gsu principal performance–based evaluation: strengthening...
TRANSCRIPT
GSU Principal Performance–Based Evaluation:Strengthening the Power of WE
MILE/TQP and the College of Education
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University, through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045.
The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
Governors State University Principal Performance-Based Evaluation Plan
Strengthening the Power of WE
Governors State University (GSU) is proud to partner with your school district on the Principal Performance-Based Evaluation. This evaluation model was designed in response to the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) 2010 by over thirty educators, which included public school principals and superintendents, as well as University faculty.
The design team was facilitated by Dr. Joseph Murphy of Vanderbilt University who is nationally recognized for his work in school leadership. Dr. Murphy was named in 2014 by Education Week as one of the ten top educational scholars in the country.
Dr. Murphy continues to be involved with the GSU Principal Evaluation initiative as a consultant to Governors State University and its partner school districts.
This document is the Principal Performance-Based Evaluation plan for your district. It should be filed and available for review by community members, media, the Illinois State Board of Education, and other interested parties.
Governors State University is excited to partner with you as we work together to continue to provide and develop strong leadership in each of your schools. It is through our joint efforts and commitment that your students can be provided Learning-Centered Leadership.
A special thanks to Dr. Karen Peterson and Dr. Pamela Guimond, Co-Directors of the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant, and Mrs. Alicia McCray, Director of the Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE), whose vision and belief in the important collaboration of superintendents, principals, and teachers to strengthen the power of “WE” and to have the greatest impact on high quality public education and student learning.
Dr. Donna Joy Project Leader Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) Teacher Quality Partnership Grant (TQP)
Principal Performance-Based Evaluation Plan
Table of Contents
I. Overview of Principal Performance-Based Evaluation Plan 1
II. Evaluation Sample 9
III. Evaluation Instrument 30
IV. Evaluation Rubric 45
PEAC Guidance Documents
1. Joint Committee Guidebook 57 Implementing the Student Growth Component in Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems 2. Measuring Student Growth for First-Year Principals in Principal Evaluation 95
Systems 3. Using Illinois 5Essentials Survey Data in Principal Evaluation 100
4. GSU Evaluation Alignment with PEAC 101
Resources
A. Alignment of Three State Factors and VAL-ED in Principal Evaluation 105
B. Illinois Performance Standards for School Leaders 123
C. PEAC and Growth Through Learning Links 138
D. Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) 139
E. Sample Job Description 142
F. LiveText – www.LiveText.com 144
Principal Evaluation Leadership Team
Team members and contact information 146
Governors State University and District _____’s Overview of Principal Performance-Based Evaluation Plan
CONTEXT The state of Illinois, under PERA 2010, required that all principals be evaluated with a performance-based assessment beginning with the 2012-2013 school year. Governors State University, through a Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) Grant under the administration of the Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE), worked in consultation with Dr. Joseph Murphy from Vanderbilt University, regional administrators, and University faculty and administrators to create a pilot for the 2011-12 school year. More than forty districts (189 principals) participated in the pilot.
Reflecting the development team’s guiding principles, this evaluation model was designed to be rigorous, with an emphasis on ease of use and sensitivity to individual district and school considerations. It creates an ongoing conversation between the superintendent (evaluator) and principal regarding student growth. It is designed for both formative and summative assessment, in a process of ongoing principal leadership development, which serves as a strong model for principals’ work with the teacher evaluation process.
This GSU and District Principal Performance-Based Evaluation Plan is based on final state guidelines and the input of the pilot participants.
RATIONALE The Foundations of the Evaluation System:
● Include student growth in achievement as a significant factor● Highlight teaching and learning● Are standards-based: ISLLC and Illinois Performance Standards for School Leaders● Underscore learning-centered leadership
The Process: ● Is evidence-based● Has set benchmarks agreed upon in advance● Is transparent● Fosters a culture of collaboration between the principal and the supervisor● Is valid and reliable● Is comprehensive but not overly complex● Is both formative and summative● Includes multiple measures● Relies on input from multiple constituents● Has well-defined timelines● Provides ongoing feedback to the principal● Is site specific, connected to the needs of the specific school● Is flexible enough to allow for adjustments
1
The Outcomes: Using the Evaluation System should:
• Motivate principals to improve• Promote targeted professional growth opportunities• Promote school improvement• Enhance academic and social learning of students• Result in positive or negative consequences
COMPONENTS OF THE EVALUATION SYSTEM Consistent with the national standards for personnel evaluation and the “guiding principles” presented above, the design is an evaluation system for principals that include multiple measures of performance including:
Student Growth Component: (30%) One goal based on measures of student growth in achievement (30%) Professional Practice Component: (70%) One organizational goal (25%) One professional growth goal (15%) The Vanderbilt Assessment for Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) (30%)
The system includes three goals and the VAL-ED. Districts may reconfigure the weighting of the system with the following considerations:
• Student Growth should remain at a minimum of 30%• Professional Practice must be at least 50%• Organizational goal may be developed from the 5Essential Survey data
Source of Goals: Goals can emanate from a variety of sources, such as: • District and school improvement plans• Board of education and superintendent objectives• Surveys (e.g., school climate, parent satisfaction, and so forth)• Previous evaluations (e.g., data from assessments of components in the evaluation
system)• Accreditation reports• 5Essentials Survey Data• VAL-ED Assessment results
As the District convenes its Joint Committee, principals must be aware of the decisions made by the Joint Committee.
Principals are strongly encouraged to consider their faculty’s student growth targets and assessments as they develop their own student growth goals.
2
Characteristics of Effective Goals:
• Produce measureable student growth change in outcomes between two points in time • Align/support decisions made by the Joint Committee • Are linked to the Illinois Performance Standards for School Leaders and ISLLC
Standards (Review GSU Principal Performance-Based Evaluation Rubric) • Are organizationally grounded and emphasize the direct contributions of the leader • Are mutually determined through collaborative dialogue • Are collaboratively reviewed in an ongoing formative process
Rubric: The state guidelines require a rubric for principal evaluation. GSU has developed a rubric which aligns the VAL-ED with the Illinois Performance Standards for School Leaders (Document five attached). All Illinois Standards are addressed in the VAL-ED. Document three shows the alignment of the VAL-ED with the Illinois Standards. In the GSU and District Principal Performance-Based Evaluation Plan, the rubric is designed to assist with goal development, the various formative assessments, as well as the rankings in the summative assessment. The GSU rubric was designed to focus on the language of the VAL-ED, as well as to provide a rubric that is aligned with our ease-of-use commitment of the evaluation system. Student Growth Component (30%) Student Growth Goal – 30% Student growth should serve as the motivating principle of a school leader’s work. The goal should be crafted to assess growth, over two points in time. In the GSU plan, the student growth component comprises 30% of the evaluation. As the District convenes its Joint Committee, principals must be aware of the decisions made by the Joint Committee. Principals are strongly encouraged to consider their faculty’s student growth targets and assessments as they develop their own student growth goals. The following Student Growth assessment guidelines from ISBE/PERA provide information on the Type I, II, and III Assessments: At least two weighted Type I, Type II Assessments, or a combination of Type I and II, must be used in the performance evaluation to determine student growth. Type III Assessments may only be used for schools serving a majority of students who are not administered a Type I or Type II Assessment. In those limited situations, Type III Assessments can be used.
3
Type I: An assessment that measures a certain group of students in the same manner with the same potential assessment items, is scored by a non-district entity, and is widely administered beyond Illinois
Type II: An assessment developed or adopted and approved by the school district and used on a district-wide basis that is given by all teachers in a given grade or subject area
Type III: An assessment that is rigorous, aligned with the course’s curriculum, and that the evaluator and teacher determine measures student learning in a course
Examples: Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) MAP tests, Scantron Performance Series
Examples: Collaboratively developed common assessments, curriculum tests, assessments designed by textbook publishers
Examples: Teacher-created assessments, assessments of student performance
“Understanding the State Requirements for Principal Evaluation” – Reference Guide: Module I Growth through Learning Note:
• A state assessment may be used in the evaluation of a principal/assistant principal as a Type I Assessment. (50.310(b)(1)(A)
• Type III Assessments may be used for schools serving a majority of students who are not administered a Type I or Type II Assessment. In these situations, the qualified evaluator and principal may identify at least two Type III Assessments to be used to determine growth. (50.310(b)(1)(B)
• Students must have been enrolled for a sufficient time to have results from at least two points in time on a comparable assessment. (50.310(b)(2)
• The results from the most recent administration of a selected assessment shall be used as the ending point at which the level of student growth is calculated. (50.310(b)(3)
• For an assistant principal, a qualified evaluator may select student growth measures that align to the specific duties of the assistant principal. (50310(c)
• The district shall consider how the data of certain characteristics (subgroups such as Sp Ed, ELL, low income will be used). (50.130.(d)
Professional Practice Component (70%) Organizational Goal (25%) This goal’s focus is designed to strengthen organizational accomplishment in the school setting. The data from the 5Essentials survey may be used to develop the organizational goal. Principal Professional Growth Goal (15%) This goal is designed with a focus on improving the administrator’s skills in a mutually agreed upon area with an outcome which is measurable. The VAL-ED (30%) Research on the principalship concludes that the effect of a school leader on student achievement is primarily indirect. That is, the principal influences conditions and factors that more directly impact student performance, for example the quality of instruction in classrooms and the culture in the school.
4
For this reason, an effective and fair evaluation system will need to assess how skillful the principal is in shaping these conditions and factors. This should be done using valid and reliable instruments that tap into the judgment of multiple stakeholders with first-hand knowledge of the action of the principal. According to the 2010 report by Learning Point Associates, “Measuring Principal Performance: How Rigorous are Commonly Used Principal Performance Instruments?” the best available tool, that meets these criteria, is the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED). VAL-ED is scaffolded on the ISLLC Standards and the research base that undergirds those standards. In the GSU Principal Performance-Based Evaluation Plan, the VAL-ED is aligned with the Illinois Performance Standards for School Leaders. VAL-ED collects the judgments of relevant parties pertaining to the skills of the principal on the six most critical factors that result in student learning (e.g., professional accountability for student results). It also provides feedback on the behaviors of the principal across six processes (e.g., communicating) that are used to engage those six factors. Based on survey responses by all certified non-administrative staff members in a school, the principal himself/herself, and the principal’s supervisor, VAL-ED provides three sets of scores that can be used to assess performance: (1) measures of how the three parties judge the instructional leadership skills of the principal; (2) a nationally benchmarked proficiency (criterion) score (below basic, basic, proficient, or distinguished); and (3) nationally normed percentile rankings for each of the six factors and six processes, as well as a composite ranking.
5
THE EVALUATION PROCESS While the components of the evaluation system are critical, they are not the entire story. Indeed, as the guiding principles presented above reveal, if evaluation content is not enveloped by a highly productive process, the system will fail to produce expected benefits. Principals are strongly encouraged to consider their faculty’s student growth targets and assessments as they develop their own student growth goals. Below is the timeline of the process and a description of the specific tasks that are linked to the evaluation components. The evaluation instrument contains templates for each step of the process.
Goal Setting By August 31, the evaluator and principal will meet to develop specific goals with appropriate outcome measures and an action plan for achieving each of the goals. Steps:
1. Prior to the meeting, the principal will be presented with a copy of the GSU/District Evaluation Plan.
2. Before meeting, the principal and evaluator will review the Evaluation Rubric and multiple data sources from which goals should be developed.
3. Principal and evaluator will bring relevant data to the meeting. 4. Evaluator and principal will review and attach principal job description, including
specific duties, responsibilities, management and competency. 5. Evaluator will document both strengths and areas of growth (including evidence).
6
6. Principal and evaluator will discuss the data, agree on goals, sources of evidence, and performance measures for three areas:
• Growth in student achievement • Organizational accomplishments • Principal’s professional growth
VAL-ED data should be considered for determination of organizational and professional goals. Targets for VAL-ED outcomes will also be determined. If the principal and evaluator cannot agree upon the goals and criteria, the evaluator will make the final determination. A principal new to the position or district will participate in a goal-setting meeting within the first 30 days of employment, using as much of the content outlined above as possible. VAL-ED for those principals who are new to the process VAL-ED is scheduled to be completed by the principal, evaluator, and teachers no later than January 15. It is recommended that if this is the first time the principal has been evaluated with VAL-ED, he/she take the VAL-ED in September to familiarize himself/herself with the survey and its professional language. The cost for VAL-ED allows for two administrations per year. Formal Observations The state requires at least two formal observations. The GSU/District Evaluation timeline sets observation dates; the first by October 15 and the second by January 15. Each must be scheduled in advance and include at least one objective. The evaluator shall observe interactions and activities during the principal’s workday. Written feedback is required within 10 days of the formal observation and must include evidence that may have a negative impact on the final evaluation rating. There is no limit to the number of informal observations. Evidence gathered during informal observations may be used in the final performance evaluation rating, as long as it was documented in writing. (This section adapted from Growth Through Learning, Training Module I). Formative Conference By November 30, the principal and evaluator will meet to discuss progress and make adjustments, if necessary. Steps:
1. Examine evidence and discuss the progress on target measures. 2. Review any new data available. 3. Make adjustments to the action plans or goals as necessary. 4. Add resources and supports to make goals attainable.
VAL-ED By January 15, the supervisor, the principal, and teachers will complete VAL- ED. Evaluators and principals should work with teachers to assure they have an understanding of the survey, including logistics to assure confidentiality. It is recommended that work time be set aside for teachers to complete the survey (i.e., faculty meeting, institute day).
7
Principal’s Pre-Summative Self-Evaluation By February 1, the principal will self-assess on target measures. Steps:
1. Principal gathers evidence. 2. Principal reflects on progress aligned with the Evaluation Rubric. 3. Principal provides a written self-assessment, including supporting evidence, to the
evaluator.
Summative Evaluation By March 1, the principal and evaluator will meet to discuss the final evaluation. Steps:
1. Principal and evaluator will meet and discuss the self-reflection of the principal. 2. The evaluator will share his or her reflections on the principal’s self-evaluation and
provide specific feedback to the principal, noting strengths and areas of growth needed aligned with the Evaluation Rubric.
3. The principal and evaluator will discuss and sign off on the summative evaluation. Scoring System A final rating will be made for each of the components of the evaluation system, with rankings designed to facilitate formative assessment in the process (exceeds expectations, basic, proficient, or does not meet expectations). The summative evaluation aligns with the state prescribed rankings (excellent, proficient, needs improvement, or unsatisfactory). A four point rating scale is used. Because each of the components is weighted differently in the evaluation system, i.e., VAL-ED counts 30%, the organizational goal 25%, the professional growth goal 15%, and the student growth goal 30%, rating scores will need to be multiplied by the weight and then divided by 100 to arrive at a composite rating. A principal or assistant principal who receives a score of one (i.e., does not meet expectations) in any of the four areas cannot receive a final PERA ranking higher than ‘Needs Improvement’.
8
Year _____2012__________2012__________2012__________2013__________2013_____
GSU Principal Performance-Based Evaluation Instrument
District: Oak 121 School: Leaf Principal: Mr. Gardner Evaluator: Dr. Strong Fill in the year each was completed: Evaluator successfully completed state prequalification training: Evaluator completed GSU evaluation model orientation: Evaluator completed GSU VAL-ED training: Principal completed GSU evaluation model orientation: Principal completed GSU VAL-ED training: (50.32)(a)*
Task Date
Completed Evaluator Sign-off
Principal/ Assistant Principal Sign-off
Review and attach principal job description, including specific duties, responsibilities, management and competency (50.300(a)(1)* 8-15 Dr. S Mr. G Review and attach evaluator report of administrator strengths and weaknesses with supporting reasons (50.300 (a)(2)* 8-27 Dr. S Mr. G Copy of evaluation plan presented to principal before goal setting conference (by the start of the school year) (50.300(d)* 8-15 Dr. S Mr. G Goal setting conference by August 31 8-27 Dr. S Mr. G Completion of first formal observation with feedback by October 15 10-5 Dr. S Mr. G Formative conference by November 30 11-15 Dr. S Mr. G Completion of VAL-ED by evaluator, principal and faculty by January 15 1-8 Dr. S Mr. G Completion of second formal observation with feedback by January 15 1-11 Dr. S Mr. G Principal submission of self-assessment to evaluator by February 1 2-1 Dr. S Mr. G Summative conference by March 1, including documentation of principal strengths and areas of growth (50.300)* 2-25 Dr. S Mr. G
*Article 24A of the Illinois School Code, 105 ILC55/24A
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
9
All items above should be submitted with this checklist as part of the final summative conference. Principal Evaluation: Leadership Strands
• Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results • Leading and Managing Systems Change • Improving Teaching and Learning • Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships • Leading with Integrity and Professionalism • Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations
Based on 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium /IL Educational Leadership Policy Standards/Design Team 2007, National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals/National Board Principal Certification, and PEAC, Principal & Teacher Evaluation in Illinois: Past, Present & Future, Updated 6/1/11.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
10
GOAL SETTING CONFERENCE (to be completed by August 31)
Principal Mr. Gardner Evaluator Dr. Strong Date August 27
Strengths (including evidence) The VAL-ED Assessment identified strength in the area of Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior (VAL-ED - IV). A proficient ranking indicates there is a strong culture of professionalism, with a focus on ongoing learning and continuous improvement. Substantial improvement in sub-group scores for ELL students in four classes and only one class with limited improvement, indicates strength in High Standards for Student Learning (VAL- ED - I) and Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations (IL PSSL- VI) in this area of focus for last year.
Areas of Growth (including evidence) Third grade reading comprehension scores documented limited gains last year. There needs to be specific focus with fourth graders this year, utilizing the MAP assessment to monitor ongoing progress. Suspension rate has increased in the last two years – 7% increase last year and 5% increase previous year. Need to focus on stronger implementation of PBIS and strengthen climate of building by addressing the Illinois Social Emotional Learning Standards to assure that students are out of class less often and students are less disruptive in class. In the VAL-ED Assessment, you and teachers noted a need to strengthen parent involvement. Connections to External community (VAL-ED - V) identified as an area needing strengthening with a VAL-ED ranking at low range of Basic. Skill enhancement in this area recommended; designed to strengthen the culture in this important area.
Goals – Developed collaboratively with evaluator and principal Review multiple data sources for development of goals. • Bring relevant data to the meeting. • Discuss data; agree on goals, sources of evidence, and performance measure
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
11
STUDENT GROWTH
COMPONENT 30%
LEADERSHIP STRANDS
(Check all that apply)
AT LEAST TWO AGREED-UPON
MEASURES (with specified weighting)
Type I or Type II; Type III in special circumstances
ACTION PLAN
Growth in Student Achievement Goal: 30% Improve 4th grade reading comprehension scores by 20% from August to January.
X Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results _ Leading and Managing Systems Change X Improving Teaching and Learning _ Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships __ Leading with Integrity and Professionalism X Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations
• NWEA Map scores (80%) • Running Records
Data (20%)
• Aware of your district’s Joint Committee’s decisions
• Consider faculty’s student growth targets and assessments
• Monitor running record data and common assessments bi-weekly.
• Active involvement in RtI. • Walk-throughs to monitor
reading instruction. • Extended observations to
assure reading comprehension curriculum implementation.
• Documentation of bi-monthly meetings to discuss reading comprehension progress and strategies with 4th grade teachers, including coordination with reading coaches and ELL teachers.
A student growth goal could also focus on a subgroup of students.
For example:
STUDENT GROWTH
COMPONENT 30%
LEADERSHIP STRANDS
(Check all that apply)
AT LEAST TWO AGREED-UPON
MEASURES (with specified weighting)
Type I or Type II; Type III in special circumstances
ACTION PLAN
4th grade ELL reading comprehension scores by 20% from August to January.
X Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results _ Leading and Managing Systems Change X Improving Teaching and Learning _ Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships __ Leading with Integrity and Professionalism
• NWEA Map scores (80%) • Running Records Data (20%)
• Aware of your district’s Joint Committee’s decisions
• Consider faculty’s student growth targets and assessments
• Monitor running record data and common assessments bi-weekly.
• Active involvement in RtI. • Walk-throughs to monitor
reading instruction. • Extended observations to
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
12
X Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations
assure reading comprehension curriculum implementation.
• Documentation of bi-monthly meetings to discuss reading comprehension progress and strategies with 4th grade teachers, including coordination with reading coaches and ELL teachers.
• Teachers of ELLs attend an 8-week inservice on ELL Reading Comprehension, provided by the Illinois Resource Center.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
13
GOAL SETTING CONFERENCE continued (to be completed by August 31)
PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE COMPONENTS 70%
LEADERSHIP STRANDS
(Check all that apply)
AGREED-UPON MEASURES
ACTION PLAN
Organizational Goal 25% Reduce suspensions by 10% from September to January, by strengthening implementation of PBIS and focus on IL Social Emotional Learning Standards
___Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results X Leading and Managing
Systems Change ___Improving Teaching and Learning ___Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships ___Leading with Integrity and Professionalism ___Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations
• Suspension data
• Review IL Social Emotional Learning Standards at faculty meeting and develop an implementation plan for school wide use.
• Monitor PBIS program components as prescribed by PBIS trainers.
• Analyze SWIS Data weekly. Analyze suspension data weekly.
Principal’s Professional Growth Goal 15% Demonstrates improved professional skills in parent involvement by documenting an increase on parent participation from 30% to 50% from September to January.
X Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results X Leading and Managing
Systems Change ___Improving Teaching and Learning X Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships ___Leading with Integrity and Professionalism ___Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectation
• Parent sign-ins from various events
• Attendance at newly established Parent Advisory Group meeting
• Documentation of professional development attendance on strengthening parent involvement
• Attend professional development on Strategies to Strengthen Parent Involvement.
• Research models to strengthen parent involvement.
• Establish a Parent Advisory Group.
• Work with teachers to establish goals to foster parent involvement.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
14
GOAL SETTING CONFERENCE continued (to be completed by August 31)
LEADERSHIP STRANDS*
SCORING
OUTCOMES
VAL-ED 30%
X Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results X Leading and Managing
Systems Change X Improving Teaching and Learning X Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships X Leading with Integrity and Professionalism X Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations
Review VAL-ED Reports.
Complete VAL-ED Assessment. Develop plan to share data with faculty.
*By design, VAL-ED addresses each IL Leadership Strand (Refer to alignment of VAL-ED to IL Leadership Strands in the GSU/District Evaluation Plan).
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
15
FIRST FORMAL OBSERVATION (to be completed by October 15)
Principal Mr. Gardner Evaluator Dr. Strong Date October 5
• Formal observation will be scheduled in advance and must include at least one objective (reviewing classrooms, observing leadership team meetings, etc.). (50.320(c)(1)(B)
• Feedback from formal observation must be provided within 10 principal workdays. (50.320)©(1)©
Objective(s): • Observe the initial Parent Advisory Group meeting (Action Plan Item: Establish a Parent Advisory
Group).
Feedback: Comments:
• Twelve parents attended, representing a cross section of the building demographics. • Signage was clearly visible, directing me to the meeting location in the media center. • The session was well organized; sign-in sheet, agenda and other materials were readily available. • Greetings and introductions were friendly and welcoming. • Collaborative ground rules were established and respected. • Steps for the next meeting could have been more clearly identified. • Encourage individual parents to take leadership roles.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
16
FIRST FORMAL OBSERVATION Another Example
(to be completed by October 15)
Principal Mr. Gardner Evaluator Dr. Strong Date October 5
• Formal observation will be scheduled in advance and must include at least one objective (reviewing classrooms, observing leadership team meetings, etc.). (50.320(c)(1)(B)
• Feedback from formal observation must be provided within 10 principal workdays. (50.320)©(1)©
Objective(s): • Attend planning meeting with 4th grade ELL teachers to develop an action plan to increase reading
comprehension.
Feedback: Comments:
• Reading Comprehension data were available for the ELL teachers and ELL Director. • Discussion and plans to develop teacher leaders from the ELL teachers to continue the ongoing
professional development on reading comprehension. • Your plan to continue the professional development with the fifth grade ELL teachers will continue
the growth in English reading comprehension. • Include the parents in a workshop to inform them on reading strategies being used. • Steps for the next meeting could have been more clearly identified such as addressing parents who
have limited or no English.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
17
FORMATIVE CONFERENCE (to be completed by November 30)
Principal Mr. Gardner Evaluator Dr. Strong Date November 15
Goal – Growth in Student Achievement – 30% Briefly State Goal: Improve 4th grade reading comprehension scores by 20% From September to January. Action Plan Progress: Action Plan Progress: • Reviewed District’s Joint Committee’s decisions regarding:
o Growth targets o Assessments o Student population
• Monitor running record data and common assessments bi-weekly. Monitoring of running record data and common assessments demonstrate comprehension scores have improved by 8% by November 15.
• Active involvement in RtI – Have attended all RtI meetings involving 4th grade students thus far. • Walk-throughs to monitor reading instruction – Am walking through all fourth grade classes weekly,
and multiple times per week in classes taught by two new teachers. • Extended observations to assure reading comprehension curriculum implementation - Have
scheduled formal observations for fourth grade teachers during reading timeframes. • Documentation of bi-monthly meetings with 4th grade teachers on reading comprehension and
strategies, including coordination with reading coaches - Have had September and October conferences with all fourth grade teachers to discuss strategies to strengthen reading comprehension and to monitor progress. Have worked with reading coaches to identify particular students to receive extra assistance and to work with selected fourth grade teachers on specific comprehension strategies.
Evaluator and principal will discuss progress on action plan and goals and make any needed adjustments. They will: • Examine evidence and discuss the progress on target measures. • Review available new data. • Make adjustments to the action plan and agreed upon goals as needed based on unanticipated
circumstances. Note: Goals may be adjusted downward but should not be raised. • Consider additional supports to make goals attainable.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
18
FORMATIVE CONFERENCE continued (to be completed by November 30)
Adjustments to the plan and goal as needed: Does not apply (DNA) Additional supports to make goal attainable: In order to meet the plan target, additional reading support will be provided by the reading coach for identified students.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
19
FORMATIVE CONFERENCE continued (to be completed by November 30)
Principal Mr. Gardner Evaluator Dr. Strong Date November 15 Organizational Goal - 25% Briefly State Goal: Reduce suspensions by 10% from September to January by strengthening implementation of PBIS and focus on IL Social Emotional Learning Standards. Action Plan Progress: Examine evidence and discuss progress on target measures:
• Review IL Social Emotional Learning Standards at faculty meeting and develop an implementation plan for school-wide use Share agendas from all faculty meetings to document progress on work with IL SEL Standards. Teachers are incorporating SEL strategies in their classrooms and a committee is working on planning for school-wide initiatives.
• Monitor program components as prescribed by trainers from PBIS I have been meeting regularly with assistant principal to monitor implementation of various components. We are reviewing teacher participation by department.
• Analyze SWIS Data weekly Data indicate ‘School-wide Information System’ (SWIS) problems occur before start of school day. We have communicated with teachers to ensure they are monitoring hallways before school starts. The assistant principal and I have analyzed each classroom’s SWIS data and shared it with teachers. We have discussed results at faculty meetings and discussed strategies to improve implementation. We have seen progress with more focused attention to PBIS implementation, but we have asked the trainer to return for supportive follow-up at our January faculty meeting.
• Analyze suspension data monthly September suspensions were 8% less and October was 12% lower. We anticipate that we will be able to meet our goal as we are seeing continuous progress with these additional resources and supports.
Adjustments to the plan and goal as needed: DNA Additional supports to make goal attainable: In addition to faculty monitoring hallways, the social worker will pay particular attention to his/her students and focus on appropriate bus/hallway behavior in regular sessions.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
20
FORMATIVE CONFERENCE continued (to be completed by November 30)
Principal Mr. Gardner Evaluator Dr. Strong Date November 15 Principal’s Professional Growth Goal - 15% Briefly State Goal: Demonstrate improved professional skills in parent involvement by documenting an increase in parent participation from 30% to 50% from September to January. Action Plan Progress:
• Attend professional development on Strategies to Strengthen Parent Involvement. I attended the Parent Involvement professional development on September 13, and shared strategies at faculty meetings.
