPG program involves ongoing professional conversations that encourage formative feedback and professional growth. First, leaders set goals for their own growth. Next, they and their evaluator(s) gather evidence of practices and results and continually adjust their practices in response to feedback. Throughout the evaluation cycle, leaders reflect and self-assess using the leadership rubric. Finally, they use the evaluation results to inform the next evaluation and professional growth cycle. The LEPG process is led by the school leader, in collaboration with his or her evaluator and in light of school goals and district initiatives. This way, the evaluation focuses on leader practice and school growth. 1. All school leaders will be evaluated annually. 2. All school leaders will engage in some form of peer review. 3. All school leaders will receive a formative observation by January 31 and a summative evaluation by June 30 of each academic year. 4. Multiple methods will be used to gather evidence on leader performance. 5. Evaluation results will influence human resource decisions, such as professional growth planning and continued employment. LEPG Orientation In late July, district staff will hold a LEPG orientation meeting for all new leaders, whether they are new to the profession or experienced and new to the district. The LEPG orientation assures that new leaders understand the leader evaluation and professional growth program and their expectations for performance. At the LEPG orientation, each leader will receive a paper or electronic copy of the LEPG handbook, which includes the LEPG framework, evaluation tools, and reporting templates. The LEPG orientation will identify roles and responsibilities for gathering performance evidences, which are shared between the leader and the leader s evaluator. MSAD 55

A general overview of the four steps of the LEPG process is described in Table 1. Table 1. Overview of LEPG Evaluation Cycle Step Step 1: Leader self-reflection and goal setting, drawing upon previous year s Step 4: Plans and Pathways, if available Step 2: *Ongoing evidence collection *Midyear conference to review evidence of progress against goals and make midcourse adjustments to goals and strategies to meet goals, as appropriate Step 3: *Leader end-of-year self-evaluation *Leader submission of evidence *End-of-year summative conference *Calculation of summative effectiveness rating Step 4: Leader and evaluator develop professional growth plan for following school year based on summative effectiveness rating and areas of opportunity Suggested Timing 1 Meetings Associated Forms/Tools Early in the school year Midyear June End of school year/summer Beginning of the year conference Midcourse conference Summative conference Optional LEPG Goal Setting Form LEPG Goal Setting Form Artifact Submission Form(s) Observation Protocol Form(s) LEPG Goal Setting Form Artifact Submission Form(s) Observation Protocol Form(s) LEPG Self-Assessment Form LEPG Goal Setting Form LEPG Self-Assessment Form MSAD 55

Figure 2. Leader Evaluation Process Step 1: Expectations and Goal Setting Goal Setting for Professional Growth The first step in the LEPG evaluation process occurs prior to and during the beginning of the school year but after school and district improvement planning is complete. Leader evaluation begins at this time so that school-level goals, student performance information, and other factors can be integrated into the leader evaluation system. For many districts, Step 1 of the LEPG process will begin in early August. In Step 1, the leader and his or her evaluator will share professional, school, and district priorities for the academic year. Completing this first step requires a series of meetings: Leader self-assessment and professional learning goal-setting compared to the LEPG Rubric, which results in a minimum of one professional goal per year for all leaders. Identification of school goals that reflect school goals in accordance with district improvement plans. Leader Self-Assessment and Goal-Setting All leaders will begin the new evaluation cycle by reflecting on their strengths and improvement areas on the LEPG leadership rubric. Leaders should use the previous year s evaluation results (e.g., 360 survey data) as a means of self-reflection and also may consider recent professional learning or professional aspirations when setting goals. MSAD 55 6

