A review by the team showed that administrator evaluation documentation was incomplete. Most files did include a self-assessment and a goal setting document. However, in a number of instances, the goals were not SMART (Specific and Strategic; Measureable; Action-Oriented; Rigorous, Realistic, and Results-Focused; and Timed and Tracked.). The team reviewed 15 administrator files. Summative evaluations of principals were not included in TeachPoint files. The superintendent said she had completed them; however, none were provided to the team. The superintendent, principals, and administrators with less than three years of experience should be placed on one-year developing educator plans and have annual summative evaluations, consistent with the educator evaluation regulations. High school department heads were not evaluated in their role as department heads, but in their role as teachers. a. District leaders reported that this practice was based on job descriptions and teachers’ contracts. C. Interviewees told the team that the district is making some effort this year to calibrate evaluations among administrators. They said they recognize that principals across the district do not have consistent expectations for instruction. 1. District leaders reported that most principals have had training in recent in conducting walkthroughs and in writing consistent evidence. They noted that the assistant superintendent meets with all principals and assistant principals monthly to conduct walkthroughs address inter rater reliability and consistency for evaluations.” “to D. The superintendent and assistant superintendent said that they read all evaluations and schools to participate with principals in observations and walkthroughs. E. When the current superintendent assumed leadership in July 2012, the district had an educator evaluation labor management committee in place. F. District leaders reported that an evaluation committee has been in in recent years; it is composed of administrators and teachers including teachers’ association representatives. When the educator evaluation system is not implemented consistently, the district does not Impact: have an effective instrument for supporting and evaluating its teachers and administrators. As a result, it does not provide educators sufficient opportunities for professional growth. 10. The district has not developed a professional development program that is tied to district, school, and educator goals. Professional development is uncoordinated and not developed collaboratively.
A review by the team showed that administrator evaluation documentation was incomplete. Most files did include a self-assessment and a goal setting document. However, in a number of instances, the goals were not SMART (Specific and Strategic; Measureable; Action-Oriented; Rigorous, Realistic, and Results-Focused; and Timed and Tracked.). The team reviewed 15 administrator files. Summative evaluations of principals were not included in TeachPoint files. The superintendent said she had completed them; however, none were provided to the team. The superintendent, principals, and administrators with less than three years of experience should be placed on one-year developing educator plans and have annual summative evaluations, consistent with the educator evaluation regulations. High school department heads were not evaluated in their role as department heads, but in their role as teachers. a. District leaders reported that this practice was based on job descriptions and teachers’ contracts. C. Interviewees told the team that the district is making some effort this year to calibrate evaluations among administrators. They said they recognize that principals across the district do not have consistent expectations for instruction. 1. District leaders reported that most principals have had training in recent in conducting walkthroughs and in writing consistent evidence. They noted that the assistant superintendent meets with all principals and assistant principals monthly to conduct walkthroughs “to address inter rater reliability and consistency for evaluations.” D. The superintendent and assistant superintendent said that they read all evaluations and schools to participate with principals in observations and walkthroughs. E. When the current superintendent assumed leadership in July 2012, the district had an educator evaluation labor management committee in place. F. District leaders reported that an evaluation committee has been in in recent years; it is composed of administrators and teachers including teachers’ association representatives. Impact: When the educator evaluation system is not implemented consistently, the district does not have an effective instrument for supporting and evaluating its teachers and administrators. As a result, it does not provide educators sufficient opportunities for professional growth. 10. The district has not developed a professional development program that is tied to district, school, and educator goals. Professional development is uncoordinated and not developed collaboratively.