• Establish a Parent Advisory Group. The newly established Parent Advisory Group is developing a schedule of events for the second semester. They have asked to have more teacher representation so that it is a strong joint committee.
• Work with teachers to establish goals to foster parent involvement. Teachers have been asked to give suggestions to establish a formal strategic plan for the next year. This will coordinate with the newly established Advisory Group.
We have already seen an increase by 10% from last year’s participation at this point. Adjustments to the plan and goal as needed: DNA Additional supports to make goal attainable: DNA
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
21
FORMATIVE CONFERENCE continued (to be completed by November 30)
Principal Mr. Gardner Evaluator Dr. Strong Date November 15 VAL-ED – 30% (to be completed by teachers, principal and evaluator – by January 15) Discuss VAL-ED Components: In preparation for the initial evaluation conference, the following strengths and areas of growth were identified aligned with VAL-ED. VAL-ED assessment identified strength in the area of Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior (VAL-ED - IV). A proficient ranking indicates there is a strong culture of professionalism, with a focus on ongoing learning and continuous improvement. In VAL- ED assessment, you and teachers noted a need to strengthen parent involvement. Connections to External community (VAL-ED-V) identified as an area needing strengthening with a VAL-ED ranking at low range of Basic. Skill enhancement in this area recommended; designed to strengthen the culture in this important component. Review your VAL- ED Assessment and focus on:
• Areas identified above and written into your goals. • Specific language of VAL- ED to highlight with your teachers. • Reflect on, identify, and share evidence demonstrating key components of VAL-ED. • Review GSU Principal Performance-Based Evaluation VAL-ED and Illinois Standards for School
Leaders Rubric. • Develop a plan to share data with faculty after receiving the VAL-ED results.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
22
SECOND FORMAL OBSERVATION (to be completed by January 15)
Principal Mr. Gardner Evaluator Dr. Strong Date January 11
• Formal observation will be scheduled in advance and must include at least one objective (reviewing classrooms, observing leadership team meetings, etc.) (50.320(c)(1)(B)
• Feedback from formal observation must be provided within 10 principal workdays. (50.320)(c)(1)(C)
Objective(s): Attend fourth grade teacher reading comprehension progress meeting (Action Plan Item: Documentation bi-weekly meetings to discuss reading comprehension progress and strategies with 4th grade teachers, including coordinating with reading coaches). Feedback: Comments:
• Reading Comprehension assessment data was available to all teachers, coaches and ELL Director. • You communicated and documented a structured schedule for ongoing monitoring. • All teachers present were actively involved in analyzing data. • It was clear that conditions had been established that supported teachers’ free expression of ideas. • As special needs students were discussed, you advocated strategies to provide additional support. • Should an emergency arise, is there a teacher leader identified to lead the meeting in your
absence? • Has there been discussion of the parent role in strengthening comprehension?
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
23
SECOND FORMAL OBSERVATION Another Example
(to be completed by January 15)
Principal Mr. Gardner Evaluator Dr. Strong Date January 11
• Formal observation will be scheduled in advance and must include at least one objective (reviewing classrooms, observing leadership team meetings, etc.) (50.320(c)(1)(B)
• Feedback from formal observation must be provided within 10 principal workdays. (50.320)(c)(1)(C)
Objective(s): Attend fourth grade teacher reading comprehension progress meeting (Action Plan Item: Documentation bi-weekly meetings to discuss reading comprehension progress and strategies with 4th grade teachers, including coordinating with reading coaches and ELL Director). Feedback: Comments:
• Reading Comprehension assessment data was available to all teachers, coaches and ELL Director. • You communicated and documented a structured schedule for ongoing monitoring. • All teachers present were actively involved in analyzing data. • It was clear that conditions had been established that supported teachers’ free expression of ideas. • As special needs students were discussed, you advocated strategies to provide additional support. • Should an emergency arise, is there a teacher leader identified to lead the meeting in your
absence? • Has there been discussion of the parent role in strengthening comprehension? • Have you thought about how you will address parents who have limited or non-English speaking?
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
24
PRINCIPAL PRE-SUMMATIVE SELF-EVALUATION (to be completed by February 1)
Principal Mr. Gardner Evaluator Dr. Strong Date February 1
Principal’s self-assessment (attached)
Sample Guiding Questions: In preparing the self-assessment according to the guidelines above, the following guiding questions are provided to assist with the process:
• Are the goals on target to be reached? • If yes, what can you do to get even better results? • If not, what can you do to strengthen your plan in order to attain goals?
Goal 1: Improve 4th grade reading comprehension scores by 20%. The local assessment given on December 2, indicates that the overall gains for the fourth grade students have been 18% since the beginning of the year. This 18% gain was accomplished by working closely with the fourth grade teachers and the reading coaches. The target of 20% is obtainable. As outlined in the bi-weekly fourth grade reading progress meetings, the reading coaches are working with the teachers to determine ways for additional instructional time for students with special needs as well as other targeted students. Goal 2: Reduce suspensions by 10% by strengthening implementation of PBIS and focus on IL Social Emotional Learning Standards. Currently, suspensions are down by 9% overall compared to this time last year. We have been making progress on utilizing PBIS data which has been helpful, particularly with before-school incidents. We are just starting to make progress on incorporating IL SEL Standards work.
The principal will provide a self-assessment on the progress meeting the target measures on the goals. The self-assessment will require the principal to: 1. Know decisions by the district’s Joint Committee regarding:
o Student Growth targets o Assessments o Student population
2. Gather evidence, including VAL-ED results 3. Reflect on progress of attaining goals with supporting evidence
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
25
PRINCIPAL PRE-SUMMATIVE SELF-EVALUATION continued (to be completed by February 1)
Although PBIS had been previously implemented at Leaf School, there had not been effective use of data. This year we have been monitoring SWIS data on a weekly basis. After our first eight week, data revealed 23 of the 45 behavior concerns occurred prior to the start of the school day. To date, we’ve had two faculty meetings with particular focus on incorporating the SEL standards into classroom practice. We will have at least two school-wide assemblies linked to these standards this semester. At this point, it is not clear if we will make the 10% goal. We need to now make adjustments to new problem areas as we did with the morning incidents, as indicated by the PBIS data. Those areas are lunchroom and restrooms.
Goal 3: Demonstrate improved professional skills in parent involvement by documenting an increase in parent participation from 30% to 50% from September to January. We anticipate that we will meet this goal. The Parent Advisory Group has done a tremendous job focusing on improving parent involvement. The Group is now comprised of 17 parents of diverse demographics and five teachers. They have been meeting monthly. They have developed a schedule for the second semester with multiple events for both parents, as well as parents with students. My work with them has been in supporting their initiatives and providing ideas, many of which were gleaned from the Strategies to Strengthen Parent Involvement professional development. The VAL-ED data indicated that I have improved my skills in this area. VAL-ED Reflective Analysis:
• The goal related to VAL-ED (V- Strengthening Connections to External Community) enhanced my performance on this year’s administration of the VAL-ED Assessment. My overall ranking grew from basic to proficient this year.
• This year, I was more aware of the VAL-ED terminology and therefore included this terminology as we discussed various items on our agendas.
• We are incorporating this research-based terminology more naturally into our daily practice. • VAL-ED identified a need to strengthen our work with the external community. Although we have
partnerships, there needs to be more focus on how these partnerships can have impact on student learning.
• I have developed a plan to share this year’s VAL-ED Assessment data with my faculty at the February Faculty meeting.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
26
PRINCIPAL SUMMATIVE EVALUATION (Required by March 1)
Principal Mr. Gardner Evaluator Dr. Strong Date February 25 Strengths (including evidence) Goal I: Improve 4th grade reading comprehension scores by 20% from August to January. Your ongoing work monitoring the data and communicating and supporting teachers and coaches contributed to meeting your student growth goal. Goal 2: Reduce suspensions by 10% by strengthening implementation of PBIS and focus on IL Social Emotional Learning Standards. You came close to meeting this goal by reducing suspensions by 9%. This was accomplished by monitoring the data more closely and beginning to focus on the Illinois Social Emotional Learning Standards. Goal 3: Demonstrate improved professional skills in parent involvement by documenting an increase in parent participation from 30% to 50% from September to January. Establishing a Parent Advisory Committee helped facilitate more growth in parental involvement. Your focus on developing your skills in this area strengthened this initiative and made reaching this goal attainable. VAL-ED (See GSU VAL-ED/Illinois Performance Standards for School Leaders Rubric)
• Focusing on strengthening your skills in the area of parent involvement contributed to growing from an overall ranking of basic to proficient in the area of Strengthening Connection to the External Community.
• Your continued reflection on the VAL-ED research-based terminology being incorporated into your daily work with your teachers increased your overall score on the assessment.
• You shared the VAL-ED data at your February meeting highlighting strengths, areas of improvement and growth areas.
• You need to focus on implementing activities and procedures to meet standards for student learning which includes: stating expectations for faculty, meeting deadlines, ongoing monitoring that procedures are followed.
• You need to coordinate teacher collaboration to ensure the implementation of a rigorous curriculum for all students.
• Although you scheduled professional development for faculty, it was not targeted at the established goals.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
27
Areas of Growth (including evidence)
• As you did not meet the target for goal two, start the year with more focus on the Social Emotional Learning Standards. You have established groundwork from which to build. Consider getting the social worker more involved in working in the classroom. You may need to look at a classroom behavior program such as CHAMPS.
• VAL-ED identified that you moved from an overall ranking of basic to proficient in working with the external communities. You need to continue to develop your skills in this area. Focus your efforts in creating partnerships that will impact student learning.
• Based on my observations and VAL-ED data I identified a need to strengthen your organizational skills as a building manager. You must establish clear expectations and ensure that deadlines are met by yourself and your faculty.
• Evidence suggests that your collaborative planning and implementation to improve the fourth grade comprehension scores should be replicated with grades two and three based on needs identified in the data from the NWEA and MAP scores.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
28
PRINCIPAL SUMMATIVE EVALUATION continued
Does Not Meet Exceeds Expectations (1) Basic (2) Proficient (3) Expectations (4) Score Weight Subtotal
STUDENT GROWTH COMPONENT (30%)
• STUDENT GROWTH GOAL (30%) MISSES Significantly the target by a APPROACHES MEETS EXCEEDS considerable margin the target the target the target ____________ ________ ___x____ 3 X 30 = 90
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE COMPONENT (70%)
• ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE GOAL (25%) MISSES Significantly the target by a APPROACHES MEETS EXCEEDS considerable margin the target the target the target ____________ x 2 X 25 = 50
• PROFESSIONAL GROWTH GOAL (15%) MISSES Significantly the target by a APPROACHES MEETS EXCEEDS considerable margin the target the target the target ___________ x 3 X 15 = 45
• VAL-ED (30%) Below Basic Basic Proficient Distinguished ___________ x 3 X 30 = 90
SUBTOTAL 275 ÷ 100 = FINAL SCORE 2.75 Dr. Strong February 25 Evaluator Signature Date Mr.Gardner February 25 Principal Signature Date
PRINCIPAL RATING ALIGNED WITH PERA 2010
3.3 – 4.0 Excellent ____ 2.5 – 3.2 Proficient _ X_ 1.7 – 2.4 Needs Improvement ____ 1.0 – 1.6 Unsatisfactory ____ A principal or assistant principal who receives a score of one in any of the four areas, cannot receive a final PERA ranking higher than ‘Needs Improvement’.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
29
GSU Principal Performance-Based Evaluation Instrument
District: School: Principal: Evaluator:
Fill in the year each was completed: Evaluator successfully completed state prequalification training: Evaluator completed GSU evaluation model orientation: Evaluator completed GSU VAL-ED training: Principal completed GSU evaluation model orientation: Principal completed GSU VAL-ED training (50.32)(a)*
Task Date
Completed Evaluator Sign-off
Principal/ Assistant Principal Sign-off
Review and attach principal job description, including specific duties, responsibilities, management and competency (50.300(a)(1)* Review and attach evaluator report of administrator strengths and weaknesses with supporting reasons (50.300 (a)(2)* Copy of evaluation plan presented to principal before goal setting conference (by the start of the school year) (50.300(d)* Goal setting conference by August 31 Completion of first formal observation with feedback by October 15 Formative conference by November 30 Completion of VAL-ED by evaluator, principal and faculty by January 15 Completion of second formal observation with feedback by January 15 Principal submission of self-assessment to evaluator by February 1 Summative conference by March 1, including documentation of principal strengths and areas of growth (50.300)*
*Article 24A of the Illinois School Code, 105 ILC55/24A
Year ______________________________________________________________________
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
30
All items above should be submitted with this checklist as part of the final summative conference. Principal Evaluation: Leadership Strands
• Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results • Leading and Managing Systems Change • Improving Teaching and Learning • Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships • Leading with Integrity and Professionalism • Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations
Based on 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium /IL Educational Leadership Policy Standards/Design Team 2007, National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals/National Board Principal Certification, and PEAC, Principal & Teacher Evaluation in Illinois: Past, Present & Future, Updated 6/1/11.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
31
GOAL SETTING CONFERENCE (to be completed by August 31)
Principal ___ _______ Evaluator _____ Date___ _______
Strengths (including evidence)
Areas of Growth (including evidence)
Goals – Developed collaboratively with evaluator and principal Review multiple data sources for development of goals. • Bring relevant data to the meeting. • Discuss data; agree on goals, sources of evidence, and performance measure
STUDENT GROWTH
COMPONENT 30%
LEADERSHIP STRANDS (Check all that apply)
AT LEAST TWO AGREED-UPON
MEASURES (with specified weighting)
Type I or Type II; Type III in special circumstances
ACTION PLAN
Growth in Student Achievement Goal: 30%
_ Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results _ Leading and Managing Systems Change _ Improving Teaching and Learning _ Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships __ Leading with Integrity and Professionalism _Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
32
GOAL SETTING CONFERENCE continued (to be completed by August 31)
PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE COMPONENTS 70%
LEADERSHIP STRANDS
(Check all that apply)
AGREED-UPON MEASURES
ACTION PLAN
Organizational Goal 25%
Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results Leading and Managing
Systems Change Improving Teaching and Learning Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships Leading with Integrity and Professionalism Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations
Principal’s Professional Growth Goal 15%
Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results Leading and Managing
Systems Change Improving Teaching and Learning Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships Leading with Integrity and Professionalism Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
33
GOAL SETTING CONFERENCE continued (to be completed by August 31)
LEADERSHIP STRANDS*
SCORING
OUTCOMES
VAL-ED 30%
Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results Leading and Managing
Systems Change Improving Teaching and Learning Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships Leading with Integrity and Professionalism Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations
Review VAL-ED Reports
Not Applicable
*By design, VAL-ED addresses each IL Leadership Strand (Refer to alignment of VAL-ED to IL Leadership Strands in the GSU/District Evaluation Plan).
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
34
FIRST FORMAL OBSERVATION (to be completed by October 15)
Principal _______ ___ Evaluator ____ Date
• Formal observation will be scheduled in advance and must include at least one objective (reviewing classrooms, observing leadership team meetings, etc.). (50.320(c)(1)(B)
• Feedback from formal observation must be provided within 10 principal workdays. (50.320)©(1)©
Objective(s):
Feedback:
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
35
FORMATIVE CONFERENCE (to be completed by November 30)
Principal _______ ___ Evaluator ____ Date
Goal – Growth in Student Achievement – 30% Briefly State Goal: Action Plan Progress: Adjustments to the plan and goal as needed: Additional supports to make goal attainable:
Evaluator and principal will discuss progress on action plan and goals and make any needed adjustments. They will: • Examine evidence and discuss the progress on target measures. • Review available new data. • Make adjustments to the action plan and agreed upon goals as needed based on unanticipated
circumstances. Note: Goals may be adjusted downward but should not be raised. • Consider additional supports to make goals attainable.
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
36
FORMATIVE CONFERENCE continued (to be completed by November 30)
Principal _______ ___ Evaluator ____ Date _____ Organizational Goal - 25% Briefly State Goal: Action Plan Progress: Adjustments to the plan and goal as needed: Additional supports to make goal attainable:
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
37
FORMATIVE CONFERENCE continued (to be completed by November 30)
Principal _______ ___ Evaluator ____ Date Principal’s Professional Growth Goal - 15% Briefly State Goal: Action Plan Progress: Adjustments to the plan and goal as needed: Additional supports to make goal attainable:
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
38
FORMATIVE CONFERENCE continued (to be completed by November 30)
Principal _______ ___ Evaluator ____ Date VAL-ED – 30% (to be completed by teachers, principal and evaluator – by January 15) Discuss VAL-ED Components:
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
39
SECOND FORMAL OBSERVATION (to be completed by January 15)
Principal _______ ___ Evaluator ____ Date
• Formal observation will be scheduled in advance and must include at least one objective (reviewing classrooms, observing leadership team meetings, etc.) (50.320(c)(1)(B)
• Feedback from formal observation must be provided within 10 principal workdays. (50.320)(c)(1)(C)
Objective(s): Feedback:
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
40
PRINCIPAL PRE-SUMMATIVE SELF-EVALUATION (to be completed by February 1)
Principal _______ ___ Evaluator ____ Date
Principal’s self-assessment (attached)
Sample Guiding Questions: In preparing the self-assessment according to the guidelines above, the following guiding questions are provided to assist with the process:
• Are the goals on target to be reached? • If yes, what can you do to get even better results? • If not, what can you do to strengthen your plan in order to attain goals?
The principal will provide a self-assessment on the progress meeting the target measures on the goals. The self-assessment will require the principal to: 1. Know decisions by the district’s Joint Committee regarding:
o Student Growth targets o Assessments o Student population
2. Gather evidence, including VAL-ED results 3. Reflect on progress of attaining goals with supporting evidence
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
41
PRINCIPAL PRE-SUMMATIVE SELF-EVALUATION continued (to be completed by February 1)
VAL-ED Reflective Analysis:
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
42
PRINCIPAL SUMMATIVE EVALUATION (Required by March 1)
Principal _______ ___ Evaluator ____ Date Strengths (including evidence) Areas of Growth (including evidence)
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
43
PRINCIPAL RATING ALIGNED WITH PERA 2010
3.3 – 4.0 Excellent ____ 2.5 – 3.2 Proficient _ __ 1.7 – 2.4 Needs Improvement ____ 1.0 – 1.6 Unsatisfactory ____ A principal or assistant principal who receives a score of one in any of the four areas, cannot receive a final PERA ranking higher than ‘Needs Improvement’.
PRINCIPAL SUMMATIVE EVALUATION continued
Does Not Meet Exceeds Expectations (1) Basic (2) Proficient (3) Expectations (4) Score Weight Subtotal
STUDENT GROWTH COMPONENT (30%)
• STUDENT GROWTH GOAL (30%) MISSES Significantly the target by a APPROACHES MEETS EXCEEDS considerable margin the target the target the target ____________ ________ ___ ____ X 30 = ___
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE COMPONENT (70%)
• ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE GOAL (25%) MISSES Significantly the target by a APPROACHES MEETS EXCEEDS considerable margin the target the target the target ____________ X 25 = _ _ __
• PROFESSIONAL GROWTH GOAL (15%) MISSES Significantly the target by a APPROACHES MEETS EXCEEDS considerable margin the target the target the target ___________ X 15 = _ _ __
• VAL-ED (30%) Below Basic Basic Proficient Distinguished ___________ X 30 = __ _ _
SUBTOTAL ____ ___ ÷ 100 FINAL SCORE ________
PRINCIPAL RATING ________________________________________ Evaluator Signature Date ________________________________________ Principal Signature Date
© The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation was developed by Governors State University through its College of Education and Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) program under the Federal Teacher Quality Partnership Grant U405A100045. The Principal Performance-Based Evaluation may not be copied, emailed, or otherwise shared, and can be used only with the prior agreement and consent of Governors State University.
44
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) I.
Hig
h S
tan
dar
ds
for
Stu
den
t Le
arn
ing
Ther
e ar
e in
div
idu
al,
team
, an
d s
cho
ol g
oal
s fo
r ri
goro
us
stu
den
t ac
adem
ic
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g.
a.
Imp
lem
ents
act
ivit
ies
and
pro
ced
ure
s to
m
eet
stan
dar
ds
for
stu
den
t le
arn
ing.
b
. R
ecru
its
hig
hly
q
ual
ifie
d f
acu
lty
to
mee
t p
erfo
rman
ce
goal
s fo
r b
oth
ac
adem
ic a
nd
so
cial
le
arn
ing.
c.
C
reat
es
exp
ecta
tio
ns
that
fac
ult
y m
ain
tain
h
igh
sta
nd
ard
s fo
r st
ud
ent
lear
nin
g.
d.
Sup
po
rts
facu
lty
in
hel
pin
g st
ud
ents
re
ach
hig
h s
tan
dar
ds
of
lear
nin
g.
e.
Cre
ate
s co
nd
itio
ns
that
hel
p f
acu
lty
and
st
ud
ents
rea
ch
amb
itio
us
lear
nin
g ta
rget
s.
f.
Pro
vid
es s
afet
y n
ets
so t
hat
all
stu
den
ts
VI.
Cre
atin
g an
d S
ust
ain
ing
a C
ult
ure
of
Hig
h
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
a.
Bu
ilds
a cu
ltu
re o
f h
igh
as
pir
atio
ns
and
ac
hie
vem
ent
for
ever
y st
ud
ent
b.
Req
uir
es s
taff
an
d
stu
den
ts t
o
dem
on
stra
te c
on
sist
ent
valu
es a
nd
po
siti
ve
beh
avio
rs a
lign
ed t
o
the
sch
oo
l’s v
isio
n a
nd
m
issi
on
c.
Le
ads
a sc
ho
ol c
ult
ure
an
d e
nvi
ron
men
t th
at
succ
essf
ully
dev
elo
ps
the
full
ran
ge o
f st
ud
ents
’ lea
rnin
g ca
pac
itie
s-ac
adem
ic,
crea
tive
, so
cial
-em
oti
on
al, b
ehav
iora
l an
d p
hys
ical
.
A le
ader
at
the
bel
ow
bas
ic le
vel o
f p
rofi
cien
cy
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
ega
rdin
g H
igh
Stan
dar
ds
for
Stu
de
nt
Lear
nin
g at
leve
ls o
f
effe
ctiv
enes
s th
at o
ver
tim
e ar
e u
nlik
ely
to
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r al
l
stu
den
ts.
A le
ader
at
the
bas
ic
leve
l of
pro
fici
ency
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g H
igh
Stan
dar
ds
for
Stu
de
nt
Lear
nin
g at
leve
ls o
f
effe
ctiv
enes
s th
at o
ver
tim
e ar
e lik
ely
to
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
som
e su
b-g
rou
ps
of
stu
den
ts, b
ut
no
t al
l.
A p
rofi
cien
t le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
ega
rdin
g H
igh
Stan
dar
ds
for
Stu
de
nt
Lear
nin
g at
leve
ls o
f
effe
ctiv
enes
s th
at o
ver
tim
e ar
e lik
ely
to
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r al
l
stu
den
ts.
A d
isti
ngu
ish
ed le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
ega
rdin
g
Hig
h S
tan
dar
ds
for
Stu
de
nt
Lear
nin
g at
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
virt
ual
ly c
erta
in t
o
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
stro
ng
valu
e-a
dd
ed t
o
stu
den
t ac
hie
vem
ent
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
all s
tud
ents
.
45
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) ca
n m
eet
hig
h
stan
dar
ds
of
lear
nin
g.
II.
Rig
oro
us
Cu
rric
ulu
m
(Co
nte
nt)
Th
ere
is a
mb
itio
us
acad
emic
co
nte
nt
pro
vid
ed t
o a
ll st
ud
ents
in
core
aca
dem
ic s
ub
ject
s.
a.
Pla
ns
curr
icu
lum
to
m
axim
ize
stu
den
t o
pp
ort
un
ity
to le
arn
es
sen
tial
kn
ow
led
ge
and
ski
lls.
b.
Dev
elo
ps
a ri
goro
us
curr
icu
lum
fo
r al
l st
ud
ents
. c.
C
oo
rdin
ates
te
ach
er
colla
bo
rati
on
to
im
ple
men
t a
rigo
rou
s cu
rric
ulu
m.
d.
Bu
ilds
sch
edu
les
so
that
stu
den
ts w
ith
sp
ecia
l nee
ds
do
no
t m
iss
core
aca
dem
ic
wo
rk in
reg
ula
r cl
asse
s.
e.
Hir
es t
each
ers
wit
h
the
exp
erti
se t
o
III.
Imp
rovi
ng
Teac
hin
g A
nd
Lea
rnin
g a.
W
ork
s w
ith
an
d
enga
ges
staf
f in
th
e d
evel
op
men
t an
d
con
tin
uo
us
refi
nem
ent
of
a sh
ared
vis
ion
fo
r ef
fect
ive
teac
hin
g an
d
lear
nin
g b
y im
ple
men
tin
g a
stan
dar
ds-
bas
ed
effe
ctiv
e p
ract
ice,
ac
adem
ic r
igo
r, a
nd
h
igh
exp
ecta
tio
ns
for
stu
den
t p
erfo
rman
ce in
ev
ery
clas
sro
om
. b
. C
reat
es a
co
nti
nu
ou
s im
pro
vem
ent
cycl
e th
at u
ses
mu
ltip
le
form
s o
f d
ata
and
st
ud
ent
wo
rk s
amp
les
to s
up
po
rt in
div
idu
al,
team
, an
d s
cho
ol-
wid
e im
pro
vem
ent
goal
s,
iden
tify
an
d a
dd
ress
ar
ea o
f im
pro
vem
ent
A le
ader
at
the
bel
ow
bas
ic le
vel o
f p
rofi
cien
cy
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Rig
oro
us
Cu
rric
ulu
m a
t
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
un
like
ly t
o in
flu
ence
teac
her
s to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a p
oin
t th
at
resu
lts
in a
ccep
tab
le
valu
e-a
dd
ed t
o s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t an
d s
oci
al
lear
nin
g fo
r st
ud
ents
.
A le
ader
at
the
bas
ic
leve
l of
pro
fici
ency
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Rig
oro
us
Cu
rric
ulu
m a
t
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
likel
y
to in
flu
ence
tea
cher
s to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
som
e su
b-g
rou
ps
of
stu
den
ts, b
ut
no
t al
l.
A p
rofi
cien
t le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Rig
oro
us
Cu
rric
ulu
m a
t
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
likel
y
to in
flu
ence
tea
cher
s to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r al
l
stu
den
ts.
A d
isti
ngu
ish
ed le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Rig
oro
us
Cu
rric
ulu
m
at le
vels
of
effe
ctiv
enes
s th
at
ove
r ti
me
are
virt
ual
ly
cert
ain
to
infl
uen
ce
teac
her
s to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a p
oin
t th
at
resu
lts
in s
tro
ng
valu
e-a
dd
ed t
o
stu
den
t ac
hie
vem
ent
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
all s
tud
ents
.
46
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) im
ple
men
t a
rigo
rou
s cu
rric
ulu
m.
f.
Co
ord
inat
es a
rig
oro
us
curr
icu
lum
acr
oss
gr
ade
leve
ls.
g.
Sup
po
rts
par
tici
pat
ion
in
pro
fess
ion
al
dev
elo
pm
ent
that
d
eep
ens
teac
her
s’
un
der
stan
din
g o
f a
rigo
rou
s cu
rric
ulu
m.
h.
Secu
res
the
teac
hin
g m
ater
ials
nec
essa
ry
for
a ri
goro
us
curr
icu
lum
. i.
Pro
vid
es t
each
ers
wit
h
tim
e to
wo
rk o
n
dev
elo
pin
g an
d
stre
ngt
hen
ing
the
curr
icu
lar
pro
gram
. j.
Pro
vid
es o
pp
ort
un
itie
s fo
r te
ach
ers
to w
ork
to
geth
er t
o d
eliv
er a
ri
goro
us
curr
icu
lum
. k.