In late August or early September, leaders meet with their evaluators to finalize goals and write the professional growth plan. During the meeting, the leader and evaluator discuss formal or informal professional development opportunities and develop a plan to monitor the professional growth goals during the year. During the academic year, the professional growth plan can be adjusted to reflect emergent priorities. During the academic year, the professional development plan may be adjusted to reflect emerging priorities. The evaluator assesses the degree to which the professional development plan has been enacted. Leader Goal-Setting for School and Learner Growth In parallel with professional goal setting, leaders and their evaluators will identify outcome measures related to school improvement and student learning. The outcomes should be directly related to the school goals and student learning objectives (SLOs). The leader will also be responsible for collaborating with teachers to establish SLOs. Because leaders are responsible for assuring that SLOs are attained, one leader outcome measure will be based on the percentage of teachers attaining their SLOs. All SLOs are reviewed collaboratively by a group of administrators to ensure that SLOs are appropriately rigorous. Beginning-of-Year Conference In late August or early September, the leader meets with the evaluator to finalize the leader s school goal and professional development plan. During the beginning of the year conversation, the leader and evaluator compare their thoughts on the proposed professional practice goals and professional development plan, as well as the school and learner goals and planned action steps to support goal attainment. Throughout this conversation, both the leader and evaluator should take into account current districtwide initiatives and recent achievement data. Based on the outcomes of this conversation, the leader and evaluator may choose to refine the professional practice, school growth, or learner growth goals, and the related professional development plan. Step 2: Ongoing Collection of Evidence, Feedback, and Monitoring of Growth Step 2 of the LEPG program is intended to provide a holistic description of leader performance by using multiple measures to gather evidence. The program will not be successfully implemented if it does not involve conversation between leaders and evaluators and adjustments to performance. Step 2 of the LEPG program encompasses evidence collection and feedback, and it occurs throughout the academic year. At the core of the LEPG program is a focus on professional development designed to optimize conversation, feedback, and learning. MSAD 55 7

The LEPG program defines evidence as information that is systematically gathered during the course of the academic year. Given leaders responsibilities, multiple measures must be used to describe performance. Evidence may include leadership observation data; teacher/staff survey data; student survey information; written documents, or other artifacts; student assessment results; or other information that helps evaluators and leaders determine the degree to which goals have been met. Multiple Measures The multiple ways that evidence is collected to inform practice and outcomes ratings. Evidence will be collected and reviewed during the year. Leaders will work in close coordination with their evaluator to make sure the evidence collection process is meaningful, efficient, and aligned to LEPG requirements. At midyear, a formative evaluation meeting will be held for evaluators to share evidence and results, discuss progress, provide feedback, and adjust plans. Toward the end of the school year, the leader and evaluator will attend a summative meeting to discuss final performance results. Figure 3. Types of Evidence Used to Inform Practice and Outcome Measures Evidence to Measure Practice *Leader observations and related conferences *School walkthroughs *Staff perception survey *Artifact reviews *Professional growth plan review Evidence to Measure Outcomes *School attainment of student learning objectives *Attainment of School and Learner Growth Goal LEPG Rating Figure 4. Feedback What Is Feedback? The LEPG program defines feedback as the provision and prioritization of performance information for the purposes of improvement. The LEPG program requires evaluators meet with leaders twice during the academic year (one formative and one summative meeting) to provide feedback, and encourages additional meetings with leaders. After all, the evaluation process should be transparent and leaders should be fully informed about their progress so that there are no surprises at the summative evaluation meeting. MSAD 55 8

Table 2. Practice and Outcome Measures Measure Type Description Leader observations School walkthroughs Staff perception rating (360 survey) Artifact reviews Professional growth plan review School-level attainment of student learning objectives (SLO) School learner growth goal Student perception survey Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice Outcome Outcome Outcome Formal, announced observations of leaders work by evaluator(s) 10-minute, informal observations of leader practice Survey on school leaders performance to be completed by the self, evaluator, and staff in the building Sample of artifacts highlighting performance Sample of artifacts highlighting participation in and application of learning Measures of students growth at the classroom and/or grade/subject level Measures of students growth or achievement at the school level Student survey of teaching quality at the school level Evidence Collected Narrative or video-based evidence analyzed against rubric standards Narrative or video-based evidence Descriptive survey ratings Artifacts with accompanying explanation of standards alignment 3 to 5 artifacts with accompanying explanation of standards alignment Percentage of educators attaining SLOs Analysis of student performance results against targets School-level aggregate, aggregated student response to items for all teachers Requirements All leaders; at least two or more per year for the summative rating All leaders; at least two walkthroughs All school leaders; once per year All leaders submit as needed or requested to inform summative rating All leaders submit All school leaders All school leaders All school leaders MSAD 55 9

