Statutory Authority: 14 Delaware Code,
Section 122(e) (14 Del.C. §122(e))
14 DE Admin. Code 106
Education Impact Analysis
Pursuant To 14 Del.C. Section 122(d)
107 Specialist Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II)
A. Type of Regulatory Action Required
New Regulations
B. Synopsis of Subject Matter of the Regulation
The Secretary of Education seeks the consent of the State Board of Education to adopt regulations 106 Teacher Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II), 107 Specialist Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II) and 108 Administrator Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II). The development of these regulations by the Department of Education was mandated in 14 Del.C. §1270(b).
These regulations shall be effective July 1, 2005 for all teachers, specialists and administrators. However, for the teachers, specialists and administrators in those districts that are participating in the pilot of this process the effective date shall be July 1, 2004.
These regulations will replace the three existing regulations for DPAS I, 110 Teachers and Specialists Appraisal Process, 112 Addendum to Teachers and Specialists Appraisal Process and 115 School Level Administrator Appraisal Process on July 1, 2005. The new regulations 106, 107 and 108 have the added component of student achievement as one of the evaluation elements and 108 Administrator Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System includes all administrators not just building level administrators.
C. Impact Criteria
1. Will the regulations help improve student achievement as measured against state achievement standards? The regulations are concerned with improving teacher, specialist and administrator quality which relates to student improvement. This is the last piece of the accountability system.
2. Will the regulations help ensure that all students receive an equitable education? The regulations address a staff appraisal process, not equity issues for students.
3. Will the regulations help to ensure that all students’ health and safety are adequately protected? The regulations address a staff appraisal process, not students’ health and safety.
4. Will the regulation help to ensure that all students’ legal rights are respected? The regulations address a staff appraisal process, not students’ legal rights.
5. Will the regulations preserve the necessary authority and flexibility of decision making at the local board and school level? The regulations will preserve the necessary authority and flexibility of decision making at the local board and school level.
6. Will the regulation place unnecessary reporting or administrative requirements or mandates upon decision makers at the local board and school levels? The regulations will require new training and different proceedures for the evaluation of staff in Delaware schools.
7. Will the 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 will remain in the same entity.
8. Will the regulations 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 regulations 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 regulations? The Delaware Code requires that the Department of Education promulgate regulations for a performance appraisal system for teachers, specialists and administrators.
10. What is the cost to the State and to the local school boards of compliance with the regulation? The cost for these new regulations should not be more than the existing appraisal system.
106 Teacher Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II)
1.0 Teacher Appraisal Process shall be effective July 1, 2005 for all teachers; however, for teachers in those districts which are participating in the pilot of this process the effective date shall be July 1, 2004.
1.1 For teachers participating in the pilot, any rating received on a Summative Evaluation shall not be included in the determination of a pattern of ineffective teaching as defined below.
2.0 Definitions
“Announced Observation” shall consist of the Pre-Observation Form and conference with the evaluator, an observation by the evaluator at an agreed upon date and time, and formative conferences/reports.
“Board” shall mean a local board of education or charter school board of directors.
“Improvement Plan” shall be the plan that a teacher and evaluator mutually develop in accordance with section 7.0.
“Non-tenured teacher” is a professional employee who has not met the requirements of tenure and holds a valid and current license and certificate.
“Pattern of Effective Teaching” is defined in section 6.3.1.
“Pattern of Ineffective Teaching” is defined in 6.3.2.
“Satisfactory Component Rating” shall mean the teacher understands the concepts of the component and the teacher’s performance in that component is acceptable.
“Satisfactory Evaluation” shall be equivalent to the overall “Effective” or “Needs Improvement” rating on the Summative Evaluation.
“Summative Evaluation” shall be the rating process at the conclusion of the appraisal cycle.
“Technical Assistance Document” shall mean the manual that contains the prescribed forms, detailed procedures, evaluation criteria and other relevant documents that assist in the appraisal process.
“Tenured Teacher” is a professional employee who has completed three (3) years of service in the State, two (2) years of which shall have been in the employ of the same board and holds a valid and current license and certificate.
“Unannounced Observation” shall consist of an observation by the evaluator at a date and time that has not been previously arranged and formative conferences/reports.
“Unsatisfactory Component Rating” shall mean that the teacher does not understand the concepts of the component and the teacher’s performance in that component is not acceptable.
“Unsatisfactory Evaluation” shall be the equivalent to the overall “Ineffective” rating on the Summative Evaluation.
