EDUCATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO 14 DEL. C. SECTION 122 (d)
1504 Delaware Performance Appraisal System for Administrators
A. TYPE OF REGULATORY ACTION REQUESTED
New Regulation
B. SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECT MATTER OF REGULATION
The Professional Standards Board in cooperation and collaboration with the Department of Education seeks the approval of the State Board of Education to adopt the following regulation:
1504 Delaware Performance Appraisal System for Administrators
It is necessary to adopt this regulation in order to comply with changes in statute regarding the evaluation of the performance of educators. The Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II) is a system for the evaluation of educators. The system which has been developed is research-based, and is aligned with the Delaware Administrator Standards (ISSLC Standards). The system serves the dual purposes of quality assurance and professional growth, and contains a component dedicated to student improvement. The Delaware Performance Appraisal System reinforces those aspects of the system which apply to all educators, while acknowledging the differences which exist among groups of educators. It is necessary that the existing Department regulation 115 School-Level Administrator Appraisal Process remain in effect during the pilot period of the DPAS II system, as educators in all districts except those participating in a pilot of DPAS II will continue to be evaluated under the existing regulations.
Comments received in response to an invitation for public comment have been considered and changes have been made in the proposed regulation. Included in the changes are the restructuring of the challenge process limiting challenges to summative evaluations only, elimination of reference to the certification of DPAS II evaluators, and elimination of the provisions addressing a pilot. In addition, the rubrics for Domain 1 of the Delaware Performance Appraisal System for Administrators.
C. IMPACT CRITERIA
1. Will the new regulation help improve student achievement as measured against state achievement standards? The new regulation will help improve student achievement as measured against state achievement standards by evaluating educator performance and promoting professional growth of educators. The student improvement domain is directly related to student achievement as measured against state achievement standards.
2. Will the new regulation help ensure that all students receive an equitable education? The new regulation deals with educator evaluation, not student equity. However, ensuring that all educators are evaluated using a rigorous system which focuses on both performance and professional growth of educators helps to ensure that students receive an equitable education.
3. Will the new regulation help to ensure that all students’ health and safety are adequately protected? The new regulation addresses educator evaluation, not students’ health and safety.
4. Will the new regulation help to ensure that all students’ legal rights are respected? The new regulation addresses educator evaluation, not students’ legal rights.
5. Will the new regulation preserve the necessary authority and flexibility of decision makers at the local board and school level? The new regulation will preserve the necessary authority and flexibility of decision makers at the local board and school level.
6. Will the new regulation place unnecessary reporting or administrative requirements or mandates upon decision makers at the local board and school levels? The new regulation will not place unnecessary reporting or administrative requirements or mandates upon decision makers at the local board and school levels.
7. Will decision making authority and accountability for addressing the subjects to be regulated be placed in the same entity? The decision-making authority and accountability for addressing the subjects to be regulated rests with the Professional Standards Board, in collaboration and cooperation with the Department of Education, and with the consent of the State Board of Education.
8. Will the new regulation be consistent with, and not an impediment to, the implementation of other state educational policies, in particular to state educational policies addressing achievement in the core academic subjects of mathematics, science, language arts and social studies? The new regulation will be consistent with, and not an impediment to, the implementation of other state educational policies, in particular to state educational policies addressing achievement in the core academic subjects of mathematics, science, language arts and social studies.
9. Is there a less burdensome method for addressing the purpose of the new regulation? 14 Del. C. requires that we promulgate this regulation.
10. What is the cost to the state and to the local school boards of compliance with the new regulation? There is no additional cost to local school boards for compliance with the regulation.
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:
“Achievement gap” means the difference in performance between the overall performance of the reference group of students (i.e., Caucasians or non low-income students) and target groups of students (i.e., Hispanic, African-American, low-income, etc.)
“Administrator” means an educator who is licensed and certified as an administrator and is employed in an instructional role in a school district or charter school.
“Assistance Plan” means an improvement plan which identifies deficiencies in an administrator’s performance and defines activities required to improve the deficiencies to a basic or proficient level for novice administrators, and to proficient level for experienced administrators.
“Basic” means performance characteristic of novice administrators. The practice is inconsistent or uneven. The administrator knows what to do, but cannot consistently act upon this knowledge.
“Basic performance in a domain” means the administrator appears to understand the concepts underlying the standards, and attempts to implement their elements, but implementation is sporadic, intermittent, or otherwise not entirely successful.