The following sections describe the practice and outcomes measures in Table 2. Practice Measures Leader Observations and School Walkthroughs The LEPG program requires formal observations of key leader practices. The observations are opportunities for evaluator(s) to witness leadership practices in context and provide targeted feedback to improve practice. Each leader observation focuses on leaders interactions with teachers, staff, and other constituents in one or more of the following activities: Focusing conversation during teacher conferences Facilitating student/school data conversations with teachers Leading staff meetings Completing instructional rounds Data from observations contribute to evaluator ratings on leader standards that focus on teacher development and instructional support. Leader evaluators are required to complete at least two formal leader observations a year. At least one must be a TEPG formal observation. It will be announced and scheduled in advance to ensure that leaders, teachers, and other stakeholders understand that the purpose of the observation is to observe the leader s practice. The teacher s performance is not the primary focus; however, the observation is used to ensure consistency in scoring. The leader observations contribute to the summative evaluation rating. The observation protocols and tools can be found in the Appendix. The formal observation cycle includes the following: Pre-observation meeting. The leader and evaluator will attend a short meeting to schedule the observation, discuss the focus of the observation, and identify particular issues or questions for observer attention. Observe classroom with leader. The evaluator may observe the classroom in conjunction with the leader. The evaluator will gather observational evidence by observing the classroom teacher. The evidence collected by the evaluator will not be used to evaluate the classroom teacher, but it will be used to ensure fidelity of the scoring tool and the leader s use of the scoring tool. Observation of a meeting or activity. The evaluator will gather observational evidence by using video or scripting interactions between the leader, teachers/staff, community, and pertinent materials (e.g., data, procedures) for the entire length of the interaction. Analysis of observation data. The evaluator will analyze observation information, align it with the appropriate standard(s), determine a score for each relevant standard, and prepare performance feedback to share with the leader. MSAD 55 10

Post-observation meeting. The evaluator and leader will discuss the aligned and scored observation information providing specific feedback on performance. Artifact Review Leaders create written documents, policies, procedures, and other artifacts to manage, lead, and sustain school programs. Some LEPG rubric standards may require evaluators to review artifacts as evidence of performance. Leaders are responsible for identifying, organizing, and submitting artifacts for review as needed or requested to inform the summative rating. Evaluators will use the artifacts and evidence gathered from other sources (e.g., surveys) to provide a rating for each standard at the formative and summative conference. At midyear, a formative evaluation meeting will be held for evaluators to share results, discuss progress, and adjust plans. Staff Perception Survey (360 Survey) The LEPG program includes an annual 360 survey, as a means of gathering leader practice information from self, evaluator, and teachers/staff in the building. A 360 survey provides information from multiple perspectives on the same set of behaviors by asking different types of questions about leader practice. The LEPG program includes a 360 survey because polling teachers/staff provides important data on their perception of leaders work and their trust in the leader as a leader. Feedback from these surveys highlights differences in perspective and can support growth. Leaders, evaluator, and teachers/staff are responsible for completing the 360 survey. Professional Growth Plan Review In the LEPG program, leaders are responsible for advancing their practice by engaging in a plan of professional learning. At the beginning of every year, each leader will develop and implement a professional development plan. The plan will be reviewed twice during the academic year: once at midyear and once at the end of the year. Throughout the year, leaders will participate in professional development opportunities and implement new learning. At the midyear conference, leaders will share evidence of their progress and discuss how the learning is impacting their practice. At the end of the year conference, the evaluator will review and assess the progress. Outcome Measures The LEPG program includes three outcomes measures. Formulas and rubrics for measurement of outcome measures are defined on pages 20-21. MSAD 55 11

School-Level Attainment of Student Learning Objectives The TEPG program requires districts to use SLOs as a measure of teacher effectiveness. As described in this subsection, the LEPG program includes school-level SLO attainment as a measure of leader effectiveness as well. SLOs measure educators progress in moving students from a baseline measure toward an agreedupon learning target, regardless of grade level or subject area. Leaders play a central role in developing, approving, and monitoring teacher SLOs (see Figure 5). Figure 5. SLO Process Steps Developing the SLO Scoring the SLO Approving the SLO Monitoring Progress Given the central role of SLOs in teacher evaluation, teacher attainment of SLOs will be a measure of leader effectiveness as well. To ensure that leaders do in fact encourage teachers to set sufficiently challenging SLOs, the district will convene a panel to review all non-nwea SLOs within the school. A percentage of a leader s summative performance score will include an aggregate percentage of teachers attaining their SLOs. SLOs account for all content areas and grade levels, and the TEPG program requires an SLO measure for each teacher. Inclusion of SLOs for leader evaluation reinforces leaders roles in supporting teachers work with students. School Goal Attainment Leaders are responsible for assuring that their school-level goal is being implemented and providing evidence that organizational improvement objectives are being met. MSAD 55 12