M
on
ito
rs t
he
curr
icu
lum
th
rou
gh
freq
uen
t vi
sits
to
cl
asse
s.
l. Ev
alu
ates
th
e ri
gor
of
the
curr
icu
lum
. m
. Ev
alu
ates
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h a
ll st
ud
ents
and
cel
ebra
te
succ
esse
s.
c.
Imp
lem
ents
stu
den
t in
terv
enti
on
s th
at
dif
fere
nti
ate
inst
ruct
ion
bas
ed o
n
stu
den
t n
eed
s.
d.
Sel
ects
an
d r
etai
ns
teac
her
s w
ith
th
e ex
per
tise
to
del
iver
in
stru
ctio
n t
hat
m
axim
izes
stu
den
t le
arn
ing.
e.
E
valu
ate
s th
e ef
fect
iven
ess
of
teac
hin
g an
d h
old
s in
div
idu
al t
eac
her
s ac
cou
nta
ble
fo
r m
eeti
ng
thei
r go
als
by
con
du
ctin
g fr
equ
ent
form
al a
nd
info
rmal
o
bse
rvat
ion
s in
ord
er
to p
rovi
de
tim
ely,
w
ritt
en f
eed
bac
k o
n
inst
ruct
ion
, p
rep
arat
ion
an
d
clas
sro
om
en
viro
nm
ent
as p
art
of
the
dis
tric
t te
ach
er a
pp
rais
al t
eam
. f.
En
sure
s th
e tr
ain
ing,
d
evel
op
men
t, a
nd
su
pp
ort
fo
r h
igh
-
47
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) co
mp
lete
a r
igo
rou
s cu
rric
ula
r p
rogr
am.
n.
Use
s d
isag
greg
ate
d
stu
den
t ac
hie
vem
ent
dat
a to
mo
nit
or
the
rigo
r o
f al
l cu
rric
ulu
m
pro
gram
s.
o.
Mo
nit
ors
stu
den
t w
ork
pro
du
cts
to
asse
ss t
he
rigo
r o
f th
e cu
rric
ulu
m.
per
form
ing
inst
ruct
ion
al t
eac
her
te
ams
to s
up
po
rt a
du
lt
lear
nin
g an
d
dev
elo
pm
ent
to
adva
nce
stu
den
t le
arn
ing
and
p
erfo
rman
ce.
g. D
evel
op
s sy
stem
s an
d
stru
ctu
res
for
staf
f p
rofe
ssio
nal
d
evel
op
men
t an
d
shar
ing
of
eff
ecti
ve
pra
ctic
es in
clu
din
g p
rovi
din
g an
d
pro
tect
ing
tim
e al
lott
ed f
or
dev
elo
pm
ent.
h
. A
dva
nce
s In
stru
ctio
nal
Te
chn
olo
gy w
ith
in t
he
lear
nin
g e
nvi
ron
men
t.
III.
Qu
alit
y In
stru
ctio
n
(Pe
dag
ogy
) Th
ese
are
effe
ctiv
e in
stru
ctio
nal
pra
ctic
es
that
max
imiz
e st
ud
ent
acad
emic
an
d s
oci
al
lear
nin
g.
a.
Pla
ns
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
for
teac
her
s to
im
pro
ve t
hei
r in
stru
ctio
n t
hro
ugh
III.
Imp
rovi
ng
Teac
hin
g an
d
Lear
nin
g a.
W
ork
s w
ith
an
d
enga
ges
staf
f in
th
e d
evel
op
men
t an
d
con
tin
uo
us
refi
nem
ent
of
a sh
ared
vis
ion
fo
r ef
fect
ive
teac
hin
g an
d
lear
nin
g b
y im
ple
men
tin
g a
stan
dar
ds-
bas
ed
A le
ader
at
the
bel
ow
bas
ic le
vel o
f p
rofi
cien
cy
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Qu
alit
y In
stru
ctio
n a
t
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
un
like
ly t
o in
flu
ence
teac
her
s to
bri
ng
the
A le
ader
at
the
bas
ic
leve
l of
pro
fici
ency
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Qu
alit
y In
stru
ctio
n a
t
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
likel
y
to in
flu
ence
tea
cher
s to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
A p
rofi
cien
t le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Qu
alit
y In
stru
ctio
n a
t
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
likel
y
to in
flu
ence
tea
cher
s to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
A d
isti
ngu
ish
ed le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Qu
alit
y In
stru
ctio
n a
t
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
virt
ual
ly c
erta
in t
o
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
48
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) o
bse
rvin
g ea
ch o
ther
’s
inst
ruct
ion
al p
ract
ices
. b
. P
lan
s o
pp
ort
un
itie
s fo
r te
ach
ers
to im
pro
ve
thei
r in
stru
ctio
n
thro
ugh
pro
fess
ion
al
dev
elo
pm
ent.
c.
P
lan
s a
sch
edu
le t
hat
en
able
s q
ual
ity
inst
ruct
ion
. d
. P
lan
s h
igh
qu
alit
y in
stru
ctio
n t
hat
fo
cuse
s sp
ecif
ical
ly o
n
stu
den
t le
arn
ing.
effe
ctiv
e p
ract
ice,
ac
adem
ic r
igo
r, a
nd
h
igh
exp
ecta
tio
ns
for
stu
den
t p
erfo
rman
ce in
ev
ery
clas
sro
om
. b
. C
reat
es a
co
nti
nu
ou
s im
pro
vem
ent
cycl
e th
at u
ses
mu
ltip
le
form
s o
f d
ata
and
st
ud
ent
wo
rk s
amp
les
to s
up
po
rt in
div
idu
al,
team
, an
d s
cho
ol-
wid
e im
pro
vem
ent
goal
s,
iden
tify
an
d a
dd
ress
ar
ea o
f im
pro
vem
ent
and
cel
ebra
te
succ
esse
s.
c.
Imp
lem
ents
stu
den
t in
terv
enti
on
s th
at
dif
fere
nti
ate
inst
ruct
ion
bas
ed o
n
stu
den
t n
eed
s.
d.
Sel
ects
an
d r
etai
ns
teac
her
s w
ith
th
e ex
per
tise
to
del
iver
in
stru
ctio
n t
hat
m
axim
izes
stu
den
t le
arn
ing.
e.
E
valu
ate
s th
e ef
fect
iven
ess
of
teac
hin
g an
d h
old
s in
div
idu
al t
eac
her
s
sch
oo
l to
a p
oin
t th
at
resu
lts
in a
ccep
tab
le
valu
e-a
dd
ed t
o s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t an
d s
oci
al
lear
nin
g fo
r st
ud
ents
.
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
som
e su
b-g
rou
ps
of
stu
den
ts, b
ut
no
t al
l.
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r al
l
stu
den
ts.
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
stro
ng
valu
e-a
dd
ed t
o
stu
den
t ac
hie
vem
ent
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
all s
tud
ents
.
49
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) ac
cou
nta
ble
fo
r m
eeti
ng
thei
r go
als
by
con
du
ctin
g fr
equ
ent
form
al a
nd
info
rmal
o
bse
rvat
ion
s in
ord
er
to p
rovi
de
tim
ely,
w
ritt
en f
eed
bac
k o
n
inst
ruct
ion
, p
rep
arat
ion
an
d
clas
sro
om
en
viro
nm
ent
as p
art
of
the
dis
tric
t te
ach
er a
pp
rais
al t
eam
. f.
En
sure
s th
e tr
ain
ing,
d
evel
op
men
t, a
nd
su
pp
ort
fo
r h
igh
-p
erfo
rmin
g in
stru
ctio
nal
te
ach
er
team
s to
su
pp
ort
ad
ult
le
arn
ing
and
d
evel
op
men
t to
ad
van
ce s
tud
ent
lear
nin
g an
d
per
form
ance
. g.
D
evel
op
s sy
stem
s an
d
stru
ctu
res
for
staf
f p
rofe
ssio
nal
d
evel
op
men
t an
d
shar
ing
of
eff
ecti
ve
pra
ctic
es in
clu
din
g p
rovi
din
g an
d
pro
tect
ing
tim
e al
lott
ed f
or
50
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) d
evel
op
men
t.
h.
Ad
van
ces
Inst
ruct
ion
al
Tech
no
logy
wit
hin
th
e le
arn
ing
en
viro
nm
ent.
IV. C
ult
ure
of
Lear
nin
g an
d P
rofe
ssio
nal
Beh
avio
r Th
ere
are
inte
grat
ed
co
mm
un
itie
s o
f p
rofe
ssio
nal
pra
ctic
e in
th
e se
rvic
e o
f st
ud
ent
acad
emic
an
d s
oci
al
lear
nin
g. T
her
e is
a
hea
lth
y sc
ho
ol
envi
ron
men
t in
wh
ich
st
ud
ent
lear
nin
g is
th
e ce
ntr
al f
ocu
s.
a.
Pla
ns
for
a cu
ltu
re in
w
hic
h h
igh
sta
nd
ard
s o
f p
rofe
ssio
nal
b
ehav
ior
are
exp
ecte
d.
b.
Pla
ns
stra
tegi
es t
o
dev
elo
p s
har
ed b
elie
fs
abo
ut
pro
fess
ion
al
pra
ctic
e.
c.
Bu
ilds
a cu
ltu
re o
f co
nti
nu
ou
s im
pro
vem
ent.
d
. B
uild
s o
pp
ort
un
itie
s fo
r te
ach
ers
to w
ork
I. L
ivin
g a
Mis
sio
n, V
isio
n,
and
Bel
iefs
fo
r R
esu
lts
a.
Co
ord
inat
es e
ffo
rts
to
crea
te a
nd
imp
lem
ent
a vi
sio
n f
or
the
sch
oo
l an
d d
efin
es d
esir
ed
goal
s th
at a
lign
wit
h
the
ove
rall
sch
oo
l vi
sio
n a
nd
lead
to
st
ud
ent
imp
rove
men
t fo
r al
l lea
rner
s.
b.
En
sure
s th
at t
he
sch
oo
l’s id
enti
ty,
visi
on
, mis
sio
n, d
rive
sc
ho
ol d
ecis
ion
s.
c.
Co
nd
uct
s d
iffi
cult
bu
t cr
uci
al c
on
vers
atio
ns
wit
h in
div
idu
als,
te
ams,
an
d s
taff
bas
ed o
n
stu
den
t p
erfo
rman
ce
dat
a in
a t
imel
y m
ann
er f
or
the
pu
rpo
se o
f e
nh
anci
ng
stu
den
t le
arn
ing
and
re
sult
s.
A le
ader
at
the
bel
ow
bas
ic le
vel o
f p
rofi
cien
cy
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Cu
ltu
re o
f Le
arn
ing
and
Pro
fess
ion
al B
eh
avio
r at
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
un
like
ly t
o in
flu
ence
teac
her
s to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a p
oin
t th
at
resu
lts
in a
ccep
tab
le
valu
e-a
dd
ed t
o s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t an
d s
oci
al
lear
nin
g fo
r st
ud
ents
.
A le
ader
at
the
bas
ic
leve
l of
pro
fici
ency
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Cu
ltu
re o
f Le
arn
ing
and
Pro
fess
ion
al B
eh
avio
r at
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
likel
y
to in
flu
ence
tea
cher
s to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
som
e su
b-g
rou
ps
of
stu
den
ts, b
ut
no
t al
l.
A p
rofi
cien
t le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Cu
ltu
re o
f Le
arn
ing
and
Pro
fess
ion
al B
eh
avio
r at
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
likel
y
to in
flu
ence
tea
cher
s to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r al
l
stu
den
ts.
A d
isti
ngu
ish
ed le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Cu
ltu
re o
f Le
arn
ing
and
Pro
fess
ion
al
Be
hav
ior
at le
vels
of
effe
ctiv
enes
s th
at
ove
r ti
me
are
virt
ual
ly
cert
ain
to
infl
uen
ce
teac
her
s to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a p
oin
t th
at
resu
lts
in s
tro
ng
valu
e-a
dd
ed t
o
stu
den
t ac
hie
vem
ent
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
all s
tud
ents
.
51
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) to
geth
er o
n s
har
ed
goal
s an
d v
alu
es.
e.
Bu
ilds
a sc
ho
ol
envi
ron
men
t th
at is
sa
fe a
nd
ord
erly
fo
r al
l st
ud
ents
. f.
Allo
cate
s re
sou
rces
to
b
uild
a c
ult
ure
fo
cuse
d o
n s
tud
ent
lear
nin
g.
g.
Sup
po
rts
colla
bo
rati
ve
team
s to
imp
rove
in
stru
ctio
n.
h.
Pro
vid
es f
or
the
nee
ds
of
all s
tud
ents
wh
en
bu
ildin
g a
sch
oo
l cu
ltu
re.
i. En
cou
rage
s te
ach
ers
to le
arn
fro
m t
hei
r m
ost
eff
ecti
ve
colle
agu
es.
j. P
rovi
des
fe
edb
ack
to
facu
lty
on
pro
fess
ion
al
beh
avio
r.
IV. B
uild
ing
and
M
ain
tain
ing
Co
llab
ora
tive
R
ela
tio
nsh
ips
a.
Cre
ates
, dev
elo
ps,
an
d
sust
ain
s re
lati
on
ship
s th
at r
esu
lt in
act
ive
stu
den
t e
nga
gem
ent
in
the
lear
nin
g p
roce
ss.
b.
Uti
lizes
mea
nin
gfu
l fe
edb
ack
of
stu
den
ts,
staf
f, f
amili
es, a
nd
co
mm
un
ity
in t
he
eval
uat
ion
of
sch
oo
l p
rogr
ams
and
po
licie
s.
c.
Pro
acti
vely
en
gage
s fa
mili
es a
nd
co
mm
un
itie
s in
su
pp
ort
ing
thei
r ch
ild’s
le
arn
ing
and
th
e sc
ho
ol
lear
nin
g go
als.
d
. D
emo
nst
rate
s an
u
nd
erst
and
ing
of
the
chan
ge p
roce
ss a
nd
u
ses
lead
ersh
ip a
nd
fa
cilit
atio
n s
kills
to
m
anag
e it
eff
ecti
vely
. V
. Le
adin
g w
ith
Inte
grit
y an
d P
rofe
ssio
nal
ism
a.
T
reat
s al
l peo
ple
fai
rly,
eq
uit
ably
, an
d w
ith
d
ign
ity
and
res
pec
t.
52
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) P
rote
cts
the
righ
ts a
nd
co
nfi
den
tial
ity
of
stu
den
ts a
nd
sta
ff.
b.
Dem
on
stra
tes
per
son
al
and
pro
fess
ion
al
stan
dar
ds
and
co
nd
uct
th
at e
nh
ance
th
e im
age
of
the
sch
oo
l an
d t
he
edu
cati
on
al p
rofe
ssio
n.
Pro
tect
s th
e ri
ghts
an
d
con
fid
enti
alit
y o
f st
ud
ents
an
d s
taff
. c.
C
reat
es a
nd
su
pp
ort
s a
clim
ate
that
val
ues
, ac
cep
ts a
nd
u
nd
erst
and
s d
ive
rsit
y in
cu
ltu
re a
nd
po
int
of
view
.
V. C
on
nec
tio
ns
To
Ex
tern
al C
om
mu
nit
ies
Ther
e ar
e lin
kage
s to
fa
mily
an
d/o
r o
ther
p
eop
le a
nd
inst
itu
tio
ns
in
the
com
mu
nit
y th
at
adva
nce
aca
dem
ic a
nd
so
cial
lear
nin
g.
a.
Pla
ns
fam
ily e
du
cati
on
p
rogr
ams
con
sist
ent
wit
h in
stru
ctio
nal
go
als.
b
. D
evel
op
s a
pla
n f
or
com
mu
nit
y o
utr
each
IV. B
uild
ing
and
M
ain
tain
ing
Co
llab
ora
tive
R
ela
tio
nsh
ips
a.
Cre
ates
, dev
elo
ps
and
su
stai
ns
rela
tio
nsh
ips
that
res
ult
in a
ctiv
e st
ud
ent
en
gage
men
t in
th
e le
arn
ing
pro
cess
. b
. U
tiliz
es m
ean
ingf
ul
feed
bac
k o
f st
ud
ents
, st
aff,
fam
ilies
, an
d
com
mu
nit
y in
th
e ev
alu
atio
n o
f sc
ho
ol
pro
gram
s an
d p
olic
ies.
A le
ader
at
the
bel
ow
bas
ic le
vel o
f p
rofi
cien
cy
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Co
nn
ect
ion
s to
Ext
ern
al
Co
mm
un
itie
s at
leve
ls o
f
effe
ctiv
enes
s th
at o
ver
tim
e ar
e u
nlik
ely
to
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
A le
ader
at
the
bas
ic
leve
l of
pro
fici
ency
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Co
nn
ect
ion
s to
Ext
ern
al
Co
mm
un
itie
s a
t le
vels
of
eff
ecti
ven
ess
that
ove
r ti
me
are
like
ly t
o
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
A p
rofi
cien
t le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Co
nn
ect
ion
s to
Ext
ern
al
Co
mm
un
itie
s a
t le
vels
of
eff
ecti
ven
ess
that
ove
r ti
me
are
like
ly t
o
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
A d
isti
ngu
ish
ed le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
ega
rdin
g
Co
nn
ect
ion
s to
Exte
rnal
Co
mm
un
itie
s
at le
vels
of
effe
ctiv
enes
s th
at
ove
r ti
me
are
virt
ual
ly
cert
ain
to
infl
uen
ce
teac
her
s to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a p
oin
t th
at
resu
lts
in s
tro
ng
53
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) p
rogr
ams
con
sist
ent
wit
h in
stru
ctio
nal
go
als.
c.
P
lan
s ac
tivi
ties
wit
h
volu
nte
ers
to
ad
van
ce
soci
al a
nd
aca
dem
ic
goal
s.
d.
Pla
ns
acti
viti
es t
o
enga
ge f
amili
es in
st
ud
ent
lear
nin
g.
e.
Dev
elo
ps
a p
lan
fo
r sc
ho
ol/
com
mu
nit
y re
lati
on
s th
at r
evo
lve
aro
un
d t
he
acad
emic
m
issi
on
. f.
Dis
cuss
es t
he
resu
lts
of
stu
den
t ac
hie
vem
ent
test
s w
ith
par
ents
. g.
C
om
mu
nic
ate
s go
als
nee
ds,
an
d
acco
mp
lish
men
ts w
ith
co
mm
un
ity
gro
up
s.
h.
Co
mm
un
icat
es
wit
h
par
ents
ab
ou
t th
e ed
uca
tio
nal
pro
gram
. i.
List
ens
to f
amili
es
rega
rdin
g th
e so
cial
an
d a
cad
emic
lear
nin
g o
f th
eir
child
ren
. j.
Dis
cuss
es in
form
atio
n
on
pro
gres
s to
war
d
c.
Pro
acti
vely
en
gage
s fa
mili
es a
nd
co
mm
un
itie
s in
su
pp
ort
ing
thei
r ch
ild’s
le
arn
ing
and
th
e sc
ho
ol
lear
nin
g go
als.
d
. D
emo
nst
rate
s an
u
nd
erst
and
ing
of
the
chan
ge p
roce
ss a
nd
u
ses
lead
ersh
ip a
nd
fa
cilit
atio
n s
kills
to
m
anag
e it
eff
ecti
vely
.
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
stu
den
ts.
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
som
e su
b-g
rou
ps
of
stu
den
ts, b
ut
no
t al
l.
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r al
l
stu
den
ts.
valu
e-a
dd
ed t
o
stu
den
t ac
hie
vem
ent
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
all s
tud
ents
.
54
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) ac
hie
vin
g sc
ho
ol g
oal
s w
ith
fam
ilies
. k.
Li
sten
s to
fee
db
ack
fro
m t
he
com
mu
nit
y.
VI.
Per
form
ance
A
cco
un
tab
ility
Le
ader
ship
ho
lds
itse
lf a
nd
o
ther
s re
spo
nsi
ble
fo
r re
aliz
ing
hig
h s
tan
dar
ds
of
per
form
ance
fo
r st
ud
ent
acad
emic
an
d s
oci
al
lear
nin
g.
Ther
e is
ind
ivid
ual
an
d
colle
ctiv
e re
spo
nsi
bili
ty
amo
ng
the
pro
fess
ion
al
staf
f an
d s
tud
ents
: a.
A
rtic
ula
tes
pla
ns
iden
tify
ing
spec
ific
re
spo
nsi
bili
ties
fo
r fa
cult
y so
th
at
stu
den
ts a
chie
ve h
igh
st
and
ard
s.
b.
Pla
ns
dat
a co
llect
ion
to
ho
ld s
cho
ol l
ead
er
acco
un
tab
le f
or
stu
den
t ac
adem
ic a
nd
so
cial
lear
nin
g.
c.
Dev
elo
ps
a p
lan
fo
r in
div
idu
al a
nd
co
llect
ive
II. L
ead
ing
and
Man
agin
g Sy
ste
ms
Ch
ange
a.
D
evel
op
s, im
ple
men
ts,
and
mo
nit
ors
th
e o
utc
om
es o
f th
e sc
ho
ol
imp
rove
men
t p
lan
an
d
sch
oo
l wid
e st
ud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t d
ata
resu
lts
to im
pro
ve
stu
den
t ac
hie
vem
ent.
b.
Cre
ates
a s
afe,
cle
an
and
ord
erly
en
viro
nm
ent.
c.
Co
llab
ora
tes
wit
h s
taff
to
allo
cate
per
son
nel
, ti
me,
mat
eria
ls, a
nd
ad
ult
lear
nin
g re
sou
rces
ap
pro
pri
ate
ly t
o
ach
ieve
th
e sc
ho
ol
imp
rove
men
t p
lan
ta
rget
s.
d.
Em
plo
ys c
urr
ent
tech
no
logi
es.
A le
ader
at
the
bel
ow
bas
ic le
vel o
f p
rofi
cien
cy
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Pe
rfo
rman
ce
Acc
ou
nta
bili
ty a
t le
vels
of
eff
ecti
ven
ess
that
ove
r ti
me
are
un
likel
y to
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
stu
den
ts.
A le
ader
at
the
bas
ic
leve
l of
pro
fici
ency
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Pe
rfo
rman
ce
Acc
ou
nta
bili
ty a
t le
vels
of
eff
ecti
ven
ess
that
ove
r ti
me
are
like
ly t
o
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
som
e su
b-g
rou
ps
of
stu
den
ts, b
ut
no
t al
l.
A p
rofi
cien
t le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
egar
din
g
Pe
rfo
rman
ce
Acc
ou
nta
bili
ty a
t le
vels
of
eff
ecti
ven
ess
that
ove
r ti
me
are
like
ly t
o
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
acce
pta
ble
val
ue
-ad
ded
to s
tud
ent
ach
ieve
men
t
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r al
l
stu
den
ts.
A d
isti
ngu
ish
ed le
ader
exh
ibit
s le
ader
ship
beh
avio
rs r
ega
rdin
g
Pe
rfo
rman
ce
Acc
ou
nta
bili
ty a
t
leve
ls o
f e
ffec
tive
nes
s
that
ove
r ti
me
are
virt
ual
ly c
erta
in t
o
infl
uen
ce t
each
ers
to
bri
ng
the
sch
oo
l to
a
po
int
that
res
ult
s in
stro
ng
valu
e-a
dd
ed t
o
stu
den
t ac
hie
vem
ent
and
so
cial
lear
nin
g fo
r
all s
tud
ents
.
55
GSU
VA
L-ED
/ILL
INO
IS P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
STA
ND
AR
DS
FOR
SC
HO
OL
LEA
DER
S R
UB
RIC
VA
L-ED
Lea
der
ship
B
ehav
iors
Illin
ois
Per
form
ance
St
and
ard
s fo
r Sc
ho
ol
Lead
ers
Do
es
no
t m
eet
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Bel
ow
Bas
ic)
Bas
ic
Pro
fici
ent
Exce
eds
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
(Dis
tin
guis
hed
) ac
cou
nta
bili
ty a
mo
ng
facu
lty
for
stu
den
t le
arn
ing.
d
. P
lan
s d
ata
colle
ctio
n
to h
old
stu
den
ts
acco
un
tab
le f
or
acad
emic
an
d s
oci
al
lear
nin
g.
e.
An
alyz
es t
he
infl
uen
ce
of
stu
den
t ac
cou
nta
bili
ty o
n
ach
ievi
ng
hig
h
stan
dar
ds
of
acad
emic
le
arn
ing.
f.
Use
s d
ata
on
stu
den
t p
rogr
ess
to r
eco
gniz
e fa
cult
y.
g.
Use
s d
ata
to r
eco
gniz
e st
ud
ents
wh
o m
eet
ach
ieve
men
t go
als.
56
Illinois State Board of Education
February 2014
Joint Committee Guidebook
Implementing the Student Growth Component in Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems
57
Joint Committee Guidebook: Implementing the Student Growth Component in Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems
February 2014
Prepared by the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council
3698_02/14
58
Contents Page
About This Guidebook .....................................................................................................................1
Guidebook Audience .................................................................................................................1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2
Definitions of Assessment Types...............................................................................................2
Student Learning Objectives ......................................................................................................3
Illinois Administrative Code Part 50: Evaluation of Certified Employees Under Articles 24a and 34 of the School Code ........................................................................................................4
Using This Guidebook .....................................................................................................................6
About the Timeline for Student Growth Discussions and Decisions ........................................6
About the Framework for Timeline Implementation .................................................................6
Context for Guidance and Continuous Improvement ................................................................7
Framework for Timeline Implementation ......................................................................................10
Period 1: February–March 2014 ..............................................................................................10
Period 2: April–June 2014 .......................................................................................................12
Period 3: July–August 2014 .....................................................................................................18
Period 4: September–December 2014 .....................................................................................22
Period 5: January–June 2015 ...................................................................................................25
Period 6: July–August 2015 .....................................................................................................28
Period 7: September–December 2015 .....................................................................................31
Period 8: January–March 2016 ................................................................................................33
Period 9: April–June 2016 .......................................................................................................34
Period 10: July–August 2016; and Full Implementation of Student Growth Model: September 2016 ......................................................................................................................35
Appendix A. SLO Guidelines (ISBE will provide more information in spring 2014) Appendix B. State Model for Student Growth (ISBE will provide more information in spring 2014) Appendix C. Glossary of Terms (ISBE will provide more information in spring 2014)
59
About This Guidebook This guidebook gives in-depth guidance on the topic of including student growth in educator evaluations. In contrast to other guidance materials approved by the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC), the information is presented as a guidebook rather than a basic guidance document. Because of the complexity of including student growth in an evaluation system, this guidebook provides more specific information than is typical of a guidance document. However, it cannot provide all of the answers for all districts, and there is still much to be determined by Joint Committees.
PEAC has spent many months grappling with questions about student growth measures in educator evaluation and has prepared this guidebook for Joint Committees as a detailed starting point on this specific aspect of an evaluation system. Joint Committees that want guidance about overall evaluation system development and decision making should consult PEAC’s Guidance on District Decision Making (released February 2013) and available online at http://www.isbe.state.il.us/peac/pdf/guidance/13-3-dist-dec-making.pdf. It is outside the scope of this guidebook to provide support to Joint Committees on how to plan their overall work―including budgeting for the work, timing for the work, finding time for discussions, and establishing a foundation of common goals and values that will support the work through challenging decision making and implementation.
Joint Committees and districts should feel free to reject, modify, adapt, or use any of the guidance provided in this guidebook. All examples are intended as resources to stimulate discussion and are not intended as exemplars.
Guidebook Audience
The intended audience for this guidebook is the approximately 75 percent of Illinois school districts that will be fully implementing the student growth component in their educator evaluation systems in the 2016–17 school year.
School districts that are on a faster implementation timeline may find this guidebook of use as well, but they will need to adjust the suggested timelines.
60
Introduction In 2010, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA), which changed how teachers’ and principals’ performance is measured in the state. Research has shown that some current evaluation systems fall short by not accurately or objectively measuring how educators are doing, as well as not identifying their strengths and areas for growth. Moreover, most current evaluations do not formally connect student growth measures with educator performance. The new evaluation systems in Illinois school districts will combine multiple measures of student growth and professional practice. The new evaluation systems also will provide clear descriptions of professional excellence, so everyone understands what great teaching and school leadership mean. The evaluations will be based on standards of effective teaching, with evaluators trained and prequalified to conduct observations, collect evidence, and provide helpful feedback in a timely way. Hand-in-hand with the new evaluations, school systems will be expected to strengthen their professional development offerings so that educators get the support they need to help their students improve.
