DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Professional Standards Board

EDUCATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO 14 DEL. C. SECTION 122 (d)

PROPOSED

1504 Delaware Performance Appraisal System for Administrators

A. TYPE OF REGULATORY ACTION REQUESTED

B. SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECT MATTER OF REGULATION

1504 Delaware Performance Appraisal System for Administrators

C. IMPACT CRITERIA

1504 Delaware Performance Appraisal System for Administrators

1.0 The Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II) for Administrators is a system for evaluating the performance of administrators and for promoting professional growth of administrators. In accordance with 14 Del. C. § 1270, this regulation shall be applied to all administrators who are employed by a Delaware public school, including charter schools, who hold a license under the provisions of Chapter 12 of Title 14 of the Delaware Code.

2.0 Definitions: The following words and terms, when used in this regulation, shall have the following meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

3.0 Delaware Performance Appraisal System II (DPAS II) for Administrators: There shall be four components of the Delaware Performance Appraisal System for Administrators.

    LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE

    STANDARD

    UNSATISFACTORY

    BASIC

    PROFICIENT

    DISTINGUISHED

    1a: The Vision of Learning

    There is little or no evidence that the school leader facilitates the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision for learning that is shared and supported by the community.

    There is limited evidence that the school leader facilitates the development, articulation implementation, and stewardship of a vision for learning that is shared and supported by the community.

    There is clear evidence that the school leader facilitates the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision for learning that is shared and supported by the community.

    There is clear, convincing, and consistent evidence that the school leader facilitates the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision for learning that is shared and supported by the community.

    1b: The Culture of Teaching and Learning

    There is little or no evidence that the school leader advocates, nurtures, and sustains a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

    There is limited evidence that the school leader advocates, nurtures, and sustains a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

    There is clear evidence that the school leader advocates, nurtures, and sustains a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

    There is clear, consistent, and convincing evidence that the school leader advocates, nurtures, and sustains a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

    1c: The Management of Learning

    There is little or no evidence that the school leader ensures management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

    There is limited evidence that the school leader ensures management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

    There is clear evidence that the school leader ensures management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

    There is clear, consistent, and convincing evidence that the school leader ensures management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

    1d: Relationships with the Broader Community to Foster Learning

    There is little or no evidence that the school leader collaborates with families and community members, responds to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizes community resources.

    There is limited evidence that the school leader collaborates with families and community members, responds to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizes community resources.

    There is clear evidence that the school leader collaborates with families and community members, responds to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizes community resources.

    There is clear, consistent, and convincing evidence that the school leader collaborates with families and community members, responds to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizes community resources.

    1e: Integrity, Fairness, and Ethics in Learning

    There is little or no evidence that the school leader acts with integrity, with fairness, and in an ethical manner.

    There is limited evidence that the school leader acts with integrity, with fairness, and in an ethical manner.

    There is clear evidence that the school leader acts with integrity, with fairness, and in an ethical manner.

    There is clear, consistent, and convincing evidence that the school leader acts with integrity, with fairness, and in an ethical manner.

    1f: The Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural Context

    There is little or no evidence that the school leader has the knowledge and skills to understand, respond to, and influence the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural contexts.

    There is limited evidence that the school leader has the knowledge and skills to understand, respond to, and influence the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural contexts.

    There is clear evidence that the school leader has the knowledge and skills to understand, respond to, and influence the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural contexts.

    There is clear, consistent, and convincing evidence that the school leader has the knowledge and skills to understand, respond to, and influence the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural contexts.

Adapted from the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School Leaders, Council of Chief State Officers, 1996.

LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE

 

Unsatisfactory

Basic

Proficient

Distinguished

2a

District Goals and Priorities

There is no evidence that the administrator’s goals and professional development activities are aligned to district goals and superintendent/ Board priorities.

There is limited or unclear evidence that the administrator’s goals and professional development activities are aligned to district goals and superintendent/ Board priorities.

There is clear and convincing evidence that the administrator’s goals and professional development activities are aligned to district goals and superintendent/

Board priorities. Application of skills and knowledge in this area are clearly visible.

There is clear, convincing, and consistent evidence that the administrator’s goals and professional development activities are aligned to district goals and superintendent/Board priorities. Application of skills and knowledge in this area are clearly visible. Administrator sets goals in collaboration with others and articulates them to the staff and community.

2b

Goals & Priorities of the Administrator

The goals and targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle, listed below, were not met. The targets fell well below those established by the evaluator and the administrator.

The goals and targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle, listed below, were partially met. The targets fell below those established by the evaluator and the administrator.

The goals and targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle, listed below, were fully met. The targets met those established by the evaluator and the administrator.

The goals and targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle, listed below, were fully met. The targets exceeded those established by the evaluator and the administrator.

LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE

 

Unsatisfactory

Basic

Proficient

Distinguished

3a

School or District Improvement Plan

There is no evidence that the administrator had any influence, implicit or explicit, on the accomplishment of the school or district improvement plan goals.

There is limited or unclear evidence that the administrator had any influence, implicit or explicit, on the accomplishment of the school or district improvement plan goals.

There is clear and convincing evidence that the administrator had influence, both implicit and explicit, on the accomplishment of the school or district improvement plan goals, and that a limited group was engaged with the administrator in planning.

There is clear, consistent and convincing evidence that the administrator had significant influence, both implicit and explicit, on the accomplishment of the school or district improvement plan goals. The administrator used the skills and knowledge in relation to the improvement and has worked in collaboration with staff and community, and articulated the design to the staff and community.

3b:

Unique School or District Conditions

There is no evidence that the administrator identified goals that focus on the school’s or district’s unique needs, challenges and opportunities.

There is limited or unclear evidence that the administrator identified goals that focus on the school’s or district’s unique needs, challenges and opportunities.