The LEPG program requires districts to use a school goal as a measure of leader effectiveness. The school goal is often written in collaboration with multiple stakeholders in the school and in coordination with district improvement processes or agendas. A school goal should describe baseline conditions by using student or other data, define a course of action and state in measurable terms a target performance level. Multiple stakeholders, including district staff, review and approve the school goals for implementation. The school goal will target increasing student proficiency in mathematics or reading. The leader is responsible for accumulating and synthesizing evidence that the school goals have been met on an annual basis, and district staff commonly assist leaders in collecting/analyzing data. The leader will present evidence that school goals have been attained to the leader s evaluator. Leaders will be rated on their overall progress toward or attainment of school goal. Student Perception Survey While classroom observations have traditionally been the primary method of gathering evidence about instructional effectiveness, no observer has more direct experience observing instruction than the students in the classroom. The student survey instrument used by our district is designed to capture key dimensions of classroom life and teaching practice as students experience them. Step 3: Reflection and Rating Step 3 provides an overview of the reflection and rating process, during which the leader receives performance feedback from evaluator. No leader feedback or reporting should occur without communication to discuss and explain results. These meetings are critical to leaders understanding of results and prioritization of next steps, which may include professional development. The LEPG program takes a numerical approach to combining measures into a single, final summative effectiveness rating. The numerical approach for leader evaluation is similar to the approach taken in the TEPG program for teachers. Both approaches calculate a summative practice measure to include all standards. Research tells us that feedback done well can be highly motivating and supports improvement of practice and increased job focus among busy professionals. When administered poorly, however, performance feedback can be demotivating and can lead to increased job stress. The LEPG program seeks to support leader feedback that is effective in motivating leaders and raising leadership practice and also serves as an example of practices that leaders should use when providing feedback to teachers. MSAD 55 13

Performance Ratings During the summative conference, the evaluator shares evidence and discusses ratings with the leader. The evaluator should also provide the leader with opportunities to further discuss his or her self-evaluation and submit additional or supplementary evidence for consideration. Based on this discussion and the evidence collected, the evaluator will determine the final summative effectiveness rating. After the scoring is completed and feedback is provided, the leader signs a form acknowledging receipt of summary evaluation information. The leader s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the summative effectiveness rating. Figure 6. Reflection and Ratings Midcourse Conference In January of each academic year, evaluators will convene a check-in conference to collaboratively discuss progress and make midcourse adjustments to reflect emerging issues in the school or community. Self-evaluation During the spring, leaders will self-assess performance on each of the standards on the LEPG Rubric, referencing evidence collected through the 360-degree evaluation, observation and other data. The leader will share the selfassessment with his/her evaluator prior to the summative evaluation conference. Summary Evaluation Conference Prior to the scheduled conference, the evaluator will draw on all evidence to determine performance scores for practice and outcome measures. During the conference, the evidence and scores will be provided to the leader and discussed. Summative Effectiveness Rating After the meeting, the evaluator will finalize the ratings. The combined outcomes and practice scores result in a single score and a final rating from ineffective to distinguished (see Summative Effectiveness Ratings on page 17). After the scoring is completed, the leader will sign a form acknowledging receipt of the rating. MSAD 55 14