“Basic performance on a summative evaluation” means the administrator receives at least four basic ratings and no unsatisfactory rating among the four domains under the summative evaluation.
“Conclusions” means any final determination of an administrator’s overall performance as distinguished, proficient, basic or unsatisfactory.
“Component” as used herein, means one of the sections of a domain, as distinguished from “component” as it is used in 14 Del. C., § 1270, where it means a major section of the DPAS II system.
“Delaware Administrator Standards” means standards for education administrators approved by the State Board, as per 14 Del. Admin. Code 1594, Delaware Administrator Standards.
“Chronic failure by parents to abide by the Parents’ Declaration of Responsibilities” means multiple failures by parents to respond to communications from teachers or other school officials and/or failure to attend conferences as requested.
“Delaware Performance Appraisal System II” (DPAS II) means the educator evaluation system developed and implemented pursuant to 14 Del. C., § 1270.
“Department” means the Delaware Department of Education.
“Distinguished” means performance characteristic of master administrators.
“Distinguished performance in a domain” means that the administrator is a master administrator and makes a contribution to field, both in and outside of their school or district.
“Distinguished performance on a summative evaluation” means the administrator receives four distinguished ratings, among the four domains of the summative evaluation.
“Distribution in student achievement” means the distribution of scores among all students, including those scores disaggregated by income level, gender, race, special education status, and limited English proficiency
“DSTP” means the Delaware Student Testing Program, and includes DSTP I (reading, writing, and mathematics in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 and science and social studies in grades 4, 6, 8, and 11), and DSTP II (reading, writing, and mathematics in grades 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9) and work sampling at grades K and 1).
“Domain” means one of the sections of the Delaware Performance Appraisal System II and, as used herein, means the same as component in 14 Del. § 1270 (9c).
“Educator” means a public school employee who holds a license issued under the provisions of 14 Del. C., Chapter 12, and includes teachers, specialists, and administrators, and as otherwise defined by the Standards Board and State Board but does not include substitute teachers.
“Evaluator” means an individual or a team who has the credentials to appraise educator performance, as set forth in the rules and regulations promulgated under 14 Del. C, § 1271.
“Experienced administrator” means an administrator who holds a continuing or advanced license and has more than three years of experience in the role in which the administrator is employed.
“Frameworks for School Leaders” means a framework of professional practice for educators as set forth in A Framework for School Leaders: Linking the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium’s “Standards for School Leaders” to Practice (ETS, 2001).
“ISLLC” means Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium.
“Mitigating factors” means factors set forth in 14 Del. C. § 1270(c) which must be taken into consideration in measuring student improvement and which include student absence, student mobility, student chronic noncompliance with school rules, chronic failure by parents to abide by the Parents’ Declaration of Responsibilities and other factors that may affect an administrator’s evaluation.
“Multiple measures” means student performance on district administered tests pursuant to 14 Del. C. 253(3)(1); student performance assessments, such as end-of-unit or end-of-course assessments, student classroom work products; and classroom grades supported by evidence of student work that demonstrates a student’s performance.
“Novice administrator” means an administrator with less than three years of experience in the role or new to Delaware.
“Other factors that may adversely affect an administrator’s evaluation” 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.
“Overall performance rating” means a summative rating of an administrator’s performance on DPAS II.
“Pattern of ineffective administration” means a summative evaluation rating of “unsatisfactory”, “basic, or a combination of basic and unsatisfactory performance on a summative evaluation for a period of two consecutive years.
“Professional development activities” means activities designed to enhance knowledge and skill to promote continuous professional growth and to improve administrator performance.
“Proficient” means there is clear evidence that the administrator know what to do and does it.
“Proficient performance in a domain” means the administrator clearly understands the concepts underlying the domain and implements them well.
“Proficient performance on a summative evaluation” means the administrator receives no unsatisfactory ratings, and no more than one basic rating among the four domains of the summative evaluation and does not meet the criteria for a distinguished rating.
“Rubric survey” is a survey of an administrators’s performance on the ISLLC standards which is completed by the administrator, the evaluator, and the individuals directly supervised by the administrator. The evaluator uses data collected from the completed surveys to inform the overall rating on Domain 1.