There is clear and convincing evidence that the administrator identified goals that focus on the school’s or district’s unique needs, challenges and opportunities, and has used these goals to inform educational decisions.

There is clear, convincing and consistent evidence that the administrator identified goals that focus on the school’s or district’s unique needs, challenges and opportunities. The administrator has addressed the goals collaboratively with others and articulates decisions/solutions to staff and community.

LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE

 

Unsatisfactory

Basic

Proficient

Distinguished

4a:

Uses data from the DSTP school or district performance classification to make instructional decisions

The DSTP school or district performance classification did not meet the targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle. The scores fell well below the targets established by the evaluator and the administrator.

The DSTP school or district performance classification partially met the targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle. The scores fell below the targets established by the evaluator and the administrator.

The DSTP school or district performance classification fully met the targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle. The scores met the targets established by the evaluator and the administrator.

The DSTP school or district performance classification exceeded the targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle. The scores exceeded the targets established by the evaluator and the administrator.

4b:

Other Measures of Student Improvement

Other measures of student achievement did not meet the targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle. The evidence provided by the other measures fell well below the targets established by the evaluator and the administrator.

Other measures of student achievement did not meet the targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle. The evidence provided by the other measures fell below the targets established by the evaluator and the administrator.

Other measures of student achievement met the targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle. The evidence provided by the other measures met the targets established by the evaluator and the administrator.

Other measures of student achievement met the targets established at the beginning of the evaluation cycle. The evidence provided by the other measures exceeded the targets established by the evaluator and the administrator.

4c:

Provides evidence of closing the achievement gap

Is unaware of the distribution in student achievement or makes no effort to close the gap by addressing the different needs of individual students or groups of students. Measurable discrepancies in student learning persist.

Is aware of the distribution in student achievement and makes a limited effort to close the gap by addressing the different needs of individual students or groups of students. The gap in student achievement is beginning to close.

Is very aware of the distribution in student achievement and makes a concerted effort to close the gap by addressing the different needs of students or groups of students. There is clear evidence that the gap in student achievement is being closed.

Is proactive in addressing the distribution in student achievement and uses research-based strategies to effectively close the gap by addressing the different needs of individual students or groups of students. There is clear evidence that students are achieving at higher levels and that the distribution in student achievement is being closed. The administrator keeps the staff informed of their progress. The administrator provides leadership in the identification and use of effective strategies to address the gap in student achievement.

to abide by the Parents’ Declaration of Responsibilities, and other factors which include, but are not limited to, environmental disruptions over which the administrator has no control, an external event, such as the death or serious injury of a student, which impacts the school or district, as may be jointly agreed upon by the administrator and the evaluator, that may adversely affect an administrator’s evaluation must be taken into consideration in rating Domain 4, and must be included in any discussion between the evaluator and administrator.

domains under the summative evaluation and does not meet the criteria for a rating of proficient or distinguished.

DPAS II Summative Evaluation Rubric

4

0

0

0

Distinguished

3

1

0

0

Proficient

3

0

1

0

Proficient

2

2

0

0

Proficient

2

1

1

0

Proficient

1

3

0

0

Proficient

0

3

1

0

Proficient

3

0

1

0

Basic

2

0

2

0

Basic

1

2

1

0

Basic

1

1

2

0

Basic

1

0

3

0

Basic

0

2

2

0

Basic

0

0

4

0

Basic

0

1

3

0

Basic

2

0

1

1

Unsatisfactory

1

0

2

1

Unsatisfactory

1

2

0

1

Unsatisfactory

1

1

1

1

Unsatisfactory

1

1

0

2

Unsatisfactory

0

2

1

1

Unsatisfactory

0

2

0

2

Unsatisfactory

1

0

1

2

Unsatisfactory

0

1

2

1

Unsatisfactory

0

1

1

2

Unsatisfactory

0

1

0

3

Unsatisfactory

1

0

0

3

Unsatisfactory

0

0

3

1

Unsatisfactory

0

0

2

2

Unsatisfactory

0

0

1

3

Unsatisfactory

0

0

0

4

Unsatisfactory

4.0 Procedures for Novice Administrators.

given role, and shall result in a rating for each component and an overall performance rating of “distinguished”, “proficient”, “basic”, or “unsatisfactory”. The administrator may submit a summative evaluation response form within ten days of receipt of the evaluation, which shall be appended to the summative evaluation.

5.0 Procedures for Experienced Administrators.

6.0 Evaluators and administrators being evaluated shall sign all evaluation forms indicating that the documents have been reviewed.

7.0 Experienced administrators who receive a rating of “proficient” or “distinguished” may be granted a waiver from the required one year cycle. During the period in which the waiver is in effect, the prescribed rubric surveys, goal setting conferences and observations shall be conducted over a two year period, beginning in the fall of one school year and concluding in the spring of the following school year.

8.0 The goal of an assistance plan is to provide a structured vehicle to assist an administrator whose performance is unsatisfactory to improve performance to a proficient level. An assistance plan shall be developed for any administrator whose performance is rated “unsatisfactory” on any domain of DPAS II for Administrators or whose overall rating on the annual summative evaluation is rated “unsatisfactory” or “basic” on any domain of DPAS II for Administrators or whose overall rating on the annual summative evaluation is rated “unsatisfactory” or “basic” or receives a score of less than eight. The criteria set forth in an assistance plan must be designed to result in an overall summative rating of “proficient” at the conclusion of the assistance plan.

9.0 School districts and charter schools shall follow the procedures and use forms and software developed by the Department for implementation of DPAS II.

10.0 Challenge Process: A administrator may challenge the fairness of the evaluation process and the overall conclusions reached in the DPAS II summative evaluation.

7 DE Reg. 13 (07/01/03) (Prop.)