3.0 Appraisal Cycles
3.1 Tenured teachers who have earned a rating of “Effective” on their most recent Summative Evaluation shall receive a minimum of one (1) Announced Observation each year with a Summative Evaluation at the end of the one year period. The minimum annual evaluation for a tenured teacher who has earned an effective rating, may be waived for the subsequent year but not for two (2) consecutive years. During the first year of implementation, half of the tenured teachers in a building with a rating of “Effective” on the most recent Summative Evaluation may have the annual Summative Evaluation waived.
3.2 Tenured teachers who have earned a rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Ineffective” on their most recent Summative Evaluation shall receive a minimum of one (1) Announced Observation and one (1) Unannounced Observation with a Summative Evaluation at the end of the one year period. These teachers shall have an Improvement Plan which may require additional observations and/or other types of monitoring as outlined in the Technical Assistance Document.
3.3 Non-tenured teachers shall receive a minimum of one (1) Announced Observation and one (1) Unannounced Observation with a Summative Evaluation at the end of the one year period. Non-tenured teachers who have earned a rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Ineffective” on their most recent Summative Evaluation shall have an Improvement Plan which may require additional observations and/or other types of monitoring as outlined in the Technical Assistance Document.
4.0 Technical Assistance Document
4.1 All districts and charter schools shall use the document entitled Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS) II Technical Assistance Document as developed by the Department of Education to assist in the implementation of the appraisal system.
4.2 The Document shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
4.2.1 Specific details about each of the five (5) components of criteria listed in 5.1.
4.2.2 All forms or documents needed to complete the requirements of the appraisal process including Announced Observation, Unannounced Observation, Summative Evaluation, Improvement Plan and Appeal Form.
4.2.3 Specific procedures for observations, conferences, ratings, Summative Evaluation, Improvement Plans, and appeals.
5.0 Appraisal Criteria
5.1 The following five (5) components of criteria as outlined in the Technical Assistance Document shall be the basis upon which the performance of a teacher shall be evaluated:
5.1.1 Planning and Preparation
5.1.2 Classroom Environment
5.1.3 Instruction
5.1.4 Professional Responsibilities
5.1.5 Student Improvement
5.2 Each of the five (5) components shall be weighted equally and assigned a rating of Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory on the Summative Evaluation.
6.0 Appraisal Ratings and Teaching Patterns
6.1 The Summative Evaluation shall include ratings of Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory on each of the five (5) components in 5.1 above.
6.2 The Summative Evaluation shall also include one of three overall ratings: Effective, Needs Improvement, or Ineffective.
6.2.1 Effective shall mean that the teacher has received Satisfactory Component ratings in all five (5) components of the appraisal criteria.
6.2.2 Needs Improvement shall mean that the teacher has received no more than two (2) Unsatisfactory Component ratings out of the five (5) components of the appraisal criteria.
6.2.3 Ineffective shall mean that the teacher has received three (3) or more Unsatisfactory Component ratings out of the five (5) components of the appraisal criteria or if the overall rating is “Needs Improvement” for the third consecutive year.
6.3 A pattern of teaching shall include one of the following:
6.3.1 A pattern of effective teaching shall be defined by the following chart representing the three (3) most recent appraisal cycles.
Effective |
Effective |
Effective |
Effective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
6.3.2 A pattern of ineffective teaching shall be defined by the following chart representing the three (3) most recent appraisal cycles.
Effective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
7.0 Improvement Plan
7.1 Improvement Plans shall be developed for teachers who receive an overall rating of Needs Improvement or Ineffective on the Summative Evaluation and/or a rating of Unsatisfactory (Unsatisfactory Component Rating) on any component on the Summative Evaluation regardless of the overall rating.
7.2 The Improvement Plan shall contain the following:
7.2.1 Identification of the specific deficiencies and recommended area(s) for growth;
7.2.2 Measurable goals for improving the deficiencies to satisfactory levels;
7.2.3 Specific professional development or activities to accomplish the goals;
7.2.4 Specific resources necessary to implement the plan, including but not limited to, opportunities for the teacher to work with mentor(s), curriculum specialist(s), lead teacher(s) or veteran teacher(s);
7.2.5 Procedures and evidence that must be collected to determine that the goals of the plan were met;
7.2.6 Timeline for the plan, including intermediate check points to determine progress;
7.2.7 Procedures for determining satisfactory improvement.
7.3 The Improvement Plan shall be developed cooperatively by the teacher and evaluator. If the plan cannot be cooperatively developed, the evaluator shall have the authority and responsibility to determine the plan as specified in 7.2 above.