Step 4: Plans and Pathways The final step of the LEPG process is for the leader and evaluator to use the evaluation results to inform proposed individualized professional growth plans for the next evaluation cycle. The professional growth planning process (see page 7) will be repeated by defining new professional goals and allocating resources (e.g., time, finances) toward leader professional development support. Table 3. Types of Growth Plans Monitored Growth Plan Individualized Growth Plan LEPG Rating Ineffective Developing Effective Distinguished Individualized Growth Plan Leaders performing at the distinguished or effective level of performance will continue to be evaluated annually and will complete an individualized growth plan with evaluators. These leaders should be considered for mentor/coach positions to assist other leaders or to support new leader movement into leader positions. Monitored Growth Plan Leaders with an overall summative effectiveness rating at the developing level will continue to be evaluated annually and will complete a focused professional growth plan to improve performance. The monitored growth plan will focus on standards that are in need of improvement. Developing leaders may, for instance, be assigned a mentor or coach to improve performance in particularly challenging areas, and evaluators may frequently meet to support development. A leader on a monitored growth plan who receives an overall summative effectiveness rating of developing for two consecutive years should be considered for immediate release from district employment. A leader with a summative effectiveness rating of ineffective for any single year should be considered for immediate release from district employment, unless otherwise specified by district policies or agreements. A monitored growth plan will, at minimum, identify the standards to be improved immediately, the goals to be accomplished, the activities that must be undertaken to improve, and the timeline for improving performance to the effective level. When a leader is placed on a monitored growth plan, he or she may require additional support. When placed on the monitored growth plan, the leaders will be observed by a second district-level administrator, who will participate in determination of the summary effectiveness rating with the leader s current evaluator. A leader may be considered for dismissal if he or she receives an ineffective rating on a standard and the leader s practice warrants dismissal. District policies and procedures apply in these matters. MSAD 55 15

New Hires All new educational leaders shall be placed on a Monitored Growth Plan and may be provided a mentor. An educational leader must generally rate a summary effectiveness classification of effective or distinguished before being considered for a multi-year contract. MSAD 55 16

Summative Effectiveness Rating Determining a leader s summative effectiveness rating is an ongoing process not a one-time, year-end event. Behind the final performance rating labels of ineffective, developing, effective, or distinguished is a year of work and conversations about professional practice and learner growth. Evidence of leader performance comes from observations and related conferences, artifacts of practice, a review of professional growth plans and goal attainment, surveys of staff, a review of school-level goals, and student learning data. Although there are several possible methods for combining each measure into a final summative rating, the LEPG program takes a numerical approach due to its transparency, flexibility with regard to missing data or additional data points, and alignment with the performance-based rewards component. Table 4. Summative Effectiveness Rating Maximum Points Performance Measure 90 56 14 National Board Leadership standards Level Rating Description 4 Distinguished Demonstrates visionary leadership actions and initiates change at the cultural level resulting in systems that achieve desired and sustainable results. 3 Effective Takes leadership actions and manages change at the organizational level resulting in systems that achieve desired results. 2 Developing Takes limited leadership actions and reacts to change at the situational level resulting in inconsistent results. 1 Ineffective Takes actions that detract from the performance of self and others resulting in undesired results. 8 Staff Perception Rating (360 Survey) 4 Professional Growth Plan Review 14 School Level Attainment of Student Learning Objectives 8 School Goal Attainment 0 Student Perception Rating Note: If is is determined that a particular standard or goal is not applicable to a certain position, the points shall be scaled upward so that the relative relationship among the remaining elements is unchanged. MSAD 55 17

Each educational leader will be classified as distinguished, effective, developing or ineffective based on his/her summary performance rating (i.e., number of points received) as shown below. Table 5. Summative Performance Rating Charts Summary Performance Rating Classification 77+ (85%+) Distinguished 63 76 (70% - 84%) Effective 54 62 (60% - 69%) Developing Below 54 (Below 60%) Ineffective Staff Perception Rating Goal Achievement (1-8 points) (1....2......3......4....5....6.... 7....8) Staff Perception Rating will be based on the 360 Survey. The following formula will be based on the 360 Survey. The following formula will be used to calculate the points (1-8) awarded on the staff perception rating: actual point score / 4 * 8 For example: a leader earning a 3.1 point average on the 360 Survey (3.1 / 4 *8) would earn 6.2 points on this scale. Professional Growth Plan Standard 7.1 Self-Reflection and Continuous Improvement: The leader reflects on personal and professional strengths and areas for development, and adjusts practice for continuous improvement Ineffective Little or no evidence (1 Point) Leader does not reflect on practice to set goals or create a professional development plan. Leader does not complete all activities in his or her professional growth plan. Leader does not seek feedback from others on his or her practice. Developing Limited evidence (2 Points) Leader reflects on practice, sets goals, and creates a professional development plan to accomplish these goals. Leader completes all activities in his or her professional growth plan. The leader regularly seeks feedback from others on his or her practice. Effective Clear evidence (3 Points) Leader reflects on practice using evidence, sets goals, and creates a professional development plan to accomplish these goals. Leader completes all activities in professional growth plan and applies learning to school operations, adjusting the plan as needed with support of the evaluator. The leader regularly seeks feedback from others on his or her practice and makes adjustments based on this information. Distinguished Clear, consistent and convincing evidence (4 Points) Leader demonstrates all of the behaviors listed at the effective level plus: Leader coaches or builds capacity of teacher-leaders, assistant principals, and/or other principals on goal setting as part of the pd planning process. Leader coaches or teaches others on applying learning to school operations. MSAD 55 18