PERA requires, among other things, that upon the implementation date applicable to a school district or other covered entity, performance evaluations of the principals, assistant principals, and teachers of that school district or other covered entity must include data and indicators of student growth as a “significant factor.” Illinois Administrative Code Part 50 provides more details about the student growth components of the performance evaluation system, including a definition of significant factor and the types of assessments to be used.
Definitions of Assessment Types
Understanding the types of assessments is critical to including the student growth component in the evaluation system. As detailed on pages 4–5, Illinois Administrative Code Part 50 requires that “the performance evaluation plan shall identify at least two types of assessments for evaluating each category of teacher (e.g., career and technical education, grade 2) and one or more measurement models to be used to determine student growth that are specific to each assessment chosen. The assessments and measurement models identified shall align to the school’s and district’s school improvement goals.”
“The evaluation plan shall include the use of at least one Type I or Type II assessment and at least one Type III assessment.”
“The evaluation plan shall require that at least one Type III assessment be used for each category of teacher. If the Joint Committee determines that neither a Type I nor a Type II assessment can be identified, then the evaluation plan shall require that at least two Type III assessments be used.”
The Illinois Administrative Code Part 50 defines assessment as any instrument that measures a student’s acquisition of specific knowledge and skills. Assessments used in the evaluation of teachers, principals, and assistant principals are to be aligned to one or more instructional areas articulated in the Illinois Learning Standards (see 23 Ill. Adm. Code 1, Appendix D) or the Illinois Early Learning and Development Standards—Children Age 3 to Kindergarten Enrollment Age (see 23 Ill. Adm. Code 235, Appendix A), as applicable. For the purposes of Part 50, three types of assessments are defined (see Figure 1).
61
Figure 1. Assessment Types
Type I Assessment Definition: An assessment that (a) measures a certain group of students in the same
manner with the same potential assessment items, (b) is scored by a nondistrict entity, and (c) is widely administered beyond Illinois
Examples: Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) tests, Scantron Performance Series, ACT
Type II Assessment Definition: An assessment adopted or approved by the school district and used on a
districtwide basis (i.e., administered by all teachers in a given grade or subject area)
Examples: Collaboratively developed common assessments, curriculum tests, assessments designed by textbook publishers
Type III Assessment Definition: An assessment that is (a) rigorous, (b) aligned with the course’s curriculum,
and (c) determined by the evaluator and teacher to measure student learning
Examples: Teacher-selected assessments, teacher-created assessments, performance assessments
Student Learning Objectives
PEAC recommends that student learning objectives (SLOs) be used as a measurement model for Type III assessments. PEAC finds that SLOs are the best available option for encouraging teacher collaboration while measuring student growth through a reliable and fair process. The SLO process has the potential to improve educator practice in both assessment and instruction. Nationally, SLOs are used with assessments that Illinois defines as Type III assessments because SLOs are set for the classroom level and thus measured with a classroom-based assessment.
PEAC has included SLOs in the Model System for Teacher Evaluation as the measurement model for Type III assessments. PEAC has developed and released the following resources for SLOs, which can be found on the PEAC website (http://www.isbe.net/peac/):
Model Teacher Evaluation System—Measuring Student Growth Using Type III Assessments
Guidance on Student Learning Objectives for Type III Assessments Guidance on Student Learning Objectives in Teacher Evaluation: Fact Sheet
Joint Committees are not required to use SLOs to measure student growth for teacher evaluation, but they can choose to do so. The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) is working to create the SLO template and additional documents that can be used and modified by districts that choose to implement SLOs.
62
Illinois Administrative Code Part 50: Evaluation of Certified Employees Under Articles 24a and 34 of the School Code
Section 50.110 Student Growth Components (Retrieved from ftp://www.ilga.gov/JCAR/AdminCode/023/023000500B01100R.html)
Each school district, when applicable (see Section 50.20 of this Part), shall provide for the use in the performance evaluation plan of data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating teacher performance. (Section 24A-4(b) of the School Code) For the purpose of this Subpart B, “significant factor” shall represent at least 30 percent of the performance evaluation rating assigned, except as otherwise provided in subsection (a) of this Section. In situations in which a joint committee cannot reach agreement on one or more aspects of student growth within the timeline established under Section 24A-4(b) of the School Code, the school district shall adopt the State model plan contained in Subpart C of this Part with respect to those aspects of student growth upon which no agreement was reached.
a) Student growth shall represent at least 25 percent of a teacher’s performance evaluation rating in the first and second years of a school district’s implementation of a performance evaluation system under Section 50.20 of this Part (for example, 2012–13 and 2013–14 school years for a school district with a 2012–13 implementation date). Thereafter, student growth shall represent at least 30 percent of the rating assigned.
b) The performance evaluation plan shall identify at least two types of assessments for evaluating each category of teacher (e.g., career and technical education, grade 2) and one or more measurement models to be used to determine student growth that are specific to each assessment chosen. The assessments and measurement models identified shall align to the school’s and district’s school improvement goals.
1) The joint committee shall identify a measurement model for each type of assessment that employs multiple data points. The evaluation plan shall include the use of at least one Type I or Type II assessment and at least one Type III assessment. Assessments used for each data point in a measurement model may be different provided that they address the same instructional content.
Highlights About the Student Growth Component of Teacher Evaluation From the Illinois Administrative Code: By the third year of
implementation of the new evaluation system, student growth measure(s) shall represent at least 30 percent of the performance evaluation rating assigned to each teacher.
The performance evaluation plan shall identify at least two types of assessments for evaluating each category of teacher.
The evaluation plan shall include the use of at least one Type I or Type II assessment and at least one Type III assessment.
If the joint committee determines that neither a Type I nor a Type II assessment can be identified, then the evaluation plan shall require that at least two Type III assessments be used.
63
2) The joint committee shall identify the specific Type I or Type II assessment to be used for each category of teacher.
3) The evaluation plan shall require that at least one Type III assessment be used for each category of teacher. If the joint committee determines that neither a Type I nor a Type II assessment can be identified, then the evaluation plan shall require that at least two Type III assessments be used.
A) The plan shall state the general nature of any Type III assessment chosen (e.g., teacher-created assessments, assessments designed by textbook publishers, student work samples or portfolios, assessments of student performance, and assessments designed by staff who are subject or grade-level experts that are administered commonly across a given grade or subject area in a school) and describe the process and criteria the qualified evaluator and teacher will use to identify or develop the specific Type III assessment to be used.
B) A school district required to use two Type III assessments for any category of teachers may delay the use of the second Type III assessment until the second year of implementation.
4) The plan shall identify student growth expectations consistent with the assessments and measurement model to be used, as appropriate.
5) Each plan shall identify the uniform process (to occur at the midpoint of the evaluation cycle) by which the teacher will collect data specific to student learning. The data to be considered under this subsection (b)(5) shall not be the same data identified for use in the performance evaluation plan to rate the teacher’s performance.
A) The data the teacher collects shall not be used to determine the performance evaluation rating.
B) The teacher should use the data to assess his or her progress and adjust instruction, if necessary.
c) The joint committee shall consider how certain student characteristics (e.g., special education placement, English language learners, low-income populations) shall be used for each measurement model chosen to ensure that they best measure the impact that a teacher, school, and school district have on students’ academic achievement. [105 ILCS 5/24A-7]
d) If the rating scale to be used for student growth does not correspond to the performance evaluation ratings required under Section 24A-5(e) or 34-85c of the School Code, then the plan shall include a description of the four rating levels to be used and how these are aligned to the required performance evaluation ratings.
e) CPS may adopt, when applicable, one or more State assessments administered pursuant to Section 2-3.64 of the School Code as its sole measure of student growth for purposes of teacher evaluations. (Section 24A-7 of the School Code) In circumstances in which the school district determines that the State assessment is not appropriate for measuring student growth for one or more grade levels or categories of teachers, it shall identify other assessments to be used in the manner prescribed in this Section.
64
Using This Guidebook This section of the guidebook provides practical information for implementing the student growth component in educator evaluation systems. The information is presented in two parts:
Timeline for Student Growth Discussions and Decisions (see pages 8–9)
Framework for Timeline Implementation (see page 10)
About the Timeline for Student Growth Discussions and Decisions
This guidebook was built around the timeline shown in Figure 2 (on pages 8–9), which presents an overview of discussion topics and decisions that Joint Committees will need to address. The timeline is divided into five components: foundations, operating rules, training, data systems, and pilot testing. (Each component is explored in further detail in the Framework for Timeline Implementation, following the timeline.)
Because this guidebook focuses on the student growth aspect of educator evaluation systems, the timeline is focused on that aspect alone. Of course, there are many other discussions and decisions that Joint Committees need time to address, including evaluating teacher professional practice and implementing new standards. (For more information, see PEAC’s Guidance on District Decision Making at http://www.isbe.state.il.us/peac/pdf/guidance/13-3-dist-dec-making.pdf.)
When Joint Committees are unable to come to agreement about decisions related to including student growth in teacher evaluation, the district will default to the State Model in the areas about which the Joint Committee cannot agree. PEAC strongly encourages Joint Committees to make decisions collaboratively, rather than defaulting to the State Model, because collaboratively made decisions reflect the district context and are more sustainable.
About the Framework for Timeline Implementation
The Framework for Timeline Implementation, which appears directly after the Figure 2 timeline, provides specific details relating to the timeline. As with the timeline, this framework is divided into five components: foundations, operating rules, training, data systems, and pilot testing. Each of these components is broken down into elements, considerations (including questions to consider), and resources―if applicable.
Each elements section indicates the applicable types of student assessments. (Refer to Figure 1 on page 3 for descriptions and examples of each type.) Because these three types of student assessments may require different considerations by Joint Committees, the framework provides icons identifying the assessment type (I, II, or III). In some cases, the subtopics apply to more than one assessment type, in which case all applicable numbers are displayed.
For example, a reader might see icons that indicate appropriate individual assessments:
65
Or icons that indicate a combination of appropriate assessments:
The Framework for Timeline Implementation covers all of the key content and decisions needed and also plots them on a suggested timeline. The tables provided on pages 10–35 expand nearly all of these elements; however, as a district gets closer to full implementation in September 2016, the decisions and actions are about implementation―and these decisions and actions will be different for every district. After the pilot-testing phase has concluded, the remaining big step is to fully implement the student growth model. At this stage, there are relatively few overall guiding questions to consider or resources to provide because the task is simply about implementing a refined system.
Context for Guidance and Continuous Improvement
The Framework for Timeline Implementation provides guidance on when Joint Committees might convene and what they might address and decide. It uses September 2016 as a key target date because the majority of Illinois school districts will first be fully implementing the student growth component of the evaluation system in the 2016–17 school year.
Joint Committees can use this framework and build around it all of the other meetings, decisions, and discussion topics they need to address in creating or revising an educator evaluation system in their districts. Regardless of when the Joint Committee meetings take place and the overall timeline, it is strongly recommended that ongoing collaboration take place while working through the topics identified in this guidebook.
It is worth noting that all of the elements and decisions in this framework should happen within a context of continuous improvement. For presentation purposes, the elements and decisions presented here are shown as progressing in a linear fashion, but Joint Committees should expect and plan to revisit and refine decisions and measures throughout the process. This work also is intertwined with the overall teacher evaluation system and the implementation of new standards. Therefore, decisions should be considered across these larger initiatives.
As Joint Committees work through this guidebook, they might find it helpful to divide the topics among smaller groups or subcommittees. There are many considerations related to student growth, and this process will take significant time and energy.
Note: This guidebook goes into more depth than other PEAC guidance documents. The information may seem overwhelming; however, PEAC notes that it is critical to present all of the components, elements, and decisions necessary for including student growth in evaluation systems and implementing that component with fidelity.
66
Figure 2. Timeline for Student Growth Discussions and Decisions
67
Figure 2. Timeline for Student Growth Discussions and Decisions (continued)
68
Framework for Timeline Implementation
Period 1: February–March 2014
Table 1.1. Foundations
Element Considerations Resources Execute inventory of Joint Committee knowledge and needs.
Assessment types:
The Joint Committee members should conduct a self-assessment of their knowledge about student growth to identify what additional resources they need. The Joint Committee also should clarify its core values related to adding student growth to teacher evaluation.
Questions to consider: Do the members of the Joint Committee have the
expertise necessary to make informed decisions? (See Table 1.2. Training on page 11.)
Can other district staff serve as resources to the Joint Committee?
Is external support or expertise needed?
Execute inventory of teacher types and assessments.
Assessment types:
It is important that each Joint Committee identify all teachers in its district who need to be evaluated and what courses they teach. Then, the Joint Committee should determine what assessments are used in those courses. The next step in the inventory is to determine if the assessments are aligned to the Illinois Learning Standards and the Common Core State Standards. Finally, the Joint Committee should determine whether these assessments are appropriate for measuring student growth for each grade and subject in which they are offered. The inventory should categorize Type I, Type II, and Type III assessments. Assessments used to measure student growth for teacher evaluation should be integrated into the instructional process.
Questions to consider: Are the assessments currently in use in your
district aligned to standards and course content? Have these assessments been reviewed for quality
for all grades and subjects in which they are used? Can assessments that do not meet the standard be
revised to improve their quality or alignment, or can they be replaced?
What, if any, additional information does the Joint Committee need to gather on selected assessments?
(ISBE will provide guidance and resources for assessment viability in spring 2014.)
69
Table 1.2. Training
Element Considerations Resources Identify Joint Committee training needs.
Assessment types:
The Joint Committee should identify training needs.
Questions to consider: What training does the Joint Committee need on
assessments and assessment types? What training does the Joint Committee need on
assessment literacy? What training does the Joint Committee need about
measurement models?
Table 1.3. Data Systems
Element Considerations Resources Develop an inventory of needs for the current data system(s).
Assessment types:
The Joint Committee should consider if teacher evaluation data on student growth can and should be housed in the district’s existing data system. Teacher evaluation system will generate at least three types of data: Observation evidence Data on student growth Links between students and their teacher(s) of record
Test items from both Type II and III assessments also might be collected with the goal of analyzing item quality, keeping the good questions, and discarding or improving the bad questions.
Questions to consider: Can the existing data systems meet student growth
data needs? If more functionality is needed, can the district add
that functionality?
70
Period 2: April–June 2014
Table 2.1. Foundations
Element Considerations Resources Decide to develop, acquire, or purchase assessments for each category of teachers.
Assessment types:
After the district has conducted an assessment inventory and determined the subjects and grades in which assessments may be needed, the district will need to determine how to obtain these assessments. The best and most realistic options include developing new assessments or acquiring assessments that other districts already may have designed or used. Local regional offices of education (ROEs) may play a useful role in connecting local districts with each other to share quality assessments. Different approaches may be needed for assessments in different areas. A last option to be considered only if the first two have been exhausted would be to purchase commercially available assessments.
In its discussions about selecting appropriate assessments, the Joint Committee might think about the following questions.
If the Joint Committee has decided to purchase assessments, these questions also should be considered.
As the Joint Committee members make these decisions about new assessments, they also should think about which assessments are no longer needed and discuss how to phase them out or eliminate them altogether.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Technical Guide B: Measuring Student Growth and Piloting District-Determined Measures: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/TechnicalGuideB.pdf
An assessment inventory of the state of Massachusetts: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/
Ohio Department of Education Student Growth Measures for Teachers: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System/Student-Growth-Measures
New York State Education Department list of state-approved assessments: http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/teachers-leaders/assessments/assess_sd_boces.html (ISBE will insert Illinois Shared Learning Environment link.)
Developing and Acquiring: Selecting Appropriate Assessments
Does the assessment match the content that the teacher(s) intend to teach?
Do a majority of the items on the assessment align with the curriculum standards identified?
Does the assessment measure growth over the interval of instruction? How?
Will the data from the assessment be beneficial to teachers? Students? The district? How?
Are the assessments administered in the same way (allowing for accommodations for special education students)?
Are the assessments scored the same way?
Adapted from Technical Guide B: Measuring Student Growth and Piloting District-Determined Measures (2013) by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/TechnicalGuideB.pdf.
71
Element Considerations Resources
More questions to consider: Who has the necessary content and technical
expertise to develop or evaluate assessments that the district may choose?
Are the chosen assessments valid and reliable? How do you know?
If unable to develop or acquire assessments and purchasing is the last best option, does the timeline fit your current budget cycle?
Which assessments are no longer necessary and can be eliminated?
72
Element Considerations Resources Decide SLO process and template.
Assessment types:
Many decisions will need to be made about the process of implementing SLOs. For example, depending on the interval of instruction, the SLO approval process could be once a year or could be an ongoing process throughout the year. But all of these decisions are dependent on what is included on the SLO template.
ISBE has a SLO template that can be used with any assessment. However, some Joint Committees may want to include additional components or exclude other components in order to meet district needs. The rules surrounding the SLO template should be created so there are no misunderstandings about what is included in each of the template components. Many districts publish a guidebook or manual explaining each component step-by-step.
Questions to consider: Will the district use the state-approved SLO template
or adapt it to meet local requirements? Will the district use the same SLO template for all
teachers, or does the template need to be adapted for different teachers?
What are the operational rules for each of the SLO template components?
How many SLOs will be required? Is there a minimum number of students that must be
included in the SLO? How will student growth be measured over the
two-year cycle of tenured teachers who score proficient or excellent on their previous evaluation?
Will teachers be able to choose their student population, or will there be requirements about which students are included?
How will SLOs be scored? How will the SLOs be tracked and managed? Will teachers be able to make midyear adjustments
to their SLOs?
(PEAC SLO guidance document will be provided by ISBE in spring 2014.)
(More information about the ISBE balanced assessment and SLO process will be made available by ISBE in spring 2014.)
Rhode Island Department of Education guidebooks on SLOs: http://www.ride.ri.gov/TeachersAdministrators/EducatorEvaluation/GuidebooksForms.aspx
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction toolkit on SLOs: http://www.livebinders.com/play/play?id=950308&backurl=/shelf/my#anchor (On the Welcome page, click on Module 1: SLO Process Overview. )
73
Table 2.2. Operating Rules
Element Considerations Resources Develop teaching assignment rules.
Assessment types:
Some teachers have multiple teaching assignments, which could include a mixture of core courses and noncore courses. Joint Committees will need to determine rules that explain how teachers are to determine which measures or assessment types apply to them individually. Joint Committees also should refer to the Administrative Code Part 50 (pages 4–5) regarding assessment type selection.
Questions to consider: What are the general guidelines around which
courses teachers should use to measure student growth? Will teachers be required to measure student growth in all subjects/courses they teach or just a select number? (Consider how the question will be answered at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.)
Who makes the final decision about the measures and assessments for a teacher with multiple assignments?
How will roster verification be done to ensure that student scores are connected with the correct teacher(s)?
74
Table 2.3. Data Systems (April–August 2014)
Element Considerations Resources Consider data system options.
Assessment types:
Joint Committees have many options when it comes to data systems. Data systems can be locally developed and maintained without the use of commercially available products or vendors; districts with more complex data needs may need to rely on a vendor.
Consider that a data system for student growth will need to collect student assessment scores, match scores to students, match students to teachers, collect test items from Type II and III assessments, and possibly calculate final scores at the end of the year, especially for Type I and Type II assessments. If there will be a separate system for the other components of the teacher evaluation system, it is important to understand how the information will be combined to calculate a final summative rating.
Districts that can manage and house a local data system (e.g. Microsoft Excel) should understand the parameters of the data system. For example, depending on the measurement model (see Table 3.1. Foundations on page 18) that is selected, it may be necessary to be able to store assessment data over time or to be able to link students with multiple teachers. Teachers also will need to know how to use the system so they are able to enter and pull data into the system. If it is an option to utilize a data system already in use, the district should check that the current system does not need any upgrades to allow for all the functionalities that will be required and the data that will need to be collected.
However, for districts that require a system to house extensive amounts of data or need to build data relationships, Joint Committees should spend some time researching and inviting vendors to share their product in person. It also could be helpful to pair up with other nearby districts or the local ROE to build understanding and knowledge of what is available; such a collaboration could identify systems to implement or be a significant cost savings if a vendor is even an option.
(ISBE will provide resources in spring 2014.)
75
Element Considerations Resources
Questions to consider without the use of a vendor: Can existing data systems meet the need? Can our data system store results over time? Does our data system provide information in an
easily understood format? Do teachers have the skills needed to use the data
system? If not, how will we provide training to them?
What is the funding source for the data system? Is a procurement process necessary? How are teacher and student data stored? Where are student and teacher data stored? What security measures are in place? What security audits occur and at what intervals? What are the encryption levels? What protections are in place against data breaches? What are the consequences and actions in the event
of data breaches? What level of transparency exists around reporting of
data breaches?
76
Period 3: July–August 2014
Table 3.1. Foundations
Element Considerations Resources Execute develop, acquire, or purchase assessments.
Assessment types:
With a large range of assessment types, it is important to understand the type of assessment that best suits what is being measured. For example, if a district would like to develop an assessment for physical education, it would be helpful to design an assessment that includes ways for students to demonstrate their level of fitness. Although a paper-and-pencil test could be used, a performance-based assessment would provide more information to the teacher about students’ fitness levels.
It could be helpful to devise a plan to review the validity and reliability of an assessment. The district may consider convening a group of practitioners to develop the assessments, utilizing their content and pedagogical expertise. The district also could collaborate with neighboring districts, perhaps through their ROE, to build any necessary assessments. It also is possible that practitioners are already using assessments that could be revised and implemented. (ISBE will insert information about Illinois Shared Learning Environment/ThinkGate, when it is available.)
As districts connect with each other and share assessments, there may be assessment acquiring (or borrowing). An efficient way to make sure that assessments are established is to utilize assessments that are already in use, either in part or in whole. Some assessments might be too long or contain content that is outside of the standards being assessed. Joint Committees can use the “develop, acquire, or purchase” criteria (see Table 2.1. Foundations on page 12) to pick and choose what is aligned, valid, and beneficial.
For districts that opt to purchase assessments, a good place to start is consulting with ISBE, the local ROE, or other districts to find out what is being used across the state. There may be opportunities for bundle pricing or utilization of available technology grants to assist with the cost. If a bidding process will be necessary, start early enough to ensure that a product is purchased, tested, and ready to use during the pilot.
Questions to consider: Who will manage the process of developing, acquiring
or purchasing assessments? In addition to communication about this decision, what
other ways could the Joint Committee engage
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Technical Guide B: Measuring Student Growth and Piloting District-Determined Measures: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/TechnicalGuideB.pdf
An assessment inventory of the state of Massachusetts: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction resources on building assessments: http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/introduction
(ISBE will provide resources for using SLO in spring 2014 upon completion of the Local Assessment Support [LAS] project.)
(Guidance for early childhood, ELL, and special education teachers is forthcoming from ISBE.)
77
Element Considerations Resources stakeholders in this work?
How will the Joint Committee gather information and feedback on these decisions from teachers?
Decide assessment review criteria (for developed or acquired assessments).
Assessment types:
Reviewing assessments that have been developed or acquired will provide confidence that the assessments are of high technical quality and will yield beneficial data.
Joint Committees should consider consulting with a vendor or assessment expert to collaboratively develop an assessment quality checklist. As the assessments are being piloted, districts can begin to review the quality of the assessments. Gathering feedback from users—both students and teachers—also would be helpful to assess the benefit of the assessment.
Questions to consider: How do you build a school culture of using
assessments for learning about student progress to improve instruction?
How can you support assessment literacy among educators in your district?
Who will be part of the assessment review team? Are there other characteristics that should be included
in the criteria? How will teachers be involved?
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Technical Guide A: Considerations Regarding District-Determined Measures: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/TechnicalGuide.pdf (In this guide, view Appendix A: Assessment Quality Checklist and Tracking Tool.)
Rhode Island Department of Education online training on assessment literacy: http://www.ride.ri.gov/TeachersAdministrators/EducatorEvaluation/OnlineModules.aspx
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education Criteria for High-Quality Assessment: http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/criteria-higher-quality-assessment_0.pdf
78
Element Considerations Resources Decide measurement model.
Assessment types:
After assessments are selected, the next step is to determine how to use those assessments to measure student growth. A number of different approaches to measuring growth are available. There are strengths and weaknesses to all approaches, including a cost for implementing complex statistical models. To determine an appropriate approach, districts may need more discussion and possibly training on the benefits and drawbacks of each model, so that Joint Committees can make an informed decision.
Questions to consider: What types of data will the assessment produce? For
example, assessments scored using a rubric with only a few performance levels may necessitate the use of a value-table type of approach where change in performance levels is evaluated.
Does the district require setting student growth targets/expectations up front? If so, an SLO or value-table type of approach may be most appropriate. If not, a district may wish to consider measuring student growth through a simple growth approach or an adjusted growth approach, in which student starting performance is taken into consideration.
What technical capacity and data structures are in place in the district to measure growth? What financial resources are available, if any, to access expertise in measuring student growth?
Center for Educator Compensation Reform Understanding the Basics of Measuring Student Achievement: http://cecr.ed.gov/pdfs/Understanding_Basics.pdf
Center on Great Teachers and Leaders webinar on State Approaches to Measuring Student Growth for the Purpose of Teacher Evaluation: http://www.gtlcenter.org/products-resources/state-approaches-measuring-student-growth-purpose-teacher-evaluation
Approve SLO template and process.
Assessment type:
After stakeholder engagement occurs and input is received, Joint Committees are ready to approve the revised SLO template(s) and process.
Question to consider: Do the drafted operating rules align with the template
and process? (See Table 2.2. Operating Rules, on page 15.)
PEAC SLO guidance document: (ISBE will insert link.)
More information about ISBE’s balanced assessment and SLO process: (ISBE will insert link.)
79
Table 3.2. Training
Element Considerations Resources Develop materials, and deliver assessment development training.
Assessment types:
If districts are building assessments, teams of developers will need to be identified and trained. The main focus of the training materials should be on building assessment literacy. Background information on the types of assessment, growth models being used, and the SLO process also can be included; however, the majority of the content should be focused on building participant knowledge of assessments that measure growth and determining the appropriate assessment type that will allow students to demonstrate mastery in the most appropriate way.
Questions to consider: What in-house expertise does the district have? What
expertise needs to be procured? When does training on developing assessments need
to occur to ensure that assessments are developed in time to check their quality and use them for measuring student growth?
Massachusetts Department of Education Assessment Literacy Webinar series: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/webinar.html
Colorado Department of Education training resources on assessment development: http://www.cde.state.co.us/educatoreffectiveness/studentgrowthguide
80
Period 4: September–December 2014
Table 4.1. Foundations
Element Considerations Resources Execute quality review of assessments (for developed or acquired assessments only).
Assessment types:
The same considerations and questions from the “Decide assessment review criteria” element (from Table 3.1. Foundations; see page 19) apply here. In this phase, Joint Committees would move forward with their decisions and implement those decisions and next steps.
Table 4.2. Operating Rules
Element Considerations Resources Develop SLO process rules.
Assessment type:
After the SLO process is selected and approved, the Joint Committee will need to develop rules associated with the process. A Joint Committee can consider several rules, such as the timeline for the process; the frequency of SLOs; and who will participate in the review, scoring, and approval process.
Question to consider:
Will teachers be required to write one SLO that focuses on one course?
Rhode Island Department of Education SLO documents: http://www.ride.ri.gov/TeachersAdministrators/EducatorEvaluation/StudentLearningOutcomeObjectives.aspx
New York State Education Department SLO documents: http://www.engageny.org/resource/student-learning-objectives
81
Table 4.3. Training
Element Considerations Resources Provide a training delivery plan for student growth implement-tation.