7.4 The teacher shall be held accountable for the implementation and completion of the Improvement Plan.
7.5 Upon completion of the Improvement Plan, the teacher and evaluator shall sign the documentation that determines the satisfactory or unsatisfactory completion of the plan.
8.0 Evaluator Credentials
8.1 Evaluators shall have completed the DPAS II training as developed by the Department of Education. Evaluators shall receive a certificate of completion which shall be renewed every five (5) years.
8.2 The training for the certificate of completion shall consist of observation and conferencing techniques, frameworks for teaching training and a thorough review of the Technical Assistance Document.
8.3 The credentialing process shall be conducted by the Department of Education.
9.0 Appeal Process
9.1 A teacher may appeal any rating on the Summative Evaluation, either a Component Rating or the Overall Rating, by submitting additional information specific to the point of disagreement in writing within ten (10) working days of the date of the teacher’s receipt of the Summative Evaluation. Such written response shall become part of the appraisal record and shall be attached to the Summative Evaluation. All appeals together with the record shall be forwarded to the supervisor of the evaluator.
9.1.1 Within ten (10) working days of receiving the written appeal, the supervisor of the evaluator shall review the record which consists of the Pre-observation Form(s), the Formative Feedback Form(s), the Summative Evaluation and the written appeal, and issue a written decision.
9.1.2 If the appeal is denied, the decision shall state the reasons for denial.
9.1.3 The decision of the supervisor of the evaluator shall be final.
107 Specialist Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II)
1.0 Specialist Appraisal Process shall be effective July 1, 2005 for all specialists; however, for specialists in those districts which are participating in the pilot of this process the effective date shall be July 1, 2004.
1.1 For specialists participating in the pilot, any rating received on a Summative Evaluation shall not be included in the determination of a pattern of ineffective practice as defined below.
1.2 Specialist shall mean a licensed and certificated staff person who is part of the school team and delivers professional services to students, teachers, staff and/or families. Specialists include but are not limited to guidance counselors, instructional support specialists, library media specialists, school psychologists, school nurses, student support specialists, and therapeutic services specialists.
2.0 Definitions
“Announced Observation” shall consist of the Pre-Observation Form and conference with the evaluator, an observation by the evaluator at an agreed upon date and time, and formative conferences/reports. The observation for the specialist may be a collection of data over a specified period of time, up to four (4) weeks, or it may be an observation of sufficient length to gather appropriate data but less than twenty (20) minutes.
“Board” shall mean a local board of education or a charter school board of directors.
“Improvement Plan” shall be the plan that a specialist and evaluator mutually develop in accordance with section 7.0.
“Non-tenured specialist” is a professional employee who has not met the requirements of tenure and holds a valid and current license and certificate.
“Pattern of Effective Practice” is defined in 6.3.1.
“Pattern of Ineffective Practice” is defined in 6.3.2.
“Satisfactory Component Rating” shall mean the specialist understands the concepts of the component and the specialist’s performance in that component is acceptable.
“Satisfactory Evaluation” shall be equivalent to the overall “Effective” or “Needs Improvement” rating on the Summative Evaluation.
“Summative Evaluation” shall be the rating process at the conclusion of the appraisal cycle.
“Technical Assistance Document” shall mean the manual that contains the prescribed forms, detailed procedures, evaluation criteria and other relevant documents that assist in the appraisal process.
“Tenured Specialist” is a professional employee who has completed three (3) years of service in the State, two (2) years of which shall have been in the employ of the same board and holds a valid and current license and certificate.
“Unannounced Observation” shall consist of an observation by the evaluator at a date and time that has not been previously arranged and formative conferences/reports. The unannounced observation for the specialist may be an observation of sufficient length to gather appropriate data but not less than twenty (20) minutes.
“Unsatisfactory Component Rating” shall mean that the specialist does not understand the concepts of the component and the specialist’s performance in that component is not acceptable.
“Unsatisfactory Evaluation” shall be the equivalent to the overall “Ineffective” rating on the Summative Evaluation.
3.0 Appraisal Cycles
3.1 Tenured specialists who have earned a rating of “Effective” on their most recent Summative Evaluation shall receive a minimum of one (1) Announced Observation each year with a Summative Evaluation at the end of the one year period. This minimum annual evaluation for a tenured specialist who has earned an effective rating may be waived for the subsequent year but not for two (2) consecutive years. During the first year of implementation, half of the tenured specialists in a building with a rating of “Effective” on the most recent Summative Evaluation may have the annual evaluation waived.