School Level Attainment of Student Learning Objectives Goal Achievement (1-14 points) Points 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 % of students meeting growth targets in SLO 20 or less 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100 School Goal Attainment Goal Achievement (1-8 points) (1...2.. 3...4....5....6.. 7..8) School Goal Attainment will be based on the individual leader s progress towards achieving his/her school goals. The following formula will be used: (actual % - base %) / (goal % - base %) * 8 For example: A leader s school has 50% of students meeting or exceeding the norm on the Mathematics NWEA. The leader sets a goal of 65% meeting or exceeding the norm. 62% of students meet or exceed at the end of the year. (62-50) / (65-50) * 8 This would earn 6.4 out of the 8 possible points. MSAD 55 19

Leader Evaluation and Professional Growth Rubric The LEPG rubric (see Appendix A) was developed in collaboration with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, TIF 3 MSFE schools, and American Institutes for Research. It is a Maine-specific description of effective leadership practices built on the National Board s Standards for Accomplished Principals. Each Standard is broken down into a series of behavior-based measureable Indicators. The LEPG Rubric guides self-assessment, the goal-setting process, the collection of evidence throughout the annual evaluation cycle, feedback from observers, and ratings of principal performance. LEPG Rubric Performance Levels The LEPG Rubric describes a continuum of practice for each indicator and includes four detailed levels of performance. Each performance level is briefly defined in Figure 7. Figure 7. Overarching Performance Level Definitions Ineffective Leader displays poor performance levels, consistently not meeting goals and expectations. Significant evidence of poor leader performance is available. Leader is recognized by others (teachers, administration, students, and/or parents) for needing significant development to achieve acceptable levels of performance. Developing Leader displays below average performance levels, sometimes not meeting goals and expectations or only meeting goals after established timeframes. Evidence of below average leader performance is available. Leader is recognized by others (teachers, administration, students, and/or parents) for needing some development to achieve acceptable levels of performance. Ineffective describes actions and behaviors of a leader s practice that adversely impacts staff, students, and the school community. A leader s practice at the ineffective level reflects poor leadership practice. For example, lack of leadership regarding instructional best practices, noncompliance with pertinent laws and policies, and/or inattentiveness to the needs of students, teachers and schools. Effective Leader displays average or above average performance levels, consistently meeting goals and expectations within established timeframes. Evidence of expected leader performance is available. Leader is recognized by others (teachers, administration, students, and/or parents) for fully proficient performance. Distinguished Leader displays exemplary performance levels, consistently exceeding goals and expectations within established timeframes. A significant amount of evidence of high leader performance is available. Leader is recognized by others (teachers, administration, students, and/or parents) for exemplary performance. The levels of performance in the LEPG Rubric are closely aligned to the expectations in the TEPG Rubric. MSAD 55 20

Developing describes a leader who is inconsistent in providing a school climate that is conducive to teaching and learning. The practices of leaders who are new to the role may indicate this level of performance as they develop their craft. Leaders at this level need to show improvement in leadership and management practices. Effective represents a leader who consistently meets expectations for performance. Practice at this level demonstrates a solid understanding of relational trust, leadership and instructional best practices, students, and the school community. o The third level of performance effective represents a leader who takes a systematic, proactive approach to continuously improving school processes. Practice at this level demonstrates a solid understanding of relational trust, leadership and instructional best practices, students, and the school community. Distinguished describes a leader s practice that consistently reaches above and beyond expectations. Practice would regularly reflect continued improvement and foster an inquiry-based culture of learning for self, staff, and students. o The top level of performance distinguished describes a leader s practice that reaches above and beyond expectations. Practice would regularly reflect continued improvement and foster an inquiry-based culture of learning for self, staff, and students. MSAD 55 21