“Satisfactory performance for administrators” means a summative score of proficient or higher rating in all of the four areas of the Delaware Performance Appraisal System for Administrators or a cumulative score of eight or higher.
“School performance classification” means the official accountability rating assigned to the school pursuant to 14 Del. C. § 154.
“School or district improvement plan” means a comprehensive plan, pursuant to 14 Del. C., § 805, developed by the school community which sets forth goals tied to state and local academic performance standards, strategies to achieve those goals, and resources needed to implement strategies. As used herein, it also means the strategic plan maintained by each school district, pursuant to 14 Del. Admin. Code 215.
“Secretary” means the Secretary of the Delaware Department of Education.
“Standards Board” means the Professional Standards Board established pursuant to 14 Del. C, § 1201.
“State Board” means the State Board of Education of the State of Delaware established pursuant to 14 Del. C, § 104.
“Student absence” means a student misses more than 15% of class time in a school year.
“Student chronic noncompliance with school rules” means two or more documented violations of district or charter school code of conduct.
“Student improvement” means growth over time on the DSTP and other assessment measures toward curriculum standards, as jointly determined by the administrator and the evaluator.
“Student mobility” means a student attends one school for less than an entire academic year from September 30 through May 31.
“Summative evaluation” means a collection of evidence which results in a summary of an administrator’s performance over time.
“Unsatisfactory” means the administrator does not yet appear to understand the concepts underlying the component.
“Unsatisfactory performance in a domain” means the administrator does not yet appear to understand the concepts underlying the domain. The administrator’s performance in that domain is unacceptable.
“Unsatisfactory performance on a summative evaluation” means an administrator receives one or more unsatisfactory ratings in the four domains of the summative evaluation.
“Variety of assessments” means pre- and post-testing, on-line scores, performances, portfolios, oral presentations, and projects appropriate to the content being assessed.
3.0 Delaware Performance Appraisal System II (DPAS II) for Administrators: There shall be four components of the Delaware Performance Appraisal System for Administrators.
3.1 The domains of DPAS II for Administrators are as follows:
3.1.1 Domain 1: Assessment of Leader Standards provides a direct assessment of the school leader’s proficiency on the Delaware Administrator Standards, also known as the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996). The rubrics, as described in Frameworks for School Leaders (ETS, 2001), are to be used as a guide to inform dialogue for both the administrator and the evaluator. The evaluator is not required to assess every component of the standards in the course of an evaluation.
3.1.1.1 Standard 1: The Vision of Learning --The school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision for learning that is shared and supported by the community.
3.1.1.2 Standard 2: The Culture of Teaching and Learning --A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
3.1.1.3 Standard 3: The Management of Learning A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
3.1.1.4 Standard 4: Relationships with the Broader Community to Foster Learning – A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
3.1.1.5 Standard 5: Integrity, Fairness, and Ethics in Learning -- The school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, with fairness, and in an ethical manner.
3.1.1.6 Standard 6: The political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context learning -- A school administrator is an educational leader who has the knowledge and skills to promote the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural contexts.
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.
3.1.2 Domain 2: Assessment on Goals and Priorities provides an assessment of progress on goals which connect to the standards, are organizationally grounded and emphasize the contributions of the leader, are anchored in analysis of data, and which are mutually established by the administrator and the evaluator.
3.1.2.1 The evaluator and the administrator will meet to establish, and agree upon, the number and substance of the goals the administrator will focus on for the year. They will agree upon a target performance for each goal, and what levels of performance constitute “unsatisfactory”, “basic”, “proficient”, or “distinguished” for each goal. The agreed upon goals and target performances shall constitute Domain 2, which will be unique for each administrator. In the event that the evaluator and the administrator are unable to agree upon the goals and target performances for Domain 2, the evaluator will establish goals and target performances for the administrator.
3.1.2.2 Domain 2: Assessment on Goals and Priorities
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. |
3.1.3 Domain 3: Assessment on the School or District Improvement Plan provides an assessment of the extent to which a school or district reaches important goals in the improvement plan.
3.1.3.1 At the beginning of the evaluation cycle, the evaluator and the administrator will meet to review the school or district improvement plan. During that meeting, the evaluator and the administrator will identify specific goals and targets for the administrator with respect to the improvement plan and those aspects of the improvement plan where the achievement of those goals and targets is within the administrator’s direct influence, or control. The agreed upon goals and target performances shall constitute Domain 3, which will be unique for each administrator. In the event that the evaluator and the administrator are unable to agree upon the goals and target performances for the Domain 3, the evaluator will establish goals and target performances for the administrator.
3.1.3.2 Domain 3: Assessment on the School or District Improvement Plan
3.1.4 Domain 4: Assessment on Measures of Student Improvement provides an assessment of student performance based on data from the DSTP, and student achievement in other areas. In the fall of the evaluation cycle, the administrator and the evaluator will meet to discuss the student improvement domain. Each party will bring data to inform the process of mutually establishing performance objectives and the criteria for defining success in achieving those objectives in each of the three components of the domain.
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. |
3.1.4.1 Domain 4: Student Improvement
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. |
3.2 Pursuant to 14 Del. C. § 1270(c), mitigating factors, including student absence, student mobility, student chronic noncompliance with school rules, chronic failure by parents
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.
3.3 Each component within a domain shall be weighted equally in determining an overall rating for an administrator. Using a set of scoring guides, each domain will be rated “distinguished”, “proficient”, “basic”, or “unsatisfactory”. An annual summative evaluation shall be completed for each administrator and shall result in a rating of “distinguished”, “proficient”, “basic”, or “unsatisfactory” for each domain and an overall rating of performance.
3.3.1 A rubric shall be used to rate each domain, as well as to derive the overall rating of the DPAS II evaluation.
3.3.1.1 Distinguished: Administrators at this level are master educational leaders and make a contribution to the field, both in and outside their school and district.
3.3.1.2 Proficient: The administrator clearly understands the concept underlying the domain and implements it well.
3.3.1.3 Basic: The administrator appears to understand the concepts underlying the domain and attempts to implement its elements. Implementation is sporadic, intermittent, or otherwise not entirely successful.
3.3.1.4 Unsatisfactory: The administrator does not yet appear to understand the concepts underlying the domain.
3.4 Summative Domain Ratings -- Administrators shall receive an overall rating, annually, of “distinguished”, “proficient”, “basic”, or “unsatisfactory”. Such rating shall be a summative rating, arrived at in accordance with the procedures for annual summative evaluation form based on ratings on all four domains over the year.
3.5 Overall Performance on a Summative Evaluation.
3.5.1 Distinguished Performance on a Summative Evaluation – The administrator receives four distinguished ratings among the four domains of the summative evaluation.
3.5.2 Proficient Performance on a Summative Evaluation – The administrator receives no unsatisfactory ratings, and no more than one basic rating among the four domains of the summative evaluation and does not meet the criteria for a distinguished rating.
3.5.3 Basic Performance on a Summative Evaluation – The administrator receives at least four basic or higher ratings and no unsatisfactory ratings among the four
domains under the summative evaluation and does not meet the criteria for a rating of proficient or distinguished.
3.5.4 Unsatisfactory Performance on a Summative Evaluation – The administrator receives one or more unsatisfactory ratings in the four domains of the summative evaluation.
3.5.5 Summative Evaluation Scoring Guide.
3.5.5.1 Evaluators use the summative evaluation scoring guide set forth below to derive an overall summative rating for the administrator evaluation.
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 |
3.6 Pattern of Ineffective Administration.
3.6.1 An administrator receives a summative evaluation with an overall rating of unsatisfactory performance for a period of two consecutive years.
3.6.2 An administrator receives a summative evaluation with an overall rating of basic performance for a period of two consecutive years.
3.6.3 An administrator receives summative evaluations with any combination of basic and unsatisfactory performance for two consecutive years.
3.6.4 An overall rating of unsatisfactory or basic performance during the pilot year, if any, cannot be used in establishing a pattern of ineffective administration.
4.0 Procedures for Novice Administrators.
4.1 Administrators who are in the first three years in a given role will complete the self evaluation twice each year, once by November 30 and once by April 30. The rubric survey for Domain 1 will be completed in the same time periods by those the administrator directly supervises. In the case of a building level administrator, the survey will be completed by all teachers directly supervised by the administrator. In the case of a district level administrator, the administrator and his/her supervisor shall jointly identify those individuals who will complete the rubric survey. An annual goal setting conference during which the administrator and his/her supervisor establish goals, identify evidence that will be used to make judgments, and agree upon criteria by which achievement will be measured, will take place in the early fall of the year. In the event that there is lack of agreement on the goals and targets, the evaluator will make the final determination. The administrator and the supervisor shall hold a minimum of two conferences during the school year to review progress toward goals and objectives, and either the administrator or the supervisor may request additional conferences, as necessary. A formative evaluation conference form shall be completed during each conference, and signed by both the administrator and the evaluator. The supervisor will observe the administrator at least twice each year to gather data to inform the evaluator on the administrator’s performance on the domains. An annual summative evaluation shall be completed for each administrator in the first three years in a
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.
5.1 Experienced administrators, those who have three or more years in a role shall complete the self evaluation twice each year, once by November 30 and once by April 30. The rubric survey for Domain 1 will be completed in the same time periods by those the administrator supervises. In the case of a building level administrator, the survey will be completed by all teachers directly supervised by the administrator. In the case of a district level administrator, the administrator and his/her supervisor shall jointly identify those individuals who will complete the rubric survey. An annual goal setting conference during which the administrator and his/her supervisor establish goals, identify evidence that will be used to make judgments, and agree upon criteria by which achievement will be measured, will take place in the fall of the year. In the event that there is lack of agreement on the goals and targets, the evaluator will make the final determination The administrator and the supervisor shall hold a minimum of two conferences during the school year, and either the administrator or the supervisor may request additional conferences, as necessary. The supervisor will observe the administrator at least twice each year. An annual summative evaluation shall be completed for each administrator in the first three years in a 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 report response form within 10 days of receipt of the report, which shall be appended to the summative evaluation report.
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.
8.1 Assistance plans must include the following:
8.1.1 Definition of the specific deficiencies, which must be stated in terms of DPAS II rubrics for evaluating the identified domain(s).
8.1.2 Measurable goals for improving the deficiencies to satisfactory levels. All goals must be directly linked to the Delaware Administrator Standards and DPAS II rubrics.
8.1.3 Clear and specific professional development activities (i.e., intervention strategies that relate to the goals and objectives).
8.1.4 Resources for each professional development activity must be identified and made accessible to the administrator. Such resources may include, but are not limited to, opportunities for the administrator to work with mentors, curriculum specialists, and experienced administrators to implement the Assistance Plan.
8.1.5 Evidence that must be provided and behaviors that must be demonstrated at the end of the plan. These expectations must be stated in terms of DPAS II rubrics for evaluating the identified domain(s).
8.1.6 Procedures for evaluating and documenting improvement.
8.1.7 Time lines, including intermediate progress check-points and a final completion date, must be specified. These dates may be adjusted by mutual agreement of the administrator and the evaluator during the Assistance Plan process.
8.1.8 A record of judgment of satisfactory or unsatisfactory completion of the assistance plan and the date completed, signed by the administrator and the evaluator. In the event that a judgment of unsatisfactory completion is made, follow-up procedures shall be set forth by the evaluator to address the administrator’s continued deficiencies.
8.2 Assistance plan process. There is an expectation of mutual development by the evaluator and the administrator of the assistance plan. Both the evaluator and the administrator complete a preliminary assistance plan, which they meet to review and develop a final, mutually agreed upon plan. In the event that consensus cannot be reached between the evaluator and the administrator, the evaluator will develop the assistance plan, which the administrator must follow.
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.
10.1 An administrator may initiate a challenge by filing a DPAS II challenge form with the evaluator within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the written evaluation. The challenge shall set forth the grounds for the challenge in reasonable detail and shall identify the remedy sought.
10.2 Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the challenge form, the evaluator shall provide a written response and, if the remedy is granted, the revised evaluation document shall replace the challenged document. If the remedy sought is denied, the evaluator must state the reasons for the denial.
10.3 If the administrator is not satisfied with the decision of the evaluator, he/she may forward the challenge form and supporting documentation to the District Superintendent or charter school administrator or designee for review. The superintendent or charter school administrator or his/her designee shall be a trained, certified evaluator and shall not be a building level administrator in the same building as the administrator who filed the challenge.
10.4 Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the challenge form and supporting documentation, the District Superintendent or charter school administrator or designee shall provide a written response either supporting or not supporting the challenge. If the remedy sought is granted, the revised evaluation document replaces the challenged document.
10.5 If the superintendent is the evaluator, the provisions set forth in 10.3 and 10.4 above do not apply.
10.6 The decision of the District Superintendent or charter school administrator or designee shall be final.