3.2 Tenured specialists who have earned a rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Ineffective” on their most recent Summative Evaluation shall receive a minimum of one (1) Announced Observation and one (1) Unannounced Observation with a Summative Evaluation at the end of the one year period. These specialists shall have an Improvement Plan which may require additional observations and/or other types of monitoring as outlined in the Technical Assistance Document.
3.3 Non-tenured specialists shall receive a minimum of one (1) Announced Observation and one (1) Unannounced Observation with a Summative Evaluation at the end of the one year period. Non-tenured specialists who have earned a rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Ineffective” on their most recent Summative Evaluation shall have an Improvement Plan which may require additional observations and/or other types of monitoring as outlined in the Technical Assistance Document.
4.0 Technical Assistance Document
4.1 All districts and charter schools shall use the document entitled Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS) II Technical Assistance Document as developed by the Department of Education to assist in the implementation of the appraisal system.
4.2 The Document shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
4.2.1 Specific details about each of the five (5) components of criteria listed in 5.1.
4.2.2 All forms or documents needed to complete the requirements of the appraisal process including Announced Observation, Unannounced Observation, Summative Evaluation, Improvement Plan and Appeal Form.
4.2.3 Specific procedures for observations, conferences, ratings, Summative Evaluation, Improvement Plans, and appeals.
5.0 Appraisal Criteria
5.1 The following five (5) components of criteria as outlined in the Technical Assistance Document shall be the basis upon which the performance of a specialist shall be evaluated:
5.1.1 Planning and Preparation
5.1.2 Professional Practice and Delivery of Service
5.1.3 Professional Collaboration and Consultation
5.1.4 Professional Responsibilities
5.1.5 Student Improvement
5.2 Each of the five (5) components shall be weighted equally and assigned a rating of Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory on the Summative Evaluation.
6.0 Appraisal Ratings and Practice Patterns
6.1 The Summative Evaluation shall include ratings of Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory on each of the five (5) components in 5.1 above.
6.2 The Summative Evaluation shall also include one of three overall ratings: Effective, Needs Improvement or Ineffective.
6.2.1 Effective shall mean that the specialist has received Satisfactory Component ratings in all five (5) components of the appraisal criteria.
6.2.2 Needs Improvement shall mean that the specialist has received no more than two (2) Unsatisfactory Component ratings out of the five (5) components of the appraisal criteria.
6.2.3 Ineffective shall mean that the specialist has received three (3) or more Unsatisfactory Component ratings out of the five (5) components of the appraisal criteria or if the overall rating is “Needs Improvement” for the third consecutive year.
6.3 A pattern of practice shall include one of the following:
6.3.1 A pattern of effective practice shall be defined by the following chart representing the three (3) most recent appraisal cycles.
Effective |
Effective |
Effective |
Effective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
6.3.2 A pattern of ineffective practice shall be defined by the following chart representing the three (3) most recent appraisal cycles.
Effective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
7.0 Improvement Plan
7.1 Improvement Plans shall be developed for specialists who receive an overall rating of Needs Improvement or Ineffective on the Summative Evaluation and/or a rating of Unsatisfactory (Unsatisfactory Component Rating) on any component on the Summative Evaluation regardless of the overall rating.
7.2 The Improvement Plan shall contain the following:
7.2.1 Identification of the specific deficiencies and recommended area(s) for growth;
7.2.2 Measurable goals for improving the deficiencies to satisfactory levels;
7.2.3 Specific professional development or activities to accomplish the goals;
7.2.4 Specific resources necessary to implement the plan, including but not limited to, opportunities for the specialist to work with mentor(s), curriculum specialist(s), lead specialist(s) or veteran specialist(s);
7.2.5 Procedures and evidence that must be collected to determine that the goals of the plan were met;
7.2.6 Timeline for the plan, including intermediate check points to determine progress;
7.2.7 Procedures for determining satisfactory improvement.
7.3 The Improvement Plan shall be developed cooperatively by the specialist and evaluator. If the plan cannot be cooperatively developed, the evaluator shall have the authority and responsibility to determine the plan as specified in 7.2 above.
7.4 The specialist shall be held accountable for the implementation and completion of the Improvement Plan.
7.5 Upon completion of the Improvement Plan, the specialist and evaluator shall sign the documentation that determines the satisfactory or unsatisfactory completion of the plan.
8.0 Evaluator Credentials
8.1 Evaluators shall have completed the DPAS II training as developed by the Department of Education. Evaluators shall receive a certificate of completion which shall be renewed every five (5) years..