References Clifford, M., Menon, R., Gangi, T., Condon, C., & Hornung, K. (2012). Measuring School Climate for Gauging Leader Performance: A review of the validity and reliability of publicly accessible measures. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Clifford, M., Sherratt, E., & Fetters, J. (2012). The ripple effect: A synthesis of research on leader influence to inform performance evaluation design. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Condon, C., & Clifford, M. (2010). Measuring leader performance: How rigorous are commonly used leader performance assessment instruments? Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. National Association of Elementary School Leaders and National Association of Secondary School Leaders. (2012). Rethinking leader evaluation: A new paradigm informed by research and practice. Washington, DC: Authors. MSAD 55 22

Appendix A: LEPG Program Required Training Districts adopting the Model LEPG Program will have access to training resources for evaluators and leaders that enable compliance with Rule Chapter 180. Evaluator Training According to Rule Chapter 180, a person is a qualified evaluator in the Model LEPG Program only if that person has completed training appropriate to the role he or she will play in the system. Evaluators must be trained in the specific professional practice model selected by the school administrative unit in which the evaluator will perform duties. Evaluators must complete training in the following: 1. Conducting preobservation and postobservation conferences 2. Observing and evaluating the professional practice leaders 3. Developing and guiding professional growth plans The training in observing and evaluating professional practice of leaders must include the following: 1. Training in evaluating performance based on evidence and without bias 2. Adequate time for evaluators to practice and become familiar with the model during their trainings 3. Opportunity for evaluators to work collaboratively 4. Training in assessing evidence of performance not directly observed in direct observations of leaders and in incorporating that evidence into a summative evaluation 5. Training designed to ensure a high level of interrater reliability and agreement To continue to serve as trained evaluators, evaluators must maintain an identified minimum level of interrater reliability and agreement by participating in training or recalibration at intervals specified in the PE/PG system plan. Leader Training According to Rule Chapter 180, prior to implementing a PE/PG system, a school administrative unit must provide training to each educator who will be evaluated under the PE/PG system to provide the opportunity for each educator to understand the following: 1. The structure of the system, including the multiple measures of educator effectiveness and the evaluation cycle 2. The names and roles of administrators whose decisions impact the educator s rating 3. How to participate in professional development opportunities to assist the educator in meeting professional practice standards used in the system 4. The results and consequences of receiving each type of summative effectiveness rating 5. Other aspects of the system necessary to enable the educator to participate fully in the evaluation and professional growth aspects of the system MSAD 55 23

Appendix B Form 1 Goal-Setting Leader Evaluation and Professional Growth Goals Leader: School: School Year: p Individualized Professional Growth Plan p Monitored Growth Plan District Goal #1: All students will achieve one year of academic growth as measured by the NWEA or a district assessment. District Goal #2: All students will be at or above grade-level proficiency as measured by the NWEA or a district assessment. District Goal #3: All students will have strong working relationships with adults and be emotionally supported to be academically successful as measured by student perception survey data. Goal: SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-Bound) Alignment to District Goals and/or Core Propositions 1-6: Action Steps for Implementation (What will the leader do?) Timeline Measure/Evidence of Achievement (What evidence will the leader collect to show goal has been met?) MSAD 55 24

Goal: SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-Bound) Alignment to District Goals and/or Core Propositions 1-6: Action Steps for Implementation (What will the leader do?) Timeline Measure/Evidence of Achievement (What evidence will the leader collect to show goal has been met?) Leader s Signature: Date: Evaluator s Signature: Date: MSAD 55 25

Appendix C - Form 2 LEPG Self-Reflection!! Purpose The purpose of self-reflection is to focus on strengths and opportunities for growth according to the LEPG Core Propositions and Standards. This reflection will guide the development of professional growth goals. Preparing for the Summative Conference Leader will: Identify strengths and opportunities for growth for each standard Provide a self-assessment rating on each core proposition During the Summative Conference Leader will Share responses to the self-assessment Evaluator will Ask questions and take notes on the conversation Collaboratively identify and document specific indicators of focus for the observation. After review of the self-assessment, both the leader and evaluator should sign and date the form. MSAD 55 26

Self-Reflection Leader s Name: Core Proposition 1: Vision, Mission, and Advocacy Rating: Ineffective Developing Effective Distinguished 1.1 Shared Vision and Mission Strengths Growth Opportunity Other 1.2 Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Strengths Growth Opportunity Other 1.3 Community Support Strengths Growth Opportunity Other MSAD 55 27

Core Proposition 2: Strategic Leadership for Results Rating: Ineffective Developing Effective Distinguished 2.1 Organizational Capacity Strengths Growth Opportunity Other 2.2 Strategic Management Systems Strengths Growth Opportunity Other Core Proposition 3: Supports for Learning Rating: Ineffective Developing Effective Distinguished 3.1 Support for Students Strengths Growth Opportunity Other MSAD 55 28

Core Proposition 4: Teaching and Learning Rating: Ineffective Developing Effective Distinguished 4.1 Instructional Focus Strengths Growth Opportunity Other 4.2 Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Strengths Growth Opportunity Other 4.3 Supporting Instructional Practice Strengths Growth Opportunity Other MSAD 55 29

Core Proposition 5: Culture Rating: Ineffective Developing Effective Distinguished 5.1 Relationship Building Strengths Growth Opportunity Other 5.2 Respect for Diverse Cultures Strengths Growth Opportunity Other 5.3 Safe Environment Strengths Growth Opportunity Other MSAD 55 30

Core Proposition 6: Ensuring Professionalism Rating: Ineffective Developing Effective Distinguished 6.1 Rational and Transparent Decision-Making Strengths Growth Opportunity Other 6.2 Professional Conduct Strengths Growth Opportunity Other Core Proposition 7: Reflection and Growth Rating: Ineffective Developing Effective Distinguished 7.1 Self-Reflection and Continuous Improvement Strengths Growth Opportunity Other Leader s Signature: Date: Evaluator s Signature: Date: MSAD 55 31

Appendix D - Form 3 Pre-Observation Protocol for Post-Observation Conference!! Purpose The purpose of the pre-observation meeting is to discuss the process and gather information about the post-observation conference with an educator. Preparing for the Conversation Evaluator will Review the pre-observation questions and make note of any clarifying questions to ask the Principal. Leader will: Review pre-observation questions. This can include collecting documents that are applicable to the observation activity. During the Conversation Evaluator will Ask questions and take notes on the conversation. Collaboratively identify and document specific indicators of focus for the observation. Leader will Share responses to the questions and share documents, if any. Collaboratively identify and document specific indicators of focus for the observation. After completion of the pre-observation interview, both the leader and evaluator should sign and date the form. MSAD 55 32

Pre-Observation Conversation Leader s Name: Evaluator s Name: Activity to be observed: Date of pre-observation conference: Date of observation: Time of pre-observation conference: Time of observation: Leader should review the questions below before for the pre-observation conversation. Written responses are not required. During the conference, the leader and evaluator will discuss the questions and share any relevant evidence. 1. Briefly describe some highlights and areas of growth from the observation. 2. What is the objective(s) of the post-conference? 3. What action steps are you anticipating implementing to improve the area(s) of growth? How will measure the effectiveness? 4. Is there something the supervisor should pay particular attention to during the observation? Signing below indicates that the pre-observation meeting took place. A signed copy should be provided to the Principal. Leader s Signature: Date: Evaluator s Signature: Date: MSAD 55 33

Appendix E - Form 4 LEPG Post Observation Protocol for a Post-Observation Conference Purpose The purpose of the post-observation meeting is for the leader and evaluator to review observation evidence and share feedback. Preparing for the Conversation Evaluator will Review and align observation notes to the LEPG Rubric. Identify areas of strength and opportunities for growth by citing evidence from observation (Part 2). Jot down notes and ideas on a plan for growth (Part 3). Leader will Use the LEPG Rubric to self-assess his/her performance during the observation. Review and prepare answers to the post-observation questions (Part 1). Collect and analyze documents related to the observation. Jot down notes and ideas on a plan for growth (Part 3). During the Conversation Evaluator will Ask questions and take notes on the conversation (Part 1). Share evidence, alignment, strengths, and opportunities for growth (Part 2). Collaboratively identify and document a plan for growth for the leader based upon the conversation and assessment (Part 3). Leader will Share responses to the questions and documents from the observation (Part 1). Collaboratively identify and document a plan for growth (Part 3). At the end of the conference, the leader and evaluator will receive a signed copy of the completed documents, which includes planning for growth. MSAD 55 34