Assessment types:
Many levels of training can be considered. The training delivery plan can be made before the official decisions about models and assessments are finalized. An initial training that grounds the work and builds a basic understanding is a good place to start. Developing a plan will increase the quality of the training and ensure that stakeholders have been included. After identifying who needs training and on what specific topics, districts and Joint Committees should collaborate on the design of a training plan with stakeholders, soliciting their needs and wants. A training plan can include the following: Goals and purpose of training Target audience information and needs Content: purpose, type, development of assessments,
using assessment data for SLOs, growth model, SLOs Training format: online, in-person, blended Frequency of training Logistics
After initial training, Joint Committees will need to think about how to embed the student growth processes into professional learning opportunities of all kinds. For example, using assessment data throughout the year is a great topic for professional learning communities, collegial conversations, and lesson planning. Making the connections to everyday classroom practice will increase buy-in and support districtwide coherence.
Questions to consider: What training do teachers need? Do teachers in different roles need different levels of
training or training on different topics? What training do evaluators need? Does training need to occur over multiple sessions or
over the school year? Will training on student growth be included in the
overall teacher evaluation system training, or will it be a separate training?
Will training be timed with assessment/SLO milestones and access to data?
How can you engage with stakeholders to make connections and embed these practices into their work?
Do other nearby districts or ROEs have resources or training materials to share?
How do we make connections to the students?
New York State Education Department webinar videos: http://www.engageny.org/resource/student-learning-objectives
Sullivan County (New York) Board of Cooperative Educational Services training on data-driven instruction: http://scboces.org/Page/666
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction online training: http://www.livebinders.com/play/play?id=950308&backurl=/shelf/my%20-%20anchor
Rhode Island Department of Education online training: http://www.ride.ri.gov/TeachersAdministrators/EducatorEvaluation/OnlineModules.aspx
82
Table 4.4. Data Systems
Element Considerations Resources OPTIONAL: Procure data system (necessary only if the district has decided to purchase a new system, which is not required).
Assessment types:
After deciding to purchase a data system (necessary only if the district has decided to purchase a new system, which is not required), Joint Committees and districts should plan out the procurement process by developing the requirements and timeline from start to finish. It is also recommended that districts identify the procurement review team members and calibrate their scoring process.
Questions to consider: Does the Joint Committee want to consider
developing or procuring a data system that can meet all of the educator evaluation needs, including student growth measures and professional practice measures?
Does the procurement timeline match the district budget cycle?
Who else needs to approve this process, and how long does that approval take?
Table 4.5. Pilot Testing (September 2014–August 2015)
Element Considerations Resources Conduct prepilot item testing.
Assessment types:
From assessments that are available in September 2014, conduct a no-stakes pilot of items to check their usefulness and reliability.
Questions to consider: What aspects of the system will the district pilot? Which schools and teachers will participate in the
pilot? What training is needed for teachers and evaluators
participating in the pilot? What data will the Joint Committee collect from the
pilot? How will the Joint Committee use the information
from the pilot to inform the teacher evaluation system?
83
Period 5: January–June 2015
Table 5.1. Foundations
Element Considerations Resources Decide goals and participants of pilot (pilot parameters).
Assessment types:
It is strongly recommended that a pilot be conducted prior to full implementation. The goals of the pilot need to be identified; they should align with the larger teacher evaluation system goals and be grounded in a continuous improvement cycle. The participants for the pilot should be a range of teacher types and could include all the teachers in the district, but these participants certainly should include a sample of the largest groups of teachers in the district. However, the groups of teachers not in the pilot still should be working to develop and test the appropriate assessments for the full implementation.
Determining what is to be learned from the pilot will guide the development of the parameters. It is important to align this topic with the operational rules that will accompany the parameters.
Questions to consider: How do you engage all stakeholders, even if they are
not selected to participate in the pilot? Will the pilot testing test only the student growth
component of the performance evaluation plan? Or will it also test other components, such as the practice rubrics?
Would there be additional costs to running a pilot? If so, how the pilot be funded?
Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction educator evaluation pilot plan overview: http://tpep-wa.org/about-tpep/
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education district-determined measures pilot plan: http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=7640
Approve pilot training plan.
Assessment types:
For any pilot, the district and Joint Committee will need to develop training for all participants (see Table 3.2. Training on page 21). Training might include information on measures and data collection processes, for example. The plan should outline the training, identify the outcomes for the training, and provide participants with clear information about the pilot. The plan also should provide a timeline, list the participants, explain how communication with the participants will take place, and include the overall outcomes for the training.
Questions to consider: Who will provide training? What is the backup plan for participants who do not
attend the training? Will the training materials be available publicly?
84
Table 5.2. Operating Rules
Element Considerations Resources Develop rules for student attribution.
Assessment types:
No matter which approach is taken to measuring student growth, a number of decisions must be made about which students count for which teachers under what conditions. When it comes to student attribution, several things must be considered: Student absence Student mobility Teacher absence Teacher mobility Minimum number of students Coteaching Involvement of a student teacher Teachers who share students One example might include using student growth data only from those students who are present for at least the district average attendance rate or some standardized percentage of time, such as 90 percent.
Questions to consider: Are students required to be present a certain number
of days or a percentage of the time for their scores to be included in a teacher’s student growth score?
If chronically absent students are excluded from a teacher’s student growth score, how will the teacher be held accountable for them?
How will pretest scores follow students who move between schools in the district? When do transferring students from other districts need to be in the district for their scores to be included in a teacher’s student growth score?
What happens if a teacher goes on a leave of absence or is hired late in the school year?
What happens if a teacher transfers between schools within a year? How does that affect the teacher’s evaluation? Can the new school use information from the initial school?
Is there a minimum number of students that must be met for a certain type of student growth measure to be used?
What happens in situations where students have more than one teacher or teachers coteach a class?
For shared attribution, does each student contribute to every teacher equally?
What technology is needed to support teacher-student linkage?
American Institutes for Research Determining Attribution: Holding Teachers Accountable for Student Growth: http://www.air.org/files/Determining_Attribution.pdf
85
Element Considerations Resources What happens when a teacher has a student teacher
in his or her classroom for a portion of the year?
Table 5.3. Training
Element Considerations Resources Develop pilot training materials.
Assessment types:
Materials for the training sessions will need to be developed and reviewed. Joint Committees should use the training plan to confirm complete and thorough materials. The overall content of the training should include assessment types, scoring, measurement models, operating rules, and training on the data system that will be used to collect and store the data. Prior to implementation, a group of reviewers can be identified to provide critical feedback on the quality and usefulness of the training.
Question to consider: How will the pilot materials be different from the
full-scale implementation materials?
Table 5.4. Data Systems
Element Considerations Resources Install, test, and customize data system.
Assessment types:
The data collection and storage system has been identified and acquired and now needs to be installed and tested. A small group of system testers can try out the system and provide feedback on the functionalities and user friendliness of the system. During testing, the Joint Committee should monitor the issues and gather feedback to inform the customization process.
This data system testing can be part of the overall pilot plan and can be pilot-tested to determine how well the data collection process works. The Joint Committee should ensure that the system is tested in a variety of situations and types of classrooms.
Question to consider: How does the system integrate with the other data
systems in the district?
86
Period 6: July–August 2015
Table 6.1. Foundations
Element Considerations Resources Decide data collection requirements.
Assessment types:
Data used for teacher evaluation purposes should be collected and stored in a manageable system. For some districts, this approach may mean a data warehouse or data system; for other districts, this approach may mean simpler methods for collecting data and generating reports.
Before deciding on a data system, the Joint Committee should create a list of requirements for how the district will use data and what must be stored.
Questions to consider: What data do the district and schools need to carry
out evaluations? How will these data be stored? What parts of data collection will be electronic? What
parts will be hard copies? How will these data, or this data system, be
integrated with other data systems in the district?
Decide SLO scoring process.
Assessment type:
Scoring SLOs can be done in different ways. Scoring methods are usually established at the local level and are combined with the practice ratings for a summative rating of excellent, proficient, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory. If the rating scale to be used for student growth does not correspond to the performance evaluation ratings required under Section 24A-5(e) or 34-85c of the School Code, the plan must include a description of the four rating levels to be used and how they are aligned to the required performance evaluation ratings. Joint Committees need to determine the ways in which an SLO will be scored and how that corresponds to the four rating levels for teaching practice.
Questions to consider: How many levels of performance should be
included? Who will complete the scoring process? How much structure versus flexibility does the Joint
Committee want with the scoring process? What are the pros and cons of a more flexible or more structured scoring process?
Rhode Island Department of Education Teacher Evaluation & Support System: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Teachers-and-Administrators-Excellent-Educators/Educator-Evaluation/Education-Eval-Main-Page/Teacher-Model-GB-Edition-II-FINAL.pdf (View page 43 of the report for guidance on scoring SLOs.)
Rhode Island Scoring SLOs: Guidance for the Evaluator: http://providenceschools.org/media/237690/slo%20scoring%20guidance%20for%20evaluators%20(teacher%20and%20administrator%20evaluation).pdf
Ohio Department of Education A Guide to Using SLOs as a Locally-
87
Element Considerations Resources Determined Measure of Student Growth: http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Academic-Content-Standards/New-Learning-Standards/Student-Learning-Objective-Examples/041113-Guidance-on-Scoring-SLOs.pdf.aspx
New York State Education Department Guidance on the New York State District-Wide Growth Goal-Setting Process for Teachers: Student Learning Objectives: http://www.engageny.org/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/slo-guidance.pdf
Approve SLO training plan for scoring.
Assessment type:
Consistent scoring is crucial to a fair and credible system that provides useful evaluation results. The training plan for SLO scoring will drive the level of accuracy and consistency that is needed for teachers to feel confident in their student growth scores. Districts should consider how much training and retraining may be needed in order to ensure consistent scoring. They also should determine how formalized the training will be.
Questions to consider: What format makes the most sense for this training? Does there need to be a certification associated with
being a scorer? If so, how will scorers be recertified? How will the calibration of scores across scorers be
measured? How much structure versus flexibility does the Joint
Committee want in the scoring process?
Reform Support Network A Quality Control Toolkit for Student Learning Objectives (guidance on training at the district level): http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/slo-toolkit.pdf
88
Table 6.2. Training
Element Considerations Resources Conduct pilot training.
Assessment types:
Pilot participants should be trained on the student growth system.
Questions to consider: Besides pilot participants, who else should be
included in the training? Who is responsible for logistics?
Table 6.3. Data Systems
Element Considerations Resources Recommend pilot data-collection requirements.
Assessment types:
In order to test the data system during the pilot, it will be important to identify the pilot participants’ data collection requirements, which will need to be incorporated into the necessary training.
Questions to consider: Will the pilot test all functionalities in the system? If not, how will all system functionalities be tested?
89
Period 7: September–December 2015
Table 7.1. Training
Element Considerations Resources Develop training materials for SLO scoring.
Assessment type:
Practitioners who will be SLO scorers will need to receive adequate training on how to review and evaluate the SLOs at the end of the evaluation cycle.
Questions to consider: Who is eligible to evaluate SLOs? What is the process to select SLO scorers?
New York State Education Department guidance on scoring SLOs: http://www.engageny.org/resource/student-learning-objectives
Ohio Department of Education online module on SLO scoring calibration: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System/Student-Growth-Measures/Student-Learning-Objective-Examples
Table 7.2. Data Systems (September 2015–June 2016)
Element Considerations Resources Collect pilot data, identify glitches, and implement solutions.
Assessment types:
During the pilot, participants will add information to the data system to test its functionality and run test reports. As issues arise during the pilot, districts will log and troubleshoot solutions. As issues are identified, districts will create a monitoring system to track problems and solutions.
Questions to consider: What reports need to be run through the system?
90
Table 7.3. Pilot Testing (September 2015–June 2016)
Element Considerations Resources Conduct formal pilot of growth measures.
Assessment types:
Districts will implement a full pilot (no stakes), utilizing the assessments determined by the Joint Committee for use in the evaluation system. During the pilot, the districts will collect feedback on the assessments, training, operational rules, and stakeholder engagement. Then, districts will use the results from the feedback to make adjustments prior to full implementation in September 2016.
Questions to consider: What data will the district collect from the pilot? How will the Joint Committee use the
information from the pilot to inform the teacher evaluation system?
Who will manage the pilot?
91
Period 8: January–March 2016
Table 8.1. Training
Element Considerations Resources Train SLO scorers.
Assessment type:
Timing the SLO scoring training will be important. The scorers will need basic information on the SLO process before learning about the scoring process. A training session in the late fall or winter would provide that opportunity.
Questions to consider: • How can this training build upon and avoid
redundancy with other trainings attended by SLO scorers?
• Will the district review a sample of SLO scores to check for consistency?
92
Period 9: April–June 2016
Table 9.1. Foundations
Element Considerations Resources Decide and approve refinements.
Assessment types:
After the pilot, districts and Joint Committees will need to determine the changes that need to be made to the assessments, measurement model, or overall student growth approach. The decisions should be rooted in evidence from the pilot through input from stakeholders and through systems analysis. Adjustments to the operational rules, training materials, communication, and overall implementation should be considered and discussed.
Questions to consider: What did we learn from the pilot? What went well?
What can we do better? What changes are necessary? What training is necessary? What do we need to communicate before full
implementation?
Table 9.2. Operating Rules
Element Considerations Resources Refine operating rules.
Assessment types:
As decisions are made to adjust and modify the rules around student growth, a checklist or tracking mechanism to implement the changes should be created and maintained. This approach will keep the changes on track, identify what was learned and how it is being reworked, and demonstrate transparency to all stakeholders.
Question to consider: Who will be responsible for monitoring progress of
the changes?
93
Table 9.3. Training
Element Considerations Resources Revise training materials.
Assessment types:
Districts will review feedback from all training sessions and determine the appropriate revisions. During this process, districts should keep two things in mind: The audience will expand, and the stakes will increase after the pilot. As feedback from the pilot is collected, districts should consider including questions about the training so the revisions are on target with participants’ needs.
Questions to consider: Will training on student growth be included in the
overall teacher evaluation system training or in a separate training?
Will larger sessions negatively impact the content or format of the training?
Period 10: July–August 2016; and Full Implementation of Student Growth Model: September 2016
After the pilot-testing phase has concluded, the Joint Committee must plan to fully implement the student growth model.
Before implementation, the Joint Committee also should consider how it will gather data on implementation with the following goals:
To ensure that the system is being implemented with fidelity.
To ensure that the system is providing useful information to teachers and evaluators.
To consider necessary revisions to the system.
To identify additional training and resource needs. As previously noted, there are relatively few overall guiding questions to consider or resources to provide for these last two stages because the task is simply about implementing a refined system. As a district gets closer to full implementation in September 2016, the decisions and actions will be about implementation―and these decisions and actions will be different for every district.
94
February 2013
Guidance Document
Guidance on Measuring Student Growth for First-Year Principals in
Principal Evaluation Systems
95
Guidance on Measuring Student Growth for First-Year Principals in Principal Evaluation Systems
Subject
Approaches to measuring student growth for first-year principals in Illinois school districts
Type of Guidance
Sec. 24A-15(c)(3) of the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) requires districts to develop an evaluation plan for principals and assistant principals by September 1, 2012, that includes measures of student growth as a significant factor in rating performance. The plan must be based on an evaluation cycle that ends on March 1 each year (Sec. 24A-15[a][1]–[2]) and must identify assessments and measurement models that satisfy the definitions and rules articulated in the Administrative Code (Title 23, Part 50, Subparts A and C).
Specifically, the Administrative Code requires that at least 25 percent of principal and assistant principal evaluations be composed of student growth measures based on academic assessments in 2012–13 and 2013–14, and at least 30 percent in 2014–15 and beyond. Information about assessments, data, growth targets, and weights that will be used in assessing student growth for the principal must be made available to the principal by October 1. The State Model for Principal Evaluation provides recommended combinations of assessment types, weighting, and measures for principals in elementary or middle schools and principals in high schools (see page 5 in the State Model for Principal Evaluation).
Explanation
As noted in the State Model for Principal Evaluation, the requirement to report a principal’s summative evaluation score by March 1 poses a particular challenge for developing student growth measures for first-year principals because measurement of student growth must happen within a period of less than a year into the principal’s leadership of the school. In addition, state testing data (from Illinois Standards Achievement Test or the Educational Planning and Assessment System) that cover a principal’s first year of leadership will not be available until after March 1 on any given year. As a result, measuring student growth for first-year principals will require identifying alternative sources of growth data. Definition: In Illinois, a principal should be considered a “first-year” principal if he or she is:
• New to the profession and leading a school for the first time in his or her career.
• New to the district but served as a principal in another district or state for at least one year.
• New to the school but served as a principal in another school within the district for at least one year.
96
data from previous years. Their analysis and discussion of the data reveal that students consistently perform below the state average in writing. Analysis of student writing by the school’s ELA teachers suggests that students understand the essentials of grammar; however, they struggle with adapting their writing structure and style for different writing purposes and audiences. In addition, during the past three years, ninth-grade students’ scores on the district’s reading comprehension assessment have demonstrated a stagnant or negative trend, which continues as they move into Grades 10 and 11. Together, based on their analysis of the data, Mrs. Miller and her team select two assessments: (1) the district’s benchmark writing assessment, which is scored using a common rubric and administered to all ninth- and 11th-grade students; and (2) the district’s benchmark reading comprehension assessment, which is scored using a common rubric and administered to all 10th- and 12th-grade students. They set the following targets for the school improvement plan. Growth Target for Assessment 1: District’s Winter Writing Assessment Taking into account each student’s entry level of skill, all high school students in Grades 9 and 11 will meet their target score on the February benchmark assessment:
Pre-Assessment Baseline Score Range
Target Score Range on Post-Assessment
41–60 70 or increase score by 15 points, whichever is greater
61–80 85 or increase score by 15 points, whichever is greater
81–90 95 or increase score by 7 points, whichever is greater, plus 85 or higher on a significant writing project in a relevant English course
91–100 97 plus 90 or higher on a significant writing project in a relevant English course
Growth Target for Assessment 2: District’s Winter Reading Comprehension Assessment Taking into account each student’s entry level of skill, all high school students will meet their target score on the February benchmark assessment:
Pre-Assessment Baseline Score Range
Target Score Range on Post-Assessment
41–60 70 or increase score by 15 points, whichever is greater 61–80 85 or increase score by 15 points, whichever is greater
81–90 95 or increase score by 7 points, whichever is greater, plus 85 or higher on a significant class project in a relevant English course
91–100 97 plus 90 or higher on a significant class project in a relevant English course
98
Recommendation: The Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) recommends that districts use benchmark assessments and student growth targets to measure student growth for first-year principals. In September, the first-year principal should identify (in collaboration with the supervisor and school leadership team) two benchmark assessments and develop student growth targets for each that can be achieved by February. Growth targets should be set using the standards or expectations associated with the assessment and current or historical information about school performance. The growth targets should be aligned with district initiatives, as reflected in the school’s improvement plan. To comply with state requirements to complete each principal’s evaluation by March 1, teachers should administer the pretest assessments before September 15; posttest assessments should be administered by February 15. In setting growth targets, the superintendent, principal, and school leadership team should review district and school priorities in light of previous school performance data and work collaboratively to identify key areas for student learning improvement. The growth targets should be rigorous (e.g., aligned with achieving the school improvement plan and district goals) but attainable (e.g., represent a level of growth that can be achieved between September and February in order to meet the state requirement to complete the principal’s evaluation by March 1. In documenting the growth target, the principal should include the following information:
• Interim benchmark assessment(s) that will be used, the dates that the assessment will be given, and a rationale for its use indicating the assessment’s relevance to school and district goals.
• Student population (e.g., all Grade 8 students in mathematics).
• Courses that will be included in the growth target.
• Rationale for growth target (e.g., an explanation of why this target is rigorous, how it connects to district and school initiatives and priorities, and why it is attainable in the time frame established). The principal should describe any contextual factors that may impact student growth and indicate how previous school performance data informed the growth target development.
Example In District A, first-year principals are serving in one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school in 2013–14. The district selects AIMSweb, Academy of Reading Auto Skills, SRI, and several district-developed exams that principals should use as benchmark assessments. In August, after reviewing the school’s improvement plan and related district initiatives, each first-year principal meets with his or her supervisor and school leadership team, selects two assessments, and sets a student growth target for each assessment. Following is an illustrative scenario of this process in the high school. Scenario. As the new principal at Parkview High School, Mrs. Miller knows that improving high school students’ English language arts (ELA) skills is a key priority for her district and critical to the school improvement plan. In August, Mrs. Miller meets with her supervisor and the school leadership team to review schoolwide data from the previous year and to look at trends in the
Growth Targets Should Not Focus on Attainment: Rather, a growth target must reference both the students’ starting points (baseline scores) and the students’ ending points (benchmark scores).
97
To ensure that Mrs. Miller meets her student growth targets, these targets are integrated into the school improvement benchmarks. Assistant Superintendent Miles, who supervises principals, also includes the growth measures in Mrs. Miller’s professional objectives. Between September and February, Mrs. Miller monitors and makes adjustments to the plan as she receives feedback and gathers information from the teachers on student progress. After the winter benchmark data are available, Mrs. Miller collaborates with her supervisor and the teacher teams to review the results and begin collaborative planning for the spring semester.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who sets the principal’s growth target? The principal’s supervisor should review and approve the principal’s growth target; however, this step should be completed through a collaborative, supportive process. For first-year principals who are new to the profession, additional mentorship and coaching should be provided by the district. For first-year principals who are experienced but may be new to the state or district, the superintendent and school leadership team should participate in setting the growth target to ensure that district, school, and student contexts are given appropriate consideration.
2. Our new principal taught at a similar school last year. Can we use the test scores at her previous school as baseline data in assessing student growth during her first year at our school? No. The principal’s previous school and students should not be compared with the students in the principal's new school. Measuring student growth requires comparing the same group of students at two points in time. Moreover, the performance of the principal is now being evaluated by the district or school in which she is employed, and all evidence used in her evaluation should be based on her performance in that district or school.
3. We are using a pretest/posttest model. Should pretests be identical to the posttest? Where appropriate, the pre-assessment should mirror the post-assessment in terms of the content and skill attainment tested, but the two test forms should not be identical.
99
Using Illinois 5Essentials Survey Data in Principal Evaluation
Senate Bill 7 requires a survey of learning conditions in all public schools in Illinois beginning 2013. Principals and superintendents with questions or concerns about their 2014 data, including any suspected misuse, may contact the 5Essentials helpdesk at (866) 440-1874 or [email protected]. Pursuant to recent changes in statute (105 ILCS 5/2-3.153), school districts will have the option to select an alternative to the 5Essentials from a pre-approved pool for next year’s administration. Selection of an alternative will require school board and local union approval and would be at the district’s own expense. The statute specifies that the alternative surveys meet the following criteria:
• be able to provide summary reports for each district and attendance center intended for parents and community stakeholders • meet scale reliability requirements using accepted testing measures; • provide research-based evidence linking instrument content to one or more improved student outcomes • have undergone and documented testing to prove validity
Details on this process will be announced in August and the pool of 2-3 alternative surveys will be announced in September.
100
GSU Evaluation Alignment with PEAC Guidelines
Section 50.300 Plan Components Required for the Evaluation of Principals and Assistant Principals* Each school district shall implement a performance evaluation plan for its principals and assistant
principals no later than September 1, 2012. [50.20(a)] The district’s plan may be locally developed or it may be the state model. [50.300(a)]
The plan shall consider specific duties, responsibilities, management, and competence. [50.300(a)(1 GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1 The plan must consider the principal’s/assistant principal’s strengths and weaknesses with supporting reasons. [50.300(a)(2)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1 & p. 3 The plan shall consider performance goals developed for any principal. [50.300(f)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, pp. 3 & 4 Evaluators must identify strengths of the principal [50.300(g)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1 & p. 13 Evaluators must identify area of growth [50.300(g) GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1 & p. 13
Section 50.310 Student Growth Components
Each school district shall provide for the use of data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating the principal.
For school years 2012-13 and 2013-14, student growth shall represent at least 25 percent of a principal’s or assistant principal’s performance evaluation rating in the first and second years of implementation (for example, 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years for a school district with a 2012-13 implementation date). Thereafter, student growth shall represent at least 30 percent of the rating assigned.” (Significant factor for the state model = 50%.) [50.310(a)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 3 No later than October 1 of each school year, the qualified evaluator shall inform the principal or assistant principal of the assessments and, for the assessments identified the metrics and targets to be used. [50.310(b)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1 & p. 3 The qualified evaluator shall specify the weights of each assessment and target to be used.” [50.310(b)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 3 The school district will identify at least two assessments (either Type I or Type II) capable of providing data that meets the definition of student growth. [50.310(b)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 3 A state assessment may be used in the evaluation GSU Evaluation Narrative, p. 3
101
of a principal/assistant principal as a Type I assessment. [50.310(b)(1)(A)] “Type III assessments may be used for schools serving a majority of students who are administered a Type I or Type II assessment. In these situations, the qualified evaluator and principal may identify at least two Type III assessments to be used to determine growth.” [50.310(b)(1)(B)] GSU Evaluation Narrative, pp. 3 & 4 Students must have been enrolled sufficient time to have results from at least two points in time on a comparable assessment. [50.310(b)(2)] GSU Evaluation Narrative, p. 4 The plan shall identify who will evaluate the principal(s). [50.300(b)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1
Evaluators must hold an administrative certificate or superintendent’s endorsement and must have completed prequalification training. [50.300(b)]
GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1 (prequalification training information) and certification and endorsement information
must be available upon request. The plan will provide for the completion of all components of the evaluation by March 1 annually. [50.300(c)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1 & pp.13 & 14 A written notice of the evaluation shall be provided to the principal at the start of the school year. [50.300(d)] It shall include: A copy of the rubrics to be used to rate students growth and professional practice of the principal. [50.300(d)(1)]
All components of the GSU Principal Performance-Based Evaluation
A summary of the manner in which student growth and professional practice will be used to relate to the performance evaluation ratings of “excellent”, “proficient”, “needs improvement”, or “unsatisfactory”. [50.300(d)(2)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 14 On or before October 1 of each year, the qualified evaluator and principal shall meet to set student growth metrics and targets. Failure to agree on metrics and targets will then be determined by the evaluator. [50.300(e)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, pp. 1 & 3 On or before October 1 of each year shall establish professional growth goals based upon the results of the performance evaluation conducted in the previous year, if applicable. Failure to agree on metrics and targets will then be determined by the evaluator. [50.300(f)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1 & pp. 4 & 5
When the evaluation is completed, the evaluator and principal shall meet to discuss: The rating GSU Evaluation Instrument, pp. 13 & 14
102
given for student growth and professional practice [50.300(g)] The final performance rating [50.300(g)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 14 Evidence used in arriving at these ratings [50.300(g) GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 13 The results from the most recent administration of a selected assessment shall be used as the ending point at which the level of student growth is calculated. [50.310(b)(3)] GSU Evaluation Narrative, p. 4 For an assistant principal, a qualified evaluator may select student growth measures that align to the specific duties of the assistant principal. [50.310(c)] GSU Evaluation Narrative, p. 4 The district shall consider how the data of certain characteristic (subgroups such as Sp. Ed., ELL, low income will be used. [50.310(d)] GSU Evaluation Narrative, p. 4
Section 50.320 Professional Practice Components for Principals and Assistant Principals
Professional practice of the principal shall comprise a minimum of 50% of the rating. [50.320] GSU Evaluation Instrument, pp. 4 & 5 & p. 14 Instruments and rubrics used to evaluate professional practice shall align to the Illinois Standards for Principal Evaluation. [50.320(a)]
GSU/VAL-ED/IL Performance Standards for School Leaders Rubric
The rubric shall state the indicators for each standard and provide a clear description of at least four performance levels to be considered for each indicator. [50.320(a)(1)]
GSU/VAL-ED/IL Performance Standards for School Leaders Rubric
The district may adopt the rubric of the state model. Any other rubric used will require training for principals, assistant principals and evaluators specific to that rubric. “Any school district that uses a rubric other that the rubric contained in the State model shall establish a process to ensure that all principals, assistant principals, and principal evaluators are familiar with and understand the content of the rubric, the different levels of performance used for professional practice, and how the overall practice rating will be determine.” [50.320(a)(2)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1
No later than February 1 of each year each principal shall complete a self-assessment that is GSU Evaluation Instrument, p.1 & p. 12
103
aligned to the rubric used in the assessment of professional practice. This self-assessment shall be used as input in determining a principal’s or assistant principal’s professional practice rating. [50.320(b)] The plan shall provide for a minimum of two formal observations at the school of the principal/assistant principal [50.320(c)(1)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1, p. 6 & p. 11 The evaluator shall observe interactions and activities during the principal’s work day. [50.320(c)(1)(A)] GSU Evaluation Narrative, p.6 Formal observations will be scheduled in advance and must include at least one objective (reviewing classrooms, observing leadership team meetings. etc.). [50.320(c)(1)(B)] GSU Evaluation Narrative, p. 6 Feedback from formal observations must be provided within 10 principal work days. [50.320(c)(1)(C)] GSU Evaluation Narrative, p. 6 Any evidence to be used in the evaluation must be shared within the 10 principal work day timeline. [50.320(c)(1)(D)] GSU Evaluation Narrative, p. 6 There is no limit to the number of informal observations with information included in the evaluation rating. Information to be included in the principal’s evaluation from informal observations will be shared with the principal and instrumented in writing. [50.320(c)(2)] GSU Evaluation Narrative, p. 6 Districts that choose different professional practice ratings must ensure that they align with the state ratings. [50.320(d)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 14 The qualified evaluator shall inform the principal how evidence of professional practice will be used to determine a professional practice rating. [50.320(e)] GSU Evaluation Instrument, p. 1, pp. 4 & 5, p. 14
104
Alignment of Three State Factors and VAL-ED in Principal Evaluation
The Performance Evaluation Advisory Committee (PEAC) requested information on the alignment of three key documents used in principal evaluation: Rising Star Indicators, Illinois 5Essentials Survey, and Illinois Performance Standards for School Leaders Rubric. To address this request, members of the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), the DuPage County Regional Office of Education, University of Chicago, and American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted an analysis of how these indicators align with the Principal Evaluation. Governors State University’s (GSU) Principal Evaluation Team enhanced the original chart by adding the six components and processes measured on the Vanderbilt Assessment of Educational Leadership (VAL-ED). The GSU’s enhanced chart aligns Illinois Rising Star Indicators, Illinois Performance Standards for School Leaders, and VAL-ED to the five supports specified in the Illinois 5Essentials Survey:
• Ambitious instruction • Supportive environment • Effective school leaders • Collaborative teachers • Involved families
105
5E
ssen
tials
Sur
vey
- Am
bitio
us In
stru
ctio
n
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r Sc
hool
Lea
ders
V
AL
-ED
U
of C
Que
stio
n Pr
ompt
/Ite
m T
ext
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
C
lari
ty
Stud
ent:
It is
cle
ar w
hat I
ne
ed to
do
to g
et a
goo
d gr
ade.
Non
e IIC
01,
IIIA
07
6a
3c
I-a
II-d
, II
I-c
Stud
ent:
The
wor
k w
e do
in
cla
ss is
goo
d pr
epar
atio
n fo
r the
test
s.
Non
e IIC
01,
IIIA
07
6a
3c
I-a
II-d
, II
I-c
Stud
ent:
I lea
rn a
lot f
rom
fe
edba
ck o
n m
y w
ork.
N
one
IIC01
, II
IA07
6a
3c
I-a
II
-d,
III-c
St
uden
t: Th
e ho
mew
ork
assi
gnm
ents
hel
p m
e le
arn
the
cour
se m
ater
ial.
Non
e IIC
01,
IIIA
07
6a
3c
I-a
II-d
, II
I-c
Stud
ent:
I kno
w w
hat m
y te
ache
r wan
ts m
e to
lear
n in
this
cla
ss.
Non
e IIC
01,
IIIA
07
6a
3c
I-a
II-d
, II
I-c
Qua
lity
of S
tude
nt
Dis
cuss
ion
Teac
her:
Stud
ents
bui
ld
on e
ach
othe
r’s i
deas
du
ring
disc
ussi
on.
CL7
6c
I-c,d
,e
Teac
her:
Stud
ents
use
da
ta a
nd te
xt re
fere
nces
to
supp
ort t
heir
idea
s.
CL7
6c
I-c,d
,e
Teac
her:
Stud
ents
show
ea
ch o
ther
resp
ect.
C
L7
6c
I-c,d
,e
Teac
her:
Stud
ents
pro
vide
co
nstru
ctiv
e fe
edba
ck to
th
eir p
eers
/teac
hers
.
CL7
6c
I-c,d
,e
106
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r Sc
hool
Lea
ders
V
AL
-ED
U
of C
Que
stio
n Pr
ompt
/Ite
m T
ext
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Teac
her:
Stud
ents
dra
w
on re
leva
nt k
now
ledg
e le
arne
d ou
tsid
e of
cla
ss.
C
L7
6c
I-c,d
,e
Q
ualit
y of
Mat
h In
stru
ctio
n
Stud
ent i
n M
ath
Clas
s;
How
ofte
n: W
rite
a fe
w
sent
ence
s to
expl
ain
how
you
solv
ed a
mat
h pr
oble
m
IID
06, I
E07
3a
II-a
,b,c
Stud
ent i
n M
ath
Clas
s;
How
ofte
n: E
xpla
in
how
you
solv
ed a
pr
oble
m to
the
clas
s
IID06
, IE0
7
3a
II
-a,b
,c
St
uden
t in
Mat
h Cl
ass;
H
ow o
ften:
Writ
e a
mat
h pr
oble
m fo
r oth
er
stud
ents
to so
lve
IID
06, I
E07
3a
II-a
,b,c
Stud
ent i
n M
ath
Clas
s;
How
ofte
n: D
iscu
ss
poss
ible
solu
tions
to
prob
lem
s with
oth
er
stud
ents
IID
06, I
E07
3a
II-a
,b,c
Stud
ent i
n M
ath
Clas
s;
How
ofte
n: A
pply
mat
h to
situ
atio
ns in
life
ou
tsid
e of
scho
ol
IID
06, I
E07
3a
II –
a,b,
c
Stud
ent i
n M
ath
Clas
s;
How
ofte
n: U
sing
a
grap
hing
cal
cula
tor t
o co
mpl
ete
an a
ssig
nmen
t
IID06
, IE0
7
3a
II
– a,
b,c
107
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r Sc
hool
Lea
ders
V
AL
-ED
U
of C
Que
stio
n Pr
ompt
/Ite
m T
ext
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Stud
ent i
n M
ath
Clas
s;
How
ofte
n: S
olve
a
prob
lem
with
mul
tiple
st
eps t
hat t
akes
mor
e th
an 2
0 m
inut
es
IID
06, I
E07
3a
II –
a,b,
c
Qua
lity
of E
nglis
h In
stru
ctio
n
Stud
ent i
n En
glis
h C
lass
; How
ofte
n:
Dis
cuss
you
r poi
nt o
f vi
ew a
bout
som
ethi
ng
you’
ve re
ad
IID
06, I
E07
3a
II –
a,b,
c
Stud
ent i
n En
glis
h C
lass
; How
ofte
n:
Writ
e a
pape
r or e
ssay
of
thre
e or
mor
e pa
ges
IID
06, I
E07
3a
II –
a,b,
c
Stud
ent i
n En
glis
h C
lass
; How
ofte
n:
Rew
rite
a pa
per o
r ess
ay
in re
spon
se to
co
mm
ents
IID06
, IE0
7
3a
II
– a,
b,c
St
uden
t in
Engl
ish
Cla
ss; H
ow o
ften:
D
iscu
ss c
onne
ctio
ns
betw
een
a re
adin
g an
d re
al-li
fe p
eopl
e or
si
tuat
ions
IID06
, IE0
7
3a
II
– a,
b,c
St
uden
t in
Engl
ish
Cla
ss; H
ow o
ften:
D
iscu
ss h
ow c
ultu
re,
time,
or p
lace
aff
ects
an
auth
or’s
writ
ing
IID
06, I
E07
3a
II –
a,b,
c
108
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r Sc
hool
Lea
ders
V
AL
-ED
U
of C
Que
stio
n Pr
ompt
/Ite
m T
ext
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Stud
ent i
n En
glis
h C
lass
; How
ofte
n:
Writ
e a
few
par
agra
phs
to a
nsw
er q
uest
ions
ab
out a
read
ing
IID
06, I
E07
3a
II –
a,b,
c
Stud
ent i
n En
glis
h C
lass
; How
ofte
n:
Expl
ain
how
writ
ers u
se
tool
s lik
e sy
mbo
lism
an
d m
etap
hor t
o co
mm
unic
ate
mea
ning
IID
06, I
E07
3a
IID06
, IE0
7
II
– a,
b,c
St
uden
t in
Engl
ish
Cla
ss; H
ow o
ften:
Im
prov
e a
piec
e of
w
ritin
g as
a c
lass
or
with
par
tner
s IID
06, I
E07
3a
IID06
, IE0
7
II
– a,
b,c
St
uden
t in
Engl
ish
Cla
ss; H
ow o
ften:
D
ebat
e th
e m
eani
ng o
f a
read
ing
IID06
, IE0
7
3a
IID
06, I
E07
II –
a,b,
c
109
5Ess
entia
ls S
urve
y –
Supp
ortiv
e E
nvir
onm
ent
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r Sc
hool
Lea
ders
V
AL
-ED
U
of C
Que
stio
n Pr
ompt
/Ite
m T
ext
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Peer
Sup
port
for
Aca
dem
ic W
ork
St
uden
t’s p
eers
: Th
ink
doin
g ho
mew
ork
is
impo
rtant
Non
e
6a
I-a
Stud
ent’s
pee
rs:
Feel
it is
im
porta
nt to
pay
atte
ntio
n in
cla
ss
N
one
6a
I-a
St
uden
t’s p
eers
: Fe
el it
is
impo
rtant
to c
ome
to sc
hool
ev
ery
day
N
one
6a
I-a
St
uden
t’s p
eers
: Tr
y ha
rd
to g
et g
ood
grad
es
N
one
6a
I-a
A
cade
mic
Per
sona
lism
Stud
ent’s
teac
her:
Not
ices
if
I hav
e tro
uble
lear
ning
so
met
hing
IIC
01,
IIIA
07
3c
II-d
. III
-c
Stud
ent’s
teac
her:
Is
will
ing
to g
ive
extra
hel
p on
ho
mew
ork
if I n
eed
it
IIC
01,
IIIA
07
3c
II-d
. III
-c
Stud
ent’s
teac
her:
Hel
ps
me
catc
h up
if I
am b
ehin
d
IIC
01,
IIIA
07
3c
II-d
. III
-c
Stud
ent’s
teac
her:
Rea
lly
liste
ns to
wha
t I h
ave
to sa
y
IIC
01,
IIIA
07
3c
II-d
. III
-c
Stud
ent’s
teac
her:
Bel
ieve
s I c
an d
o w
ell i
n sc
hool
IIC
01,
IIIA
07
3c
II-d
. III
-c
Stud
ent’s
teac
her:
Giv
es
me
spec
ific
sugg
estio
ns
abou
t how
I ca
n im
prov
e m
y w
ork
in c
lass
IIC
01,
IIIA
07
3c
II-d
. III
-c
110
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r Sc
hool
Lea
ders
V
AL
-ED
U
of C
Que
stio
n Pr
ompt
/Ite
m T
ext
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Stud
ent’s
teac
her:
Exp
lain
s th
ings
in a
diff
eren
t way
if I
don’
t und
erst
and
som
ethi
ng
in c
lass
IIC
01,
IIIA
07
3c
II-d
. III
-c
Aca
dem
ic P
ress
Stud
ent’s
teac
her:
Exp
ects
m
e to
do
my
best
all
the
time
IID
06,
IE07
N
one
3a
6a
II-b
,c
I-a
Stud
ent’s
teac
her:
Exp
ects
ev
eryo
ne to
wor
k ha
rd
IID
06,
IE07
N
one
3a
6a
II-b
,c
I-a
Stud
ent’s
teac
her:
Do
you
find
the
wor
k di
ffic
ult?
IID06
, IE
07
Non
e
3a
6a
II
-b,c
I-a
St
uden
t’s c
lass
: A
re y
ou
chal
leng
ed?
IID
06,
IE07
N
one
3a
6a
II-b
,c
I-a
Stud
ent’s
cla
ss: D
oes t
he
teac
her a
sk d
iffic
ult
ques
tions
on
test
s?
IID
06,
IE07
N
one
3a
6a
II-b
,c
I-a
Stud
ent’s
cla
ss: D
oes t
he
teac
her a
sk d
iffic
ult
ques
tions
in c
lass
?
IID06
, IE
07
Non
e
3a
6a
II
-b,c
I-a
St
uden
t’s c
lass
: Do
you
have
to w
ork
hard
to d
o w
ell?
IID06
, IE
07
Non
e
3a
6a
II
-b,c
I-a
Sa
fety
How
safe
do
you
feel
?
N
one
2b
IV-e
St
uden
t fee
ls sa
fe:
Out
side
ar
ound
scho
ol?
Non
e
2b
IV
-e
Stud
ent f
eels
safe
: Tr
avel
ing
betw
een
hom
e an
d sc
hool
?
N
one
2b
IV-e
St
uden
t fee
ls sa
fe:
In th
e ha
llway
s and
bat
hroo
ms o
f th
e sc
hool
?
N
one
2b
IV-e
111
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r Sc
hool
Lea
ders
V
AL
-ED
U
of C
Que
stio
n Pr
ompt
/Ite
m T
ext
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Ter
tiary
Se
cond
ary
Prim
ary
Stud
ent f
eels
safe
: In
you
r cl
asse
s?
Non
e
2b
IV
-e
Stud
ent-
Tea
cher
Tru
st
St
uden
t: M
y te
ache
rs re
ally
ca
re a
bout
me.
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
5a
4a
IV-a
IV
-f,h
Stud
ent:
My
teac
her a
lway
s ke
eps h
is/h
er p
rom
ises
.
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
5a
4a
IV-a
IV
-f,h
Stud
ent:
My
teac
her a
lway
s tri
es to
be
fair.
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
5a
4a
IV-a
IV
-f,h
Stud
ent:
I fe
el sa
fe a
nd
com
forta
ble
with
my
teac
her a
t th
is sc
hool
.
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
5a
4a
IV-a
IV
-f,h
Stud
ent:
Whe
n m
y te
ache
r te
lls m
e no
t to
do so
met
hing
, I
know
he/
she
has a
goo
d re
ason
. C
L10
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
6b
5a
4a
I-a,c
,d,e
IV
-a
IV-f,
h St
uden
t: M
y te
ache
r tre
ats m
e w
ith re
spec
t.
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
5a
4a
IV-a
IV
-f,h
Post
seco
ndar
y E
xpec
tatio
ns
H
S te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: T
each
ers
expe
ct m
ost s
tude
nts i
n th
is sc
hool
to g
o to
col
lege
.
Non
e C
C02
, C
II1
6a
1a
I-a
IV-a
,b,c
H
S te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: T
each
ers
at th
is sc
hool
hel
p st
uden
ts
plan
for c
olle
ge o
utsi
de o
f cl
ass t
ime.
Non
e C
C02
, C
II1
6a
1a
I-a
IV-a
,b,c
H
S te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: T
he
curr
icul
um a
t thi
s sch
ool i
s fo
cuse
d on
hel
ping
stud
ents
get
re
ady
for c
olle
ge
N
one
CC
02,
CII1
6a
1a
I-a
IV
-a,b
,c
112
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds
for
Scho
ol L
eade
rs
VA
L-E
D
U o
f C Q
uest
ion
Prom
pt/It
em
Tex
t T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y H
S te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: M
ost o
f the
st
uden
ts in
this
scho
ol a
re
plan
ning
to g
o to
col
lege
.
Non
e
C
C02
, C
II1
6a
1a
I-a
IV-a
,b,c
H
S te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: Te
ache
rs in
th
is sc
hool
feel
that
it is
a p
art o
f th
eir j
ob to
pre
pare
stud
ents
to
succ
eed
in c
olle
ge.
N
one
C
C02
, C
II1
6a
1a
I-a
IV-a
,b,c
Sc
hool
wid
e Fu
ture
Ori
enta
tion
I-a
IV
-a,b
,c
HS
stud
ent’s
scho
ol: T
each
ers
mak
e su
re th
at a
ll st
uden
ts a
re
plan
ning
for l
ife a
fter g
radu
atio
n.
N
one
C
C02
, C
II1
6a
1a
I-a
IV-a
,b,c
HS
stud
ent’s
scho
ol: T
each
ers
wor
k ha
rd to
mak
e su
re th
at a
ll st
uden
ts a
re le
arni
ng.
N
one
C
C02
, C
II1
6a
1a
I-a
IV-a
,b,c
H
S st
uden
t’s sc
hool
: H
igh
scho
ol
is se
en a
s pre
para
tion
for t
he
futu
re.
N
one
C
C02
, C
II1
6a
1a
I-a
IV-a
,b,c
HS
stud
ent’s
scho
ol:
All
stud
ents
ar
e en
cour
aged
to g
o to
col
lege
.
Non
e
C
C02
, C
II1
6a
1a
I-a
IV-a
,b,c
HS
stud
ent’s
scho
ol: T
each
ers p
ay
atte
ntio
n to
all
stud
ents
, not
just
th
e to
p st
uden
ts.
N
one
C
C02
, C
II1
6a
1a
I-a
IV-a
,b,c
H
S st
uden
t’s sc
hool
: Te
ache
rs
wor
k ha
rd to
mak
e su
re th
at
stud
ents
stay
in sc
hool
.
Non
e C
C02
, C
II1
6a
1a
I-a
IV-a
,b,c
113
5Ess
entia
ls S
urve
y –
Eff
ectiv
e Le
ader
s
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds
for
Scho
ol L
eade
rs
VA
L-E
D
U o
f C Q
uest
ion
Prom
pt/It
em
Tex
t T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
each
er-P
rinc
ipal
Tru
st
Te
ache
r: T
he p
rinci
pal h
as
conf
iden
ce in
the
expe
rtise
of t
he
teac
hers
. C
L10,
C
L11
CL1
5
IB09
, IB
10,
IE09
5a
4a
2f
IV
-a,b
,d,j
IV-c
,g,h
V
I-a,b
,c,d
Teac
her:
I tru
st th
e pr
inci
pal a
t hi
s or h
er w
ord.
C
L10,
C
L11
CL1
5
IB09
, IB
10,
IE09
5a
4a
2f
IV
-a,b
,d,j
IV-c
,g,h
V
I-a,b
,c,d
Te
ache
r: It
’s O
K in
this
scho
ol to
di
scus
s fee
lings
, wor
ries,
and
frus
tratio
ns w
ith th
e pr
inci
pal.
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
IB09
, IB
10,
IE09
5a
4a
2f
IV
-a,b
,d,j
IV-c
,g,h
V
I-a,b
,c,d
Te
ache
r: T
he p
rinci
pal t
akes
a
pers
onal
inte
rest
in th
e pr
ofes
sion
al d
evel
opm
ent o
f te
ache
rs.
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
IB09
, IB
10,
IE09
5a
4a
2f
IV
-a,b
,d,j
IV-c
,g,h
V
I-a,b
,c,d
Te
ache
r: T
he p
rinci
pal l
ooks
out
fo
r the
per
sona
l wel
fare
of t
he
facu
lty m
embe
rs.
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
IB09
, IB
10,
IE09
5a
4a
2f
IV
-a,b
,d,j
IV-c
,g,h
V
I-a,b
,c,d
Te
ache
r: T
he p
rinci
pal p
lace
s the
ne
eds o
f chi
ldre
n ah
ead
of
pers
onal
and
pol
itica
l int
eres
ts.
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
IB09
, IB
10,
IE09
5a
4a
2f
IV
-a,b
,d,j
IV-c
,g,h
V
I-a,b
,c,d
Te
ache
r: T
he p
rinci
pal a
t thi
s sc
hool
is a
n ef
fect
ive
man
ager
w
ho m
akes
the
scho
ol ru
n sm
ooth
ly.
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
IB09
, IB
10,
IE09
5a
4a
2f
IV
-a,b
,c,d
,j IV
-a,b
,d,e
, f,g
,h,k
,l V
I-a,b
,c,d
T
each
er In
fluen
ce
Te
ache
r has
influ
ence
in:
Hiri
ng
new
pro
fess
iona
l per
sonn
el
CC
02,
CII1
IE
13
IA10
,CL2
, C
L3,ID
13
1a
4b
2c
IV-a
,b,c
,d,j
IV-a
,b,d
,f V
I-e,f,
g Te
ache
r has
influ
ence
in:
Plan
ning
how
dis
cret
iona
ry
scho
ol fu
nds s
houl
d be
use
d C
C02
, C
II1
IE13
IA
10,C
L2,
CL3
,ID13
2d
,1a
4b
2c
IV-a
,b,c
, d,
i,j
VI-c
IV
-a,b
,d,f
VI-e
,f,g
114
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds
for
Scho
ol L
eade
rs
VA
L-E
D
U o
f C Q
uest
ion
Prom
pt/It
em
Tex
t T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y Te
ache
r has
influ
ence
in:
Det
erm
inin
g bo
oks a
nd o
ther
in
stru
ctio
nal m
ater
ials
use
d in
cl
assr
oom
s C
C02
, C
II1
IE13
IA
10,C
L2,
CL3
,ID13
1a
4b
2c
IV
-a,b
,c,
d,i,j
V
-a,b
,d,e
, f,g
,h,i,
j V
I-e,f,
g Te
ache
r has
influ
ence
in:
Esta
blis
hing
the
curr
icul
um a
nd
inst
ruct
iona
l pro
gram
C
C02
, C
II1
IE13
IA
10,C
L2,
CL3
,ID13
1a
4b
2c
IV
-a,b
, c,
d,j
VI-c
,d,e
V
I-e,f,
g Te
ache
r has
influ
ence
in:
Det
erm
inin
g th
e co
nten
t of i
n-se
rvic
e pr
ogra
ms
CC
02,
CII1
IE
13
IA10
,CL2
, C
L3,ID
13
6b,1
a 4b
2c
IV
-a,b
, c,
d,j
VI-c
,d,e
V
I-e,f,
g Te
ache
r has
influ
ence
in:
Setti
ng
stan
dard
s for
stud
ent b
ehav
ior
VI-e
,f,g
Prog
ram
Coh
eren
ce
Te
ache
r: O
nce
we
star
t a n
ew
prog
ram
, we
follo
w u
p to
mak
e su
re th
at it
’s w
orki
ng.
Non
e IE
13
CC
02,
CII1
4b
1a
V
I-c,d
,e
IV-a
,b,c
d,
g Te
ache
r: W
e [d
on’t]
hav
e so
m
any
diff
eren
t pro
gram
s in
this
sc
hool
that
I ca
n’t k
eep
track
of
them
all.
IE
13
Non
e C
C02
, C
II1
4b
1a
V
I-c,d
,e
IV
-a,b
, c,
d,g
Teac
her:
Man
y sp
ecia
l pro
gram
s [d
on’t]
com
e an
d go
at t
his
scho
ol.
IE13
N
one
CC
02,
CII1
4b
1a
VI-c
,d,e
IV-a
,b,
c,d,
g Te
ache
r: Y
ou c
an se
e re
al
cont
inui
ty fr
om o
ne p
rogr
am to
an
othe
r at t
his s
choo
l.
IID06
, IE
07
CC
02,
CII1
3a
1a
II
-a,b
,c,
f,h,i
IV-a
,b,
c,d,
g Te
ache
r: C
urric
ulum
, ins
truct
ion,
an
d le
arni
ng m
ater
ials
are
wel
l co
ordi
nate
d ac
ross
the
diff
eren
t gr
ade
leve
ls a
t thi
s sch
ool.
IID
06,
IE07
C
C02
, C
II1
3a
1a
II-a
,b,c
, f,h
,i IV
-a,b
, c,
d,g
115
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds
for
Scho
ol L
eade
rs
VA
L-E
D
U o
f C Q
uest
ion
Prom
pt/It
em
Tex
t T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y Te
ache
r: T
here
is c
onsi
sten
cy in
cu
rric
ulum
, ins
truct
ion,
and
le
arni
ng m
ater
ials
am
ong
teac
hers
in
the
sam
e gr
ade
leve
l at t
his
scho
ol.
IID
06,
IE07
C
C02
, C
II1
3a
1a
II-a
,b,c
, f,h
,i IV
-a,b
, c,
d,g
Prin
cipa
l Ins
truc
tiona
l L
eade
rshi
p
IV
-a,b
, c,
d,g
Teac
her’
s prin
cipa
l: M
akes
cle
ar
to th
e st
aff h
is o
r her
exp
ecta
tions
fo
r mee
ting
inst
ruct
iona
l goa
ls
IB
08,
IB12
C
C02
, C
II1
1b
1a
IV-b
,f,h
IV-a
,b,
c,d,
g Te
ache
r’s p
rinci
pal:
C
omm
unic
ates
a c
lear
vis
ion
for
our s
choo
l
IB08
, IB
12
CC
02,
CII1
1b
1a
IV
-b,f,
h IV
-a,b
, c,
d,g
Teac
her’
s prin
cipa
l: S
ets h
igh
stan
dard
s for
teac
hing
IB08
, IB
12
CC
02,
CII1
1b
1a
IV
-b,f,
h IV
-a,b
, c,
d,g
Teac
her’
s prin
cipa
l: U
nder
stan
ds
how
chi
ldre
n le
arn
N
one
CC
02,
CII1
1a
IV
-a,b
, c,
d,g
Teac
her’
s prin
cipa
l: S
ets h
igh
stan
dard
s for
stud
ent l
earn
ing
N
one
CC
02,
CII1
1a
IV
-a,b
, c,
d,g
Teac
her’
s prin
cipa
l: P
ress
es
teac
hers
to im
plem
ent w
hat t
hey
have
lear
ned
in p
rofe
ssio
nal
deve
lopm
ent
CC
02,
CII1
1e
1a
II
-g,i
IV-a
,b,
c,d,
g Te
ache
r’s p
rinci
pal:
Car
eful
ly
track
s stu
dent
aca
dem
ic p
rogr
ess
IE06
,IA07
,ID
01,ID
10
IB08
, IB
12
CC
02,
CII1
3b
,2a
1b
1a
V
I-b,c
,d,f
IV-b
,f,h
IV-a
,b,
c,d,
g Te
ache
r’s p
rinci
pal:
Act
ivel
y m
onito
rs th
e qu
ality
of t
each
ing
in
this
scho
ol
IE06
,IA07
,ID
01,ID
10
C
C02
, C
II1
2a
1e
1a
VI-b
,c,d
,f II
-k,l,
n,o
IV-a
,b,
c,d,
g Te
ache
r’s p
rinci
pal:
Kno
ws
wha
t’s g
oing
in m
y cl
assr
oom
IE
06,IA
07,
ID01
,ID10
CC
02,
CII1
3a
,2a
1e
1a
V
I-b,c
,d,f
II-k
,l.n,
o IV
-a,b
, c,
d,g
116
5Ess
entia
ls S
urve
y –
Col
labo
rativ
e Te
ache
rs
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds
for
Scho
ol L
eade
rs
VA
L-E
D
U o
f C Q
uest
ion
Prom
pt/It
em
Tex
t T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
each
er-T
each
er T
rust
Teac
her’
s col
leag
ues:
Rea
lly c
are
abou
t eac
h ot
her?
IB09
, IB
10,
IE09
C
L15
5a
4a
IV-a
,b,d
,j IV
-c,d
,e
Teac
her:
To
wha
t ext
ent d
o yo
u fe
el re
spec
ted
by o
ther
teac
hers
?
CL1
0,C
L11
CL1
5
5a
4a
IV
-a,b
,d,j
IV-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r: T
each
ers i
n th
is sc
hool
tru
st e
ach
othe
r.
CL1
0,C
L11
CL1
5
5a
4a
IV
-a,b
,d,j
IV-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r: It
’ OK
in th
is sc
hool
to
disc
uss f
eelin
gs, w
orrie
s, an
d fr
ustra
tions
with
oth
er te
ache
rs.
C
L10,
CL1
1 C
L15
5a
4a
IV-a
,b,d
,j IV
-c,d
,e
Teac
her:
Tea
cher
s res
pect
oth
er
teac
hers
who
take
the
lead
in
scho
ol im
prov
emen
t eff
orts.
CL1
0,C
L11
CL1
5
5a
4a
IV
-a,b
,d,j
IV-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r: Te
ache
rs a
t thi
s sch
ool
resp
ect t
hose
col
leag
ues w
ho a
re
expe
rt at
thei
r cra
ft.
C
L10,
CL1
1 C
L15
5a
4a
IV-a
,b,d
,j IV
-c,d
,e
Qua
lity
Prof
essi
onal
D
evel
opm
ent
IV
-a,b
,d,j
IV-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: O
vera
ll, m
y pr
ofes
sion
al d
evel
opm
ent
expe
rienc
es th
is y
ear h
ave
been
su
stai
ned
and
cohe
rent
ly fo
cuse
d,
rath
er th
an sh
ort-t
erm
an
unre
late
d.
IA
10,C
L2,
CL3
,ID13
IF
05,C
L16
2c
3g
IV-f,
g,i,j
, II
-g,i,
j Te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: In
clud
ed
enou
gh ti
me
to th
ink
care
fully
ab
out,
try, a
nd e
valu
ate
new
idea
s
IA10
,CL2
, C
L3,ID
13
IF05
,CL1
6
2c
3g
IV
-f,g,
i,j
II-g
,i,j
117
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds
for
Scho
ol L
eade
rs
VA
L-E
D
U o
f C Q
uest
ion
Prom
pt/It
em
Tex
t T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y Te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: B
een
clos
ely
conn
ecte
d to
my
scho
ol’s
im
prov
emen
t pla
n
IA
10,C
L2,
CL3
,ID13
IF
05,C
L16
2c
3g
IV-f,
g,i,j
II
-g,i,
j Te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: In
clud
ed
oppo
rtuni
ties t
o w
ork
prod
uctiv
ity
with
col
leag
ues i
n m
y sc
hool
IA10
,CL2
, C
L3,ID
13
IF05
,CL1
6
2c
3g
IV
-f,g,
i,j
II-g
,i,j
Teac
her’
s sch
ool:
Incl
uded
op
portu
nitie
s to
wor
k pr
oduc
tivel
y w
ith te
ache
rs fr
om
othe
r sch
ools
IA
10,C
L2,
CL3
,ID13
IF
05,C
L16
2c
3g
IV-f,
g,i,j
II
-g,i,
j C
olle
ctiv
e R
espo
nsib
ility
Teac
her’s
col
leag
ues:
Hel
p m
aint
ain
disc
iplin
e in
the
entir
e sc
hool
, not
just
thei
r cla
ssro
om?
IE
08
IE06
, IA
07
3f
2a
II
-g,i,
j II
I-a,b
V
I-b,c
,d,f
Teac
her’s
col
leag
ues:
Tak
e re
spon
sibi
lity
for i
mpr
ovin
g th
e sc
hool
?
IE08
ID
01,
ID10
3f
2a
II
-g,i,
j II
I-a,b
V
I-b,c
,d,f
Teac
her’s
col
leag
ues:
Set
hig
h st
anda
rds f
or th
emse
lves
?
IE08
ID
01,
ID10
3f
2a
II
-g,i,
j II
I-a,b
V
I-b,c
,d,f
Teac
her’s
col
leag
ues:
Fee
l re
spon
sibl
e to
hel
p ea
ch o
ther
do
thei
r bes
t?
IE
08
ID01
, ID
10
3f
2a
II
-g,i,
j II
I-a,b
V
I-b,c
,d,f
Teac
her’s
col
leag
ues:
fee
l re
spon
sibl
e th
at a
ll st
uden
ts le
arn?
IE08
ID
01,
ID10
3f
2a
II
-g,i,
j II
I-a,b
V
I-b,c
,d,f
Teac
her’s
col
leag
ues:
Fee
l re
spon
sibl
e fo
r hel
ping
stud
ents
de
velo
p se
lf-co
ntro
l?
IE
08
ID01
, ID
10
3f
2a
II
-g,i,
j II
I-a,b
V
I-b,c
,d,f
Teac
her’s
col
leag
ues:
Fee
l re
spon
sibl
e w
hen
stud
ents
in th
is
scho
ol fa
il?
IE
08
ID01
, ID
10
3f
2a
II
-g,i,
j II
I-a,b
V
I-b,c
,d,f
118
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds
for
Scho
ol L
eade
rs
VA
L-E
D
U o
f C Q
uest
ion
Prom
pt/It
em
Tex
t T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y Sc
hool
Com
mitm
ent
Te
ache
r: I
usua
lly lo
ok fo
rwar
d to
eac
h w
orki
ng d
ay a
t thi
s sc
hool
.
Non
e N
one
Teac
her:
I w
ould
n’t w
ant t
o w
ork
in a
ny o
ther
scho
ol.
Teac
her:
I fe
el lo
yal t
o th
is
scho
ol.
Teac
her:
I w
ould
reco
mm
end
this
sc
hool
to p
aren
ts se
ekin
g a
plac
e fo
r the
ir ch
ild.
119
5Ess
entia
ls S
urve
y –
Invo
lved
Fam
ilies
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds
for
Scho
ol L
eade
rs
VA
L-E
D
U o
f C Q
uest
ion
Prom
pt/It
em
Tex
t T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
each
er-P
aren
t Tru
st
Te
ache
r: H
ow m
any
teac
hers
in
this
scho
ol fe
el g
ood
abou
t par
ents
’ su
ppor
t for
thei
r wor
k?
C
L10,
C
L11
CL1
5
5a
4a
IV
-a,b
,d,j
V-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r: T
o w
hat e
xten
t do
you
feel
resp
ecte
d by
the
pare
nts o
f you
r st
uden
ts?
C
L10,
C
L11
CL1
5
5a
4a
IV
-a,b
,d,j
V-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r; st
uden
ts’ p
aren
ts:
Supp
ort
your
teac
hing
eff
orts
?
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
5a
4a
IV-a
,b,d
,j V
-c,d
,e
Teac
her;
stud
ents
’ par
ents
: D
o th
eir
best
to h
elp
thei
r chi
ldre
n le
arn?
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
5a
4a
IV-a
,b,d
,j V
-c,d
,e
Teac
her;
stud
ents
’ par
ents
: A
t thi
s sc
hool
, it i
s diff
icul
t to
over
com
e th
e cu
ltura
l bar
riers
bet
wee
n te
ache
rs a
nd p
aren
ts.
C
L10,
C
L11
CL1
5
5a
4a
IV
-a,b
,d,j
V-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r; st
uden
ts’ p
aren
ts:
Teac
hers
and
par
ents
thin
k of
eac
h ot
her a
s par
tner
s in
educ
atin
g ch
ildre
n.
C
L10,
C
L11
CL1
5
5a
4a
IV
-a,b
,d,j
V-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r; st
uden
ts’ p
aren
ts:
Pare
nts
have
con
fiden
ce in
the
expe
rtise
of
the
teac
hers
.
CL1
0,
CL1
1 C
L15
5a
4a
IV-a
,b,d
,j V
-c,d
,e
Teac
her;
stud
ents
’ par
ents
: St
aff a
t th
is sc
hool
wor
k ha
rd to
bui
ld
trusti
ng re
latio
nshi
ps w
ith p
aren
ts.
C
L10,
C
L11
CL1
5
5a
4a
IV
-a,b
,d,j
V-c
,d,e
Pa
rent
Invo
lvem
ent i
n th
e Sc
hool
Teac
her;
stud
ents
’ par
ents
:
Atte
nded
par
ent-t
each
er
conf
eren
ces w
hen
you
requ
este
d th
em
IVD
002,
IV
D03
, C
L6
4c
V-a
,b,c
, d,
e,g,
h
120
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds
for
Scho
ol L
eade
rs
VA
L-E
D
U o
f C Q
uest
ion
Prom
pt/It
em
Tex
t T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y
Teac
her;
stud
ents
’ par
ents
:
Vol
unte
er to
hel
p in
the
clas
sroo
m
IVD
002,
IV
D03
, C
L6
4c
V-a
,b,c
, d,
e,g,
h Te
ache
r; st
uden
ts’ p
aren
ts:
Pi
cked
up
thei
r chi
ld’s
last
repo
rt ca
rd
IVD
002,
IV
D03
, C
L6
4c
V-a
,b,c
, d,
e,g,
h O
utre
ach
to P
aren
ts
Te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: P
aren
ts a
re
invi
ted
to v
isit
clas
sroo
ms t
o ob
serv
e th
e in
stru
ctio
nal p
rogr
am.
4c
4a
V
-a,b
,c,
d,e,
g,h
V-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: T
he p
rinci
pal
push
es te
ache
rs to
com
mun
icat
e re
gula
rly w
ith p
aren
ts.
4c
4a
V
-a,b
,c,
d,e,
g,h
V-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: W
e en
cour
age
feed
back
from
par
ents
and
the
com
mun
ity.
4c
4a
V
-a,b
,c,
d,e,
g,h
V-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: T
each
ers r
eally
try
to u
nder
stan
d pa
rent
s’ p
robl
ems
and
conc
erns
.
4c
4a
V-a
,b,c
, d,
e,g,
h V
-c,d
,e
Teac
her’
s sch
ool:
Par
ents
are
gr
eete
d w
arm
ly w
hen
they
cal
l or
visi
t the
scho
ol.
4c
4a
V
-a,b
,c,
d,e,
g,h
V-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: T
each
ers w
ork
clos
ely
with
par
ents
to m
eet
stud
ents
’ nee
ds.
4c
4a
V
-a,b
,c,
d,e,
g,h
V-c
,d,e
Te
ache
r’s s
choo
l: W
e w
ork
at
com
mun
icat
ing
to p
aren
ts a
bout
su
ppor
t nee
ded
to a
dvan
ce th
e sc
hool
mis
sion
.
4c
4a
V-a
,b,c
, d,
e,g,
h V
-c,d
,e
Teac
her’
s sch
ool:
Thi
s sch
ool
regu
larly
com
mun
icat
es w
ith
pare
nts a
bout
how
they
can
hel
p th
eir c
hild
ren
lear
n.
4c
4a
V
-a,b
,c,
d,e,
g,h
V-c
,d,e
121
R
isin
g St
ar In
dica
tors
Il
linoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds
for
Scho
ol L
eade
rs
VA
L-E
D
U o
f C Q
uest
ion
Prom
pt/It
em
Tex
t T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y T
ertia
ry
Seco
ndar
y Pr
imar
y H
uman
and
Soc
ial R
esou
rces
in
the
Com
mun
ity
Stud
ent’s
nei
ghbo
rhoo
d: T
here
are
ad
ults
in th
is n
eigh
borh
ood
that
ch
ildre
n ca
n lo
ok u
p to
.
4c
V-a
,b,c
, d,
e,g,
h St
uden
t’s n
eigh
borh
ood:
Adu
lts in
th
is n
eigh
borh
ood
know
who
the
loca
l chi
ldre
n ar
e.
4c
V
-a,b
,c,
d,e,
g,h
Stud
ent’s
nei
ghbo
rhoo
d: Y
ou c
an
coun
t on
adul
ts in
this
nei
ghbo
rhoo
d to
see
that
chi
ldre
n ar
e sa
fe a
nd d
o no
t get
into
trou
ble.
4c
V-a
,b,c
, d,
e,g,
h St
uden
t’s n
eigh
borh
ood:
Dur
ing
the
day,
it is
safe
for c
hild
ren
to
play
in th
e lo
cal p
ark
or p
layg
roun
d.
4c
V
-a,b
,c,
d,e,
g,h
122
ILLI
NO
IS P
ERFO
RMAN
CE S
TAN
DAR
DS
FOR
SCH
OO
L LE
ADER
S St
anda
rd
Indi
cato
r
Stan
dard
In
dica
tor
I. Li
ving
a M
issi
on a
nd V
isio
n Fo
cuse
d on
Res
ults
The
prin
cipa
l wor
ks w
ith th
e st
aff
and
com
mun
ity to
bui
ld a
sha
red
mis
sion
, and
vis
ion
of h
igh
expe
ctat
ions
that
ens
ures
all
stud
ents
are
on
the
path
to
colle
ge a
nd c
aree
r re
adin
ess,
an
d ho
lds
staf
f acc
ount
able
for
resu
lts
a. C
oord
inat
es e
ffort
s to
cre
ate
and
impl
emen
t a v
isio
n fo
r the
sch
ool a
nd d
efin
es
desi
red
resu
lts a
nd g
oals
that
alig
n w
ith th
e ov
eral
l sch
ool v
isio
n an
d le
ad to
st
uden
t im
prov
emen
t for
all
lear
ners
b. E
nsur
es th
at th
e sc
hool
’s id
entit
y, v
isio
n, a
nd m
issi
on d
rive
scho
ol d
ecis
ions
c. C
ondu
cts
diffi
cult
but c
ruci
al c
onve
rsat
ions
with
indi
vidu
als,
team
s, a
nd s
taff
base
d on
stu
dent
per
form
ance
dat
a in
a ti
mel
y m
anne
r for
the
purp
ose
of
enha
ncin
g st
uden
t lea
rnin
g an
d re
sults
IV
. Bui
ldin
g an
d M
aint
aini
ng
Col
labo
rativ
e R
elat
ions
hips
The
prin
cipa
l cre
ates
a c
ol-
labo
rativ
e sc
hool
com
mun
ity
whe
re th
e sc
hool
sta
ff, fa
mili
es,
and
com
mun
ity in
tera
ct r
egul
arly
an
d sh
are
owne
rshi
p fo
r the
su
cces
s of
the
scho
ol
a. C
reat
es, d
evel
ops
and
sust
ains
rel
atio
nshi
ps th
at r
esul
t in
activ
e st
uden
t eng
agem
ent i
n th
e le
arni
ng p
roce
ss
b. U
tiliz
es m
eani
ngfu
l fee
dbac
k of
stu
dent
s, s
taff,
fam
ilies
, an
d co
mm
unity
in th
e ev
alua
tion
of in
stru
ctio
nal p
rogr
ams
and
polic
ies
c. P
roac
tivel
y en
gage
s fa
mili
es a
nd c
omm
uniti
es in
su
ppor
ting
thei
r ch
ild’s
lear
ning
and
the
scho
ol’s
lear
ning
go
als
d. D
emon
stra
tes
an u
nder
stan
ding
of t
he c
hang
e pr
oces
s an
d us
es le
ader
ship
and
faci
litat
ion
skill
s to
man
age
it ef
fect
ivel
y
II. L
eadi
ng a
nd M
anag
ing
Sys
tem
s C
hang
e
The
prin
cipa
l cre
ates
and
im
plem
ents
sys
tem
s to
ens
ure
a sa
fe, o
rder
ly, a
nd p
rodu
ctiv
e en
viro
nmen
t for
stu
dent
and
ad
ult l
earn
ing
tow
ard
the
achi
evem
ent o
f sch
ool a
nd
dist
rict i
mpr
ovem
ent p
riorit
ies
a. D
evel
ops,
impl
emen
ts, a
nd m
onito
rs th
e ou
tcom
es o
f the
sch
ool i
mpr
ovem
ent
plan
and
sch
ool w
ide
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent d
ata
resu
lts to
impr
ove
stud
ent
achi
evem
ent
b. C
reat
es a
saf
e, c
lean
and
ord
erly
lear
ning
env
ironm
ent
c. C
olla
bora
tes
with
sta
ff to
allo
cate
per
sonn
el, t
ime,
mat
eria
l, an
d ad
ult l
earn
ing
reso
urce
s ap
prop
riate
ly to
ach
ieve
the
scho
ol im
prov
emen
t pla
n ta
rget
s
d.
Em
ploy
s cu
rren
t tec
hnol
ogie
s
V. L
eadi
ng w
ith In
tegr
ity a
nd
Pro
fess
iona
lism
The
prin
cipa
l wor
ks w
ith th
e sc
hool
sta
ff an
d co
mm
unity
to
crea
te a
pos
itive
con
text
for
lear
ning
by
ensu
ring
equi
ty,
fulfi
lling
pro
fess
iona
l res
pons
i-bi
litie
s w
ith h
ones
ty a
nd in
tegr
ity,
and
serv
ing
as a
mod
el fo
r th
e pr
ofes
sion
al b
ehav
ior o
f oth
ers
a. T
reat
s al
l peo
ple
fairl
y, e
quita
bly,
and
with
dig
nity
and
re
spec
t
b. D
emon
stra
tes
pers
onal
and
pro
fess
iona
l sta
ndar
ds a
nd
cond
uct t
hat e
nhan
ce th
e im
age
of th
e sc
hool
and
the
educ
atio
nal p
rofe
ssio
n. P
rote
cts
the
right
s an
d co
nfid
entia
lity
of s
tude
nts
and
staf
f
c. C
reat
es a
nd s
uppo
rts a
clim
ate
that
val
ues,
acc
epts
and
un
ders
tand
s di
vers
ity in
cul
ture
and
poi
nt o
f vie
w
III. I
mpr
ovin
g Te
achi
ng a
nd
Lear
ning
The
prin
cipa
l wor
ks w
ith th
e sc
hool
sta
ff an
d co
mm
unity
to
deve
lop
a re
sear
ch-b
ased
fra
mew
ork
for e
ffect
ive
teac
hing
an
d le
arni
ng th
at is
ref
ined
co
ntin
uous
ly to
impr
ove
inst
ruct
ion
for
all s
tude
nts
a. W
orks
with
sta
ff to
dev
elop
a c
onsi
sten
t fra
mew
ork
for
effe
ctiv
e te
achi
ng a
nd
lear
ning
that
incl
udes
a r
igor
ous
and
rele
vant
sta
ndar
ds-b
ased
cur
ricul
um,
rese
arch
-bas
ed in
stru
ctio
nal p
ract
ices
, and
hig
h ex
pect
atio
ns fo
r stu
dent
pe
rfor
man
ce
b. C
reat
es a
con
tinuo
us im
prov
emen
t cyc
le th
at u
ses
mul
tiple
form
s of
dat
a an
d st
uden
t wor
k sa
mpl
es to
sup
port
indi
vidu
al, t
eam
, and
sch
ool-w
ide
impr
ovem
ent
goal
s, id
entif
y an
d ad
dres
s ar
eas
of im
prov
emen
t and
cel
ebra
te s
ucce
sses
c. Im
plem
ents
stu
dent
inte
rven
tions
that
diff
eren
tiate
inst
ruct
ion
base
d on
stu
dent
ne
eds
d. S
elec
ts a
nd r
etai
ns te
ache
rs w
ith th
e ex
perti
se to
del
iver
inst
ruct
ion
that
m
axim
izes
stu
dent
lear
ning
e. E
valu
ates
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
inst
ruct
ion
and
of in
divi
dual
teac
hers
by
cond
uctin
g fre
quen
t for
mal
and
info
rmal
obs
erva
tions
pro
vidi
ng ti
mel
y fe
edba
ck
on in
stru
ctio
n as
par
t of t
he d
istri
ct te
ache
r ap
prai
sal s
yste
m
f. E
nsur
es th
e tra
inin
g, d
evel
opm
ent,
and
supp
ort f
or h
igh-
perf
orm
ing
inst
ruct
iona
l te
ache
r tea
ms
to s
uppo
rt a
dult
lear
ning
and
dev
elop
men
t to
adva
nce
stud
ent
lear
ning
and
per
form
ance
g. D
evel
ops
syst
ems
and
stru
ctur
es fo
r st
aff p
rofe
ssio
nal d
evel
opm
ent a
nd s
harin
g of
effe
ctiv
e pr
actic
es in
clud
ing
prov
idin
g an
d pr
otec
ting
time
allo
tted
for
deve
lopm
ent
h. A
dvan
ces
Inst
ruct
iona
l Tec
hnol
ogy
with
in th
e le
arni
ng e
nviro
nmen
t
VI.
Cre
atin
g an
d S
usta
inin
g a
Cul
ture
of H
igh
Exp
ecta
tions
The
prin
cipa
l wor
ks w
ith s
taff
and
com
mun
ity to
bui
ld a
cul
ture
of
high
exp
ecta
tions
and
asp
iratio
ns
for
ever
y st
uden
t by
setti
ng c
lear
st
aff a
nd s
tude
nt e
xpec
tatio
ns fo
r po
sitiv
e le
arni
ng b
ehav
iors
and
by
focu
sing
on
stud
ents
’ soc
ial-
emot
iona
l lea
rnin
g
a. B
uild
s a
cultu
re o
f hig
h as
pira
tions
and
ach
ieve
men
t and
fo
r ev
ery
stud
ent
b. R
equi
res
staf
f and
stu
dent
s to
dem
onst
rate
con
sist
ent
valu
es a
nd p
ositi
ve b
ehav
iors
alig
ned
to th
e sc
hool
’s
visi
on a
nd m
issi
on
c. L
eads
a s
choo
l cul
ture
and
env
ironm
ent t
hat s
ucce
ssfu
lly
deve
lops
the
full
rang
e of
stu
dent
s’ le
arni
ng c
apac
ities
—ac
adem
ic, c
reat
ive,
soc
ial-e
mot
iona
l, be
havi
oral
and
ph
ysic
al
12
3
LLIN
OIS
PER
FOR
MAN
CE S
TAN
DAR
DS
FOR
SCH
OO
L LE
ADER
S R
UBR
IC
EVAL
UAT
ING
PRAC
TICE
OF
PRIN
CIPA
LS
I.
LIVI
NG
A M
ISSO
N, V
ISIO
N, A
ND
BEL
IEFS
FO
R RE
SULT
S—Th
e Pr
inci
pal w
orks
wit
h th
e st
aff a
nd c
omm
unit
y to
bui
ld a
sha
red
mis
sion
, and
vis
ion
of h
igh
expe
ctat
ions
that
ens
ures
all
stud
ents
are
on
the
path
to c
olle
ge a
nd c
aree
r re
adin
ess,
and
hol
ds s
taff
acco
unta
ble
for
resu
lts.
El
emen
t D
isti
ngui
shed
Pr
ofic
ient
Ba
sic
Uns
atis
fact
ory
Exam
ples
of E
vide
nce
a. C
oord
inat
es e
ffort
s to
cre
ate
and
impl
emen
t a v
isio
n fo
r th
e sc
hool
and
def
ines
des
ired
res
ults
and
goa
ls th
at a
lign
wit
h th
e ov
eral
l sch
ool v
isio
n an
d le
ad to
stu
dent
impr
ovem
ent f
or a
ll le
arne
rs
Colla
bora
tes t
o De
velo
p an
d M
aint
ain
a Sh
ared
Vi
sion
of H
igh
Expe
ctat
ions
Co-c
reat
es a
shar
ed v
ision
of
high
exp
ecta
tions
with
m
ultip
le st
akeh
olde
rs; b
uild
s st
aff c
apac
ity to
mai
ntai
n an
d im
plem
ent a
shar
ed v
ision
for
high
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent
and
colle
ge a
nd c
aree
r re
adin
ess
Invo
lves
staf
f and
stud
ents
in
dev
elop
ing,
mai
ntai
ning
, an
d im
plem
entin
g a
shar
ed
visio
n of
hig
h ex
pect
atio
ns,
incl
udin
g co
llege
and
car
eer
read
ines
s, fo
r all
stud
ents
Deve
lops
min
imal
op
port
uniti
es fo
r st
aff a
nd st
uden
ts to
le
arn
abou
t a v
ision
of
hig
h ex
pect
atio
ns,
incl
udin
g co
llege
and
ca
reer
read
ines
s, fo
r al
l stu
dent
s; g
ives
st
aff l
imite
d in
put
into
the
deve
lopm
ent a
nd
mai
nten
ance
of t
he
visio
n
Does
not
col
labo
rate
to c
reat
e or
mai
ntai
n a
visio
n of
hig
h ex
pect
atio
ns a
nd d
oes n
ot
atte
mpt
to e
nsur
e al
l sta
ff to
ha
ve h
igh
acad
emic
ex
pect
atio
ns
• Th
ere
is vi
sible
alig
nmen
t bet
wee
n th
e vi
sion
and
the
scho
ol g
oals
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: th
e Sc
hool
Impr
ovem
ent P
lan,
Sch
ool
Repo
rt C
ard,
and
gra
de le
vel g
oals]
• Sc
hool
visi
on a
nd g
oals
are
shar
ed w
ith st
akeh
olde
r gro
ups
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: p
rese
ntat
ion
to st
akeh
olde
rs]
• Bu
ildin
g le
vel s
taff
deve
lopm
ent p
lan
supp
orts
and
is a
ligne
d to
the
Scho
ol Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n an
d th
e di
stric
t visi
on a
nd m
issio
n [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
the
Scho
ol Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n an
d th
e bu
ildin
g st
aff d
evel
opm
ent p
lan]
• W
ritte
n va
lues
and
bel
iefs
refle
ct h
igh
expe
ctat
ions
for a
ll st
uden
ts
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: sc
hool
leve
l and
gra
de le
vel g
oals]
b. E
nsur
es th
at th
e sc
hool
’s id
enti
ty, v
isio
n, m
issi
on, d
rive
sch
ool d
ecis
ions
Ensu
res v
ision
and
m
issio
n dr
ive
scho
ol d
ecisi
ons
Use
s the
visi
on a
nd m
issio
n to
mak
e al
l dec
ision
s, u
ses
prot
ocol
s for
mak
ing
deci
sions
that
refe
r sta
ff an
d te
am d
ecisi
ons b
ack
to th
e vi
sion
and
miss
ion;
bui
lds
staf
f cap
acity
to u
se th
e vi
sion
and
miss
ion
to m
ake
inst
ruct
iona
l dec
ision
s
Use
s the
visi
on a
nd m
issio
n to
mak
e al
l dec
ision
s,
crea
tes a
nd u
ses p
roto
cols
alig
ned
to th
e vi
sion
and
miss
ion
to m
ake
deci
sions
Refe
rs to
scho
ol
visio
n w
hen
mak
ing
deci
sions
but
may
no
t be
guid
ed b
y th
e vi
sion
Actio
ns c
ontr
adic
t the
scho
ol
visio
n or
dem
onst
rate
inco
nsis-
tenc
y be
twee
n st
ated
bel
iefs
an
d ac
tions
• Bu
ildin
g w
ide
goal
s and
visi
on a
re sh
ared
and
wid
ely
know
n w
ithin
th
e sc
hool
com
mun
ity [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
pos
ters
and
ne
wsle
tter
s]
• Pa
rent
s, st
aff a
nd o
ther
s are
cle
ar a
bout
aca
dem
ic e
xpec
tatio
ns a
nd
hom
ewor
k gu
idel
ines
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: h
omew
ork
polic
y,
acad
emic
gui
delin
es, p
aren
t han
dboo
k]
• Te
am m
eetin
gs fo
cus o
n im
prov
ing
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: te
am m
eetin
g ag
enda
s and
min
utes
]
Conf
ront
s Low
Ex
pect
atio
ns
Build
s cap
acity
of s
taff
to
addr
ess o
ther
staf
f or
stak
ehol
ders
who
con
trad
ict
the
visio
n by
disp
layi
ng lo
w
or n
egat
ive
expe
ctat
ions
; co
ntes
ts o
r elim
inat
es
cour
ses a
nd g
radi
ng p
olic
ies
that
con
trad
ict t
he v
ision
and
m
issio
n
Cons
isten
tly a
ddre
sses
staf
f w
ho c
ontr
adic
t the
visi
on b
y di
spla
ying
low
exp
ecta
tions
; co
ntes
ts c
lass
offe
rings
and
gr
adin
g po
licie
s tha
t co
ntra
dict
the
visio
n an
d m
issio
n
Inco
nsist
ently
ad
dres
ses s
taff
who
ha
ve lo
w
expe
ctat
ions
; at
tem
pts t
o im
plem
ent g
radi
ng
polic
ies t
hat s
uppo
rt
the
visio
n an
d m
issio
n
Does
not
con
fron
t sta
ff w
ho
have
low
exp
ecta
tions
for s
ome
or a
ll st
uden
ts
• Ac
adem
ic w
ork
and
hom
ewor
k gu
idel
ines
are
shar
ed w
ith p
aren
ts,
staf
f and
oth
ers t
o en
sure
that
exp
ecta
tions
are
cle
ar to
all
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: h
omew
ork
polic
y an
d ac
adem
ic
guid
elin
es]
• Bu
ilds e
ffect
ive
prof
essio
nal l
earn
ing
com
mun
ities
with
in th
e bu
ildin
g th
at u
se d
ata
to d
evel
op p
lans
and
stra
tegi
es to
impr
ove
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent f
or a
ll st
uden
ts [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
PL
C le
arni
ng a
gend
as a
nd p
lans
]
124
• Ri
goro
us c
ours
e co
nten
t is a
cces
sible
to a
ll st
uden
ts [o
bser
vatio
ns
and
artif
acts
: stu
dent
’s c
ours
e lo
ad, s
ched
ules
, and
sub-
grou
p da
ta]
c. C
ondu
cts
diffi
cult
but
cru
cial
con
vers
atio
ns w
ith
indi
vidu
als,
team
s, a
nd s
taff
base
d on
stu
dent
per
form
ance
dat
a in
a ti
mel
y m
anne
r fo
r th
e pu
rpos
e of
enh
anci
ng s
tude
nt le
arni
ng a
nd r
esul
ts.
Cond
ucts
diff
icul
t Co
nver
satio
ns to
Im
prov
e St
uden
t Re
sults
Build
s the
cap
acity
of o
ther
le
ader
s with
in th
e sc
hool
to
addr
ess a
reas
of
unde
rper
form
ance
with
in
divi
dual
s, te
ams a
nd st
aff;
mod
els h
ow to
con
duct
di
fficu
lt co
nver
satio
ns w
ith
indi
vidu
als,
team
s, a
nd st
aff
base
d on
stud
ent
perf
orm
ance
dat
a
Addr
esse
s are
as o
f un
derp
erfo
rman
ce in
a
timel
y m
anne
r with
in
divi
dual
s, te
ams a
nd st
aff;
proa
ctiv
ely
lead
s diff
icul
t co
nver
satio
ns w
ith st
aff t
o im
prov
e an
d en
hanc
e st
uden
t lea
rnin
g an
d re
sults
as
nec
essa
ry
Inco
nsist
ently
ad
dres
ses a
reas
of
unde
rper
form
ance
an
d/or
may
onl
y ad
dres
s con
cern
s to
a su
b-se
t of t
he st
aff;
inco
nsist
ently
hol
ds
conv
ersa
tions
on
impr
ovin
g an
d en
hanc
ing
stud
ent
lear
ning
resu
lts
Does
not
add
ress
are
as o
f un
derp
erfo
rman
ce w
ith st
aff
mem
bers
; doe
s not
hol
d co
nver
satio
ns o
n im
prov
ing
and
enha
ncin
g st
uden
t lea
rnin
g re
sults
• Sc
hool
staf
f dev
elop
men
t pla
n ad
dres
ses d
iffic
ult c
onve
rsat
ions
to
impr
ove
and
enha
nce
stud
ent l
earn
ing
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s:
scho
ol d
evel
opm
ent p
lan]
• Te
ache
r con
vers
atio
ns a
nd m
eetin
gs a
re fo
cuse
d on
impr
ovin
g st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t and
dem
onst
rate
hig
h ex
pect
atio
ns
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: te
am m
eetin
g m
inut
es o
r sta
ff de
velo
pmen
t pla
ns]
• Fa
culty
mee
tings
are
focu
sed
on im
prov
ing
resu
lts [o
bser
vatio
ns
and
artif
acts
: mee
ting
agen
das a
nd m
inut
es]
12
5
II.
LEAD
ING
AND
MAN
AGIN
G SY
STEM
S CH
ANGE
—Th
e pr
inci
pal c
reat
es a
nd im
plem
ents
sys
tem
s to
ens
ure
a sa
fe, o
rder
ly, a
nd
prod
ucti
ve e
nvir
onm
ent f
or s
tude
nt a
nd a
dult
lear
ning
tow
ard
the
achi
evem
ent o
f sch
ool a
nd d
istr
ict i
mpr
ovem
ent p
rior
itie
s.
Elem
ent
Dis
ting
uish
ed
Prof
icie
nt
Basi
c U
nsat
isfa
ctor
y Ex
ampl
es o
f Evi
denc
e
a. D
evel
ops,
impl
emen
ts, a
nd m
onit
ors
the
outc
omes
of t
he s
choo
l im
prov
emen
t pla
n an
d sc
hool
wid
e st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t dat
a re
sult
s to
impr
ove
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent
Asse
sses
the
Curr
ent S
tate
of
Sch
ool
Perf
orm
ance
Com
plet
es a
com
preh
ensiv
e as
sess
men
t of t
he sc
hool
’s
stre
ngth
s/w
eakn
esse
s inc
ludi
ng a
n as
sess
men
t of t
he sc
hool
pra
ctic
es
and
stud
ent l
earn
ing
outc
omes
Asse
sses
the
scho
ol b
y us
ing
mul
tiple
form
s of d
ata
(e.g
. an
nual
, int
erim
and
form
ativ
e da
ta) a
nd th
e pr
evio
us y
ears
’ sc
hool
impr
ovem
ent p
lan
to
trac
k, a
nd re
view
pro
gres
s
Use
s lim
ited
data
to a
sses
s cu
rren
t stu
dent
ac
hiev
emen
t res
ults
and
sc
hool
pra
ctic
es
Does
not
ass
ess t
he
curr
ent s
tate
of t
he
scho
ol a
nd/o
r doe
s not
us
e da
ta to
ass
ess
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent o
r ov
eral
l sch
ool
perf
orm
ance
• U
ses d
isagg
rega
ted
stud
ent d
ata
to d
eter
min
e th
e cu
rren
t sta
te o
f th
e sc
hool
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: a
naly
sis o
f dat
a, R
TI d
ata
and
team
min
utes
, for
mat
ive
and
sum
mat
ive
asse
ssm
ent a
naly
sis,
and
the
Scho
ol Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n]
• S
choo
l Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n re
flect
s cur
rent
stat
e of
the
scho
ol
deve
lope
d th
roug
h an
alys
is of
disa
ggre
gate
d da
ta [o
bser
vatio
ns
and
artif
acts
: gra
de le
vel t
arge
ts, a
naly
sis o
f dat
a, R
TI d
ata
and
team
min
utes
, for
mat
ive
and
sum
mat
ive
asse
ssm
ent a
naly
sis, a
nd
the
Scho
ol Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n]
Deve
lops
a
Scho
ol
Impr
ovem
ent
Plan
Use
s a c
ompr
ehen
sive
anal
ysis
of
the
scho
ol to
det
erm
ine
appr
opria
te
grad
e an
d co
nten
t are
a ta
rget
s and
pr
iorit
ies f
or im
prov
emen
t with
st
aff;
orga
nize
s sta
ff to
mon
itor,
trac
k, a
nd re
view
pro
gres
s and
cr
eate
s a d
etai
led
scho
ol
impr
ovem
ent p
lan
that
iden
tifie
s a
stra
tegy
to re
ach
scho
ol-w
ide
targ
ets a
nd g
oal
Use
s the
out
puts
from
a
scho
ol-w
ide
asse
ssm
ent t
o id
entif
y pr
iorit
y ar
eas f
or
impr
ovem
ent a
nd to
set
mea
sura
ble
goal
s with
sp
ecifi
c gr
ade
leve
l and
co
nten
t are
as ta
rget
s; n
ames
m
ilest
ones
and
ben
chm
arks
of
stud
ent p
rogr
ess a
nd
deve
lops
a sc
hool
im
prov
emen
t pla
n th
at
iden
tifie
s a st
rate
gy to
reac
h sc
hool
-wid
e ta
rget
s and
goa
ls
Use
s lim
ited
data
to id
entif
y pr
iorit
y ar
eas f
or
impr
ovem
ent a
nd se
ts so
me
mea
sura
ble
scho
ol-w
ide
goal
s; n
ames
a fe
w
mile
ston
es a
nd b
ench
mar
ks
of st
uden
t pro
gres
s and
de
velo
ps a
scho
ol
impr
ovem
ent p
lan
that
id
entif
ies a
lim
ited
stra
tegy
to
reac
h sc
hool
-wid
e go
als
Does
not
use
dat
a to
id
entif
y pr
iorit
y ar
eas o
r go
als f
or im
prov
emen
t; ha
s no
way
to tr
ack
prog
ress
; doe
s not
co
mpl
ete
a sc
hool
im
prov
emen
t pla
n an
d/or
cre
ates
a p
lan
that
is n
ot a
ligne
d to
sc
hool
prio
ritie
s for
im
prov
emen
t
• T
he S
choo
l Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n id
entif
ies s
trat
egie
s to
reac
h sc
hool
an
d gr
ade
leve
l goa
ls [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
the
Scho
ol
Impr
ovem
ent P
lan,
pre
sent
atio
n or
mat
eria
ls on
dat
a an
d ho
w
data
will
be
used
]
• Gr
ade
leve
l tar
gets
are
der
ived
from
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
cur
rent
st
ate
and
supp
ort t
he S
choo
l Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd
artif
acts
: gra
de le
vel t
arge
ts, a
naly
sis o
f dat
a, R
TI d
ata
and
team
m
inut
es, f
orm
ativ
e an
d su
mm
ativ
e as
sess
men
t ana
lysis
, an
d th
e Sc
hool
Impr
ovem
ent P
lan]
Mai
ntai
ns a
Fo
cus o
n Re
sults
Rem
ains
focu
sed
on st
uden
t ac
hiev
emen
t res
ults
at a
ll tim
es;
build
s sta
ff ow
ners
hip
for t
he
goal
s and
bui
lds c
apac
ity o
f sta
ff to
mon
itor b
ench
mar
ks a
nd
mile
ston
es w
ithin
spec
ific
grad
e or
cont
ent a
reas
incl
udin
g co
n-tin
uous
revi
ew o
f dis
aggr
egat
ed
data
for s
tude
nt g
roup
s who
hav
e tr
aditi
onal
ly n
ot b
een
succ
essf
ul
in th
e sc
hool
Dem
onst
rate
s foc
us o
n im
prov
ing
stud
ent
achi
evem
ent r
esul
ts; k
eeps
th
e sc
hool
-wid
e go
als p
rese
nt
for s
taff
and
stak
ehol
ders
by
refe
renc
ing
goal
s in
all
mee
tings
and
pla
nnin
g se
ssio
ns; t
rack
s pro
gres
s ag
ains
t mile
ston
es a
nd
benc
hmar
ks to
mon
itor,
trac
k, a
nd re
view
pro
gres
s,
and
adju
sts s
trat
egie
s
Inco
nsist
ently
focu
ses o
n im
prov
ing
stud
ent a
chie
ve-
men
t res
ults
; ref
ers t
o go
als
on a
n in
cons
isten
t bas
is an
d do
es n
ot c
oncr
etel
y co
nnec
t th
e go
als t
o th
e da
y-to
-day
w
ork
of th
e sc
hool
and
im
plem
ents
a li
mite
d nu
mbe
r of s
trat
egie
s to
reac
h re
sults
Does
not
mai
ntai
n fo
cus
on im
prov
ing
resu
lts o
r m
eetin
g sc
hool
goa
ls -
rare
ly re
fers
to g
oals
and
does
not
iden
tify
and/
or
impl
emen
t str
ateg
ies t
o re
ach
resu
lts
• Fa
culty
ass
ume
shar
ed a
ccou
ntab
ility
to re
ach
goal
s [ob
serv
atio
ns
and
artif
acts
: sta
ff go
als a
ligne
d to
scho
ol g
oals,
scho
ol st
aff
deve
lopm
ent p
lan,
and
team
mee
tings
focu
s on
stud
ent r
esul
ts]
• St
aff a
djus
t str
ateg
ies a
nd p
lans
if in
terim
ben
chm
arks
are
not
met
[o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
gra
ding
syst
ems t
hat f
ocus
on
mee
ting
stan
dard
s ove
r tim
e, R
TI d
ata
and
mee
ting
min
utes
, and
ana
lysis
of
disa
ggre
gate
d da
ta]
• Stud
ent a
nd st
aff s
ucce
sses
are
cel
ebra
ted
whe
n m
ilest
ones
and
be
nchm
arks
are
met
[ob
serv
atio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
ass
embl
ies a
nd
reco
gniti
on p
rogr
ams]
12
6
b. C
reat
es a
Saf
e, C
lean
and
Ord
erly
Lea
rnin
g En
viro
nmen
t
Build
s,
eval
uate
s and
de
velo
ps a
te
am o
f ed
ucat
ors a
nd
supp
ort s
taff
to e
nsur
e th
e le
arni
ng
envi
ronm
ent
is sa
fe, c
lean
, an
d or
derly
Plan
s for
and
impl
emen
ts fa
cilit
y an
d eq
uipm
ent e
xpan
sions
&
impr
ovem
ents
and
iden
tifie
s cr
eativ
e so
lutio
ns to
max
imize
and
sh
are
spac
e; c
ompl
ies w
ith a
ll co
mpo
nent
s of t
he sa
fety
dril
l and
co
nduc
ts m
ultip
le tr
aini
ngs w
ith
staf
f and
mul
tiple
dril
ls ev
ery
year
; bu
ilds s
taff
capa
city
to le
ad a
nd
man
age
com
pone
nts o
f sch
ool
safe
ty
Ensu
res l
earn
ing
envi
ronm
ent i
s con
duct
ive
to le
arni
ng a
nd p
ositi
ve;
supe
rvis
es fa
cilit
ies a
nd
equi
pmen
t man
agem
ent t
o en
hanc
e le
arni
ng a
nd
ensu
res t
hat t
he sc
hool
en
viro
nmen
t is s
afe;
co
mpl
ies w
ith th
e Ill
inoi
s Sa
fety
Dri
ll Ac
t
Ensu
res t
hat t
he sc
hool
en
viro
nmen
t is r
elat
ivel
y sa
fe a
nd is
in b
asic
co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith th
e sc
hool
sa
fety
act
Does
not
ens
ure
that
the
scho
ol is
safe
; doe
s not
co
mpl
y w
ith th
e sc
hool
sa
fety
act
• Ro
utin
es a
nd p
roce
dure
s are
in p
lace
, disc
usse
d, a
nd im
plem
ente
d [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
sev
ere
wea
ther
and
dril
l pla
ns, s
choo
l cr
isis p
lan,
com
plet
ed Il
linoi
s dril
l doc
umen
tatio
n fo
rm, b
uild
ing
rule
s are
pos
ted,
stud
ent h
andb
ooks
/par
ent h
andb
ook,
bus
dut
y ha
ll du
ty sc
hedu
les]
• Sc
hool
bui
ldin
g is
clea
n an
d sa
fe-a
ll ba
sic fa
cilit
ies a
re in
wor
king
or
der [
obse
rvat
ions
and
art
ifact
s; b
athr
oom
s, w
indo
ws,
sink
s,
lock
s]
•Phy
sical
pla
nt su
ppor
ts m
ajor
aca
dem
ic p
riorit
ies/
initi
ativ
es
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: re
adin
g no
oks,
impr
oved
libr
ary,
en
hanc
ed c
ompu
ter l
ab, c
omfo
rtab
le st
aff l
oung
e/m
eetin
g ar
ea]
c. C
olla
bora
tes
wit
h st
aff t
o al
loca
te p
erso
nnel
, tim
e, m
ater
ial,
and
adul
t lea
rnin
g re
sour
ces
appr
opri
atel
y to
ach
ieve
the
scho
ol im
prov
emen
t pla
n ta
rget
s
Allo
cate
s Re
sour
ces t
o Su
ppor
t St
uden
t Le
arni
ng
Cont
inua
lly a
sses
ses a
nd
reas
sess
es re
sour
ces a
nd c
reat
ivel
y ut
ilize
s and
leve
rage
s exi
stin
g sc
hool
and
dist
rict r
esou
rces
, and
is
rele
ntle
ss in
act
ivel
y ac
cess
ing
hum
an a
nd fi
scal
reso
urce
s tha
t al
ign
to st
rate
gic
prio
ritie
s to
supp
ort t
he a
chie
vem
ent o
f sch
ool
impr
ovem
ent p
lan
targ
ets;
bui
lds
capa
city
of s
taff
to h
ave
an
appr
opria
te ro
le in
the
crea
tion
and
mon
itorin
g of
bud
gets
with
in
thei
r gra
de a
nd c
onte
nt a
reas
Allo
cate
s and
max
imize
s re
sour
ces i
n al
ignm
ent w
ith
miss
ion
and
stud
ent l
earn
ing
goal
s, a
nd a
sses
ses e
xter
nal
reso
urce
s to
fill g
aps;
ens
ures
th
at st
aff h
ave
nece
ssar
y m
ater
ials,
supp
lies,
and
eq
uipm
ent;
effe
ctiv
ely
plan
s and
m
anag
es a
fisc
ally
resp
onsib
le
budg
et th
at su
ppor
ts th
e sc
hool
’s
goal
s, a
nd e
nsur
es sc
hool
is
finan
cial
ly se
cure
in th
e lo
ng-
term
Sees
the
scho
ol’s
re
sour
ces a
s giv
en a
nd is
no
t kno
wle
dgea
ble
of
poss
ibili
ties f
or a
cces
sing
alte
rnat
e hu
man
and
fisc
al
reso
urce
s; d
evel
ops s
kills
in
pla
nnin
g an
d m
anag
ing
a bu
dget
that
supp
orts
sc
hool
’s g
oals
Una
ble
to a
ccur
atel
y as
sess
and
/or l
ever
age
scho
ol a
nd d
istric
t re
sour
ces;
doe
s not
ef
fect
ivel
y m
anag
e bu
dget
• Re
sour
ces s
uppo
rt th
e co
re c
ompo
nent
s of a
cade
mic
, soc
ial,
emot
iona
l, be
havi
oral
, phy
sical
dev
elop
men
t, ed
ucat
or q
ualit
y,
and
lear
ning
env
ironm
ent [
obse
rvat
ions
and
art
ifact
s: b
uild
ing
staf
f dev
elop
men
t pla
n, b
udge
t, pr
ofes
siona
l lea
rnin
g st
ruct
ures
, an
d th
e Sc
hool
Impr
ovem
ent P
lan]
• Fi
nanc
es a
nd o
ther
reso
urce
s are
alig
ned
with
stra
tegi
c pr
iorit
ies
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: b
udge
t and
run
rate
]
• Su
ppor
t Sta
ff (e
.g. E
LL, l
itera
cy a
nd m
ath
teac
hers
, and
gift
ed a
nd
tale
nted
inst
ruct
ors)
are
stra
tegi
cally
util
ized
to su
ppor
t the
im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e Sc
hool
Impr
ovem
ent P
lan
[obs
erva
tions
an
d ar
tifac
ts: t
each
er sc
hedu
les,
the
Scho
ol Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n,
and
scho
ol b
udge
t]
Prio
ritize
s Ti
me
Prio
ritize
s and
mon
itors
the
use
of
scho
ol ti
me
to e
nsur
e th
at st
aff
and
stud
ent a
ctiv
ities
focu
s on
impr
ovin
g st
uden
t lea
rnin
g;
orga
nize
s how
pro
fess
iona
l tim
e is
used
and
adj
usts
how
tim
e is
spen
t to
supp
ort s
tude
nt le
arni
ng
activ
ities
Prio
ritize
s the
use
of s
choo
l tim
e to
ens
ure
that
staf
f and
stud
ent
activ
ities
focu
s on
impr
ovin
g st
uden
t lea
rnin
g; o
rgan
izes
prof
essio
nal t
ime
to e
nsur
e th
at
high
leve
rage
act
iviti
es a
nd
scho
ol p
riorit
y ar
eas t
hat f
ocus
on
stud
ent l
earn
ing
are
give
n ad
equa
te ti
me
Prio
ritize
s the
use
of
scho
ol ti
me
to e
nsur
e th
at
staf
f act
iviti
es so
met
imes
fo
cus o
n im
prov
ing
stud
ent l
earn
ing;
org
anize
s m
ajor
ity o
f pro
fess
iona
l tim
e to
the
scho
ol
prio
ritie
s, b
ut m
ay e
ngag
e in
tim
e w
astin
g or
low
-im
pact
act
iviti
es
Does
not
man
age
time
effe
ctiv
ely;
doe
s not
pr
iorit
ize a
ctiv
ities
that
w
ill im
prov
e st
uden
t le
arni
ng a
nd is
freq
uent
ly
dist
ract
ed b
y tim
e-w
astin
g or
low
impa
ct
activ
ities
• O
rgan
izes a
dults
into
lear
ning
com
mun
ities
who
se g
oals
are
alig
ned
with
thos
e of
the
dist
rict a
nd th
e sc
hool
[obs
erva
tions
and
ar
tifac
ts:
Build
ing
staf
f dev
elop
men
t pla
n an
d ca
lend
ar o
f pr
ofes
siona
l lea
rnin
g]
• Sc
hool
tim
e is
focu
sed
on th
e im
prov
emen
t of s
tude
nt
achi
evem
ent i
n al
ignm
ent w
ith th
e Sc
hool
Impr
ovem
ent P
lan
and
the
dist
rict a
nd sc
hool
goa
ls [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
per
iodi
c as
sess
men
ts, t
eam
mee
tings
and
team
min
utes
, wal
k th
roug
h da
ta]
d. U
tiliz
es c
urre
nt te
chno
logi
es to
sup
port
lead
ersh
ip a
nd m
anag
emen
t fun
ctio
ns
Empl
oys C
urre
nt
Tech
nolo
gies
M
odel
s con
tinuo
us le
arni
ng b
y ap
plyi
ng
new
tech
nolo
gies
for t
he p
urpo
se o
f im
prov
ing
the
lear
ning
env
ironm
ent a
nd
com
mun
icat
ion
with
stud
ents
, sta
ff an
d pa
rent
s.
Iden
tifie
s and
con
siste
ntly
app
lies
new
tech
nolo
gies
to im
prov
e an
d su
ppor
t lea
ders
hip
and
man
agem
ent f
unct
ions
Dem
onst
rate
s lim
ited
know
ledg
e an
d ap
plic
atio
n of
cu
rren
t tec
hnol
ogie
s to
supp
ort l
eade
rshi
p an
d m
anag
emen
t fun
ctio
ns
Does
not
util
ize c
urre
nt
tech
nolo
gy to
supp
ort
lead
ersh
ip a
nd
man
agem
ent f
unct
ions
• •
Com
mun
icat
ion
amon
g le
ader
ship
, sta
ff, s
tude
nts a
nd p
aren
ts u
tiliz
ing
curr
ent t
echn
olog
ical
tool
s M
odel
s inc
orpo
ratio
n of
var
ious
cur
rent
tech
nolo
gica
l har
dwar
e an
d so
ftw
are
reso
urce
s/to
ols.
12
7
III.
IMPR
OVI
NG
TEAC
HIN
G AN
D L
EARN
ING—
The
prin
cipa
l wor
ks w
ith
the
scho
ol s
taff
and
com
mun
ity
to d
evel
op a
res
earc
h-ba
sed
fram
ewor
k fo
r ef
fect
ive
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
that
is r
efin
ed c
onti
nuou
sly
to im
prov
e in
stru
ctio
n fo
r al
l stu
dent
s.
Elem
ent
Dis
ting
uish
ed
Prof
icie
nt
Basi
c U
nsat
isfa
ctor
y Ex
ampl
es o
f Evi
denc
e
a. W
orks
wit
h an
d en
gage
s st
aff i
n th
e de
velo
pmen
t and
con
tinu
ous
refin
emen
t of a
sha
red
visi
on fo
r ef
fect
ive
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
by
impl
emen
ting
a s
tand
ards
bas
ed c
urri
culu
m, r
elev
ant t
o st
uden
t nee
ds a
nd in
tere
sts,
res
earc
h-ba
sed
effe
ctiv
e pr
acti
ce, a
cade
mic
rig
or, a
nd h
igh
expe
ctat
ions
for
stud
ent p
erfo
rman
ce in
eve
ry c
lass
room
.
Impl
emen
ts
Curr
icul
ar
Scop
e an
d Se
quen
ce
Ensu
res y
ear e
nd g
oals
and
stud
ent n
eeds
are
met
by
usin
g fo
rmat
ive
and
inte
rim
asse
ssm
ents
to m
odify
the
inst
ruct
iona
l sco
pe a
nd
sequ
ence
Impr
oves
com
pone
nts o
f the
in
stru
ctio
nal s
cope
and
sequ
ence
to
impr
ove
alig
nmen
t with
yea
r-
end
goal
s
Atte
mpt
s to
ensu
re
scop
e an
d se
quen
ce
are
alig
ned
with
ye
ar- e
nd g
oals
Does
not
or c
anno
t ens
ure
scop
e an
d se
quen
ce a
lign
to y
ear e
nd
goal
s
• Sy
stem
s ens
ure
that
less
on a
nd u
nit p
lans
alig
n to
the
scop
e an
d se
quen
ce a
nd p
repa
re st
uden
ts to
be
on a
col
lege
and
car
eer
read
ines
s tra
ck [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
ass
essm
ent c
alen
dar a
nd
grad
e an
d co
nten
t cur
ricul
um g
uide
]
• Le
sson
pla
ns a
nd c
urric
ulum
mat
eria
ls pr
oduc
e ex
plic
it ev
iden
ce o
f cu
rric
ulum
coo
rdin
atio
n an
d al
ignm
ent t
o Co
mm
on C
ore
stan
dard
s [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
staf
f les
son
plan
s]
Revi
ews
Inst
ruct
iona
l Pr
actic
es
Regu
larly
ass
esse
s in
stru
ctio
nal p
ract
ices
and
bu
ilds t
each
er c
apac
ity to
im
plem
ent a
var
iety
of
prac
tices
that
are
rele
vant
to
stud
ent n
eeds
and
inte
rest
s,
rese
arch
bas
ed, a
nd b
ased
on
acad
emic
rigo
r and
stra
tegi
es
that
supp
orts
the
lear
ning
of
all s
tude
nts
Asse
sses
inst
ruct
iona
l pra
ctic
es,
iden
tifie
s a fe
w p
ract
ices
that
ar
e re
sear
ch-b
ased
, rig
orou
s an
d re
leva
nt th
at w
ill b
e im
plem
ente
d sc
hool
-wid
e an
d su
ppor
ts te
ache
r dev
elop
men
t ar
ound
thos
e pr
actic
es
Mea
sure
s the
qua
lity
of in
stru
ctio
nal
prac
tices
and
at
tem
pts t
o ar
ticul
ate
rese
arch
ba
sed
and
rigor
ous
stra
tegi
es fo
r im
prov
ing
inst
ruct
iona
l pr
actic
es
Does
not
att
empt
to a
sses
s in
stru
ctio
nal p
ract
ices
and
is
unab
le to
art
icul
ate
clea
r st
rate
gies
to im
prov
e in
stru
ctio
n;
does
not
use
or a
ttem
pt to
in
trod
uce
rese
arch
-bas
ed
inst
ruct
iona
l pra
ctic
es
• St
aff h
ave
a br
oad
repe
rtoi
re o
f ins
truc
tiona
l str
ateg
ies t
hat t
hey
refe
renc
e in
thei
r les
son
plan
s [ob
serv
atio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
staf
f le
sson
pla
ns, t
each
er o
bser
vatio
ns, w
alkt
hrou
ghs
and
eval
uatio
ns
and
inst
ruct
iona
l str
ateg
y pr
ofes
siona
l dev
elop
men
t ses
sion