8.2 The training for the certificate of completion shall consist of observation and conferencing techniques, frameworks for practice training and a thorough review of the Technical Assistance Document.
8.3 The credentialing process shall be conducted by the Department of Education.
9.0 Appeal Process
9.1 A specialist may appeal any rating on the Summative Evaluation, either a Component Rating or the Overall Rating, by submitting additional information specific to the point of disagreement in writing within ten (10) working days of the date of the specialist receipt of the Summative Evaluation. Such written response shall become part of the appraisal record and shall be attached to the Summative Evaluation. All appeals together with the record shall be forwarded to the supervisor of the evaluator.
9.1.1 Within ten (10) working days of receiving the written appeal, the supervisor of the evaluator shall review the record which consists of the Pre-evaluation Form(s) the Formative Feedback Form(s), the Summative Evaluation and the written appeal, and issue a written decision.
9.1.2 If the appeal is denied, the decision shall state the reasons for denial.
9.1.3 The decision of the supervisor of the evaluator shall be final.
108 Administrator Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II)
1.0 Administrator Appraisal Process shall be effective July 1, 2005 for all administrators; however, for administrators in those districts which are participating in the pilot of this process the effective date shall be July 1, 2004.
1.1 For administrators participating in the pilot, any rating received on a Summative Evaluation shall not be included in the determination of a pattern of ineffective administration as defined below.
1.2 For purposes of this regulation, an administrator is a professional employee of a board in a supervisory capacity involving the oversight of an instructional program(s).
2.0 Definitions:
“Announced Observation” shall consist of the Goal Setting Conference, self evaluation, a survey of staff that are supervised by the administrator, and formative conferences/reports.
“Board” shall mean the local board of education or charter school board.
“Experienced Administrator” shall mean an administrator who has three (3) or more years of service in a given role.
“Improvement Plan” shall be the plan that an administrator and evaluator mutually develop in accordance with section 7.0.
“Inexperienced Administrator” shall mean an administrator who has less than three (3) years of service in a given role.
“Pattern of Effective Administration” is defined in section 6.3.1.
“Pattern of Ineffective Administration” is defined in 6.3.2.
“Satisfactory Component Rating” shall mean the administrator’s performance in that component is acceptable and the administrator understands the concepts of the component.
“Satisfactory Evaluation” shall be equivalent to the overall “Effective” or “Needs Improvement” rating on the Summative Evaluation.
“Summative Evaluation” shall be the rating component at the conclusion of the appraisal cycle.
“Technical Assistance Document” shall mean the manual that contains the prescribed forms, detailed procedures, evaluation criteria and other relevant documents that assist in the appraisal process.
“Unsatisfactory Component Rating” shall mean that the administrator’s performance in that component is not acceptable and the administrator does not understand the concepts of the component.
“Unsatisfactory Evaluation” shall be the equivalent to the overall “Ineffective” rating on the Summative Evaluation.
3.0 Appraisal Cycles
3.1 Experienced administrators who have earned a rating of “Effective” on their most recent Summative Evaluation shall receive a minimum of one (1) Announced Observation each year with a Summative Evaluation at the end of the one year period. This minimum annual evaluation may be waived for the subsequent year but not for two (2) consecutive years. During the first year of implementation, half of the experienced administrators in a building with a rating of “Effective” on the most recent Summative Evaluation may have the annual Summative Evaluation waived.
3.2 Experienced administrators who have earned a rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Ineffective” on their most recent Summative Evaluation shall receive a minimum of two (2) Announced Observations with a Summative Evaluation at the end of the one year period. These administrators shall have an Improvement Plan which may require additional observation(s) and/or other types of monitoring as outlined in the Technical Assistance Document.
3.3 Inexperienced administrators shall receive a minimum of two (2) Announced Observations with a Summative Evaluation at the end of the one year period. Inexperienced administrators who have earned a rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Ineffective” on their most recent Summative Evaluation shall have an Improvement Plan which may require additional observation(s) and/or other types of monitoring as outlined in the Technical Assistance Document.
4.0 Technical Assistance Document
4.1 All districts and charter schools shall use the document entitled Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS) II Technical Assistance Document as developed by the Department of Education to assist in the implementation of the appraisal system.
4.1.1 The Document shall contain at a minimum the following:
4.1.1.1 Specific details about each of the four (4) components of criteria listed
in 5.1.
4.1.1.2 All forms or documents needed to complete the requirements of the appraisal process including Announced Observation, Summative Evaluation, Improvement Plan and Appeal Form.
4.1.1.3 Specific procedures for observations, conferences, ratings, Summative Evaluation, Improvement Plans, and appeals.
5.0 Appraisal Criteria
5.1 The following four (4) components of criteria as outlined in the Technical Assistance Document shall be the basis upon which the performance of an administrator shall be evaluated:
5.1.1 Assessment of Leader Standards
5.1.2 Assessment on Goals and Priorities
5.1.3 Assessment on the School or District Improvement Plan
5.1.4 Assessment on Measures of Student Improvement
5.2 Each of the four (4) components shall be equally weighted and assigned a rating of Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory on the Summative Evaluation.
6.0 Appraisal Ratings and Administration Patterns
6.1 The Summative Evaluation shall include ratings of Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory on each of the four (4) components in 5.1 above.
6.2 The Summative Evaluation shall also include one of three overall ratings: Effective, Needs Improvement or Ineffective.
6.2.1 Effective shall mean that the administrator has received Satisfactory Component ratings in all four (4) components of the appraisal criteria.
6.2.2 Needs Improvement shall mean that the administrator has received one (1) Unsatisfactory Component rating out of the four (4) components of the appraisal criteria.
6.2.3 Ineffective shall mean that the administrator has received two (2) or more Unsatisfactory Component ratings out of the four (4) components of the appraisal criteria or if the overall rating is “Needs Improvement” for the third consecutive year.
6.3 A pattern of administrative performance shall include one of the following:
6.3.1 A pattern of effective administration shall be defined by the following chart representing the three (3) most recent appraisal cycles.
Effective |
Effective |
Effective |
Effective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Effective |
Ineffective |
Effective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Effective |
6.3.2 A pattern of ineffective administration shall be defined by the following chart representing the three (3) most recent appraisal cycles.
Effective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Needs Improvement |
Needs Improvement |
7.0 Improvement Plan
7.1 Improvement Plans shall be developed for administrators who receive an overall rating of Needs Improvement or Ineffective on the Summative Evaluation and/or a rating of Unsatisfactory (Unsatisfactory Component Rating) on any component on the Summative Evaluation regardless of the overall rating.
7.2 The Improvement Plan shall contain the following:
7.2.1 Identification of the specific deficiencies and recommended area(s) for growth;
7.2.2 Measurable goals for improving the deficiencies to satisfactory levels;
7.2.3 Specific professional development or activities to accomplish the goals;
7.2.4 Specific resources necessary to implement the plan, including but not limited to, opportunities for the administrator to work with mentor(s), curriculum specialist(s) or other administrator(s), lead administrator(s) or veteran administrator(s);
7.2.5 Procedures and evidence that must be collected to determine that the goals of the plan were met;
7.2.6 Timeline for the plan, including intermediate check points to determine progress;
7.2.7 Procedures for determining satisfactory improvement.
7.3 The Improvement Plan shall be developed cooperatively by the administrator and evaluator. If the plan cannot be cooperatively developed, the evaluator shall have the authority and responsibility to determine the plan as specified in 7.2 above.
7.4 The administrator shall be held accountable for the implementation and completion of the Improvement Plan.
7.5 Upon completion of the Improvement Plan, the administrator and evaluator shall sign the documentation that determines the satisfactory or unsatisfactory completion of the plan.
8.0 Evaluator Credentials
8.1 Evaluators shall have completed the DPAS II training as developed by the Department of Education. Evaluators shall receive a certificate of completion which shall be renewed every five (5) years by attending additional training.
8.2 The training for the certificate of completion shall consist of observation and conferencing techniques, review of ISLLC standards, and a thorough review of the Technical Assistance Document.
8.3 The credentialing process shall be conducted by the Department of Education.
9.0 Appeal Process
9.1 An administrator may appeal any rating on the Summative Evaluation, either a Component Rating or the Overall Rating, by submitting additional information specific to the point of disagreement in writing within ten (10) working days of the date of administrator’s receipt of the Summative Evaluation. Such written response shall become part of the appraisal record and shall be attached to the Summative Evaluation. All appeals together with the record shall be forwarded to the supervisor of the evaluator.
9.1.1 Within ten (10) working days of receiving the written appeal, the supervisor of the evaluator shall review the record which consists of information from the Announced Observation, the Summative Evaluation and the written appeal, and issue a written decision.
9.1.2 If the appeal is denied, the decision shall state the reasons for denial.
9.1.3 The decision of the supervisor of the evaluator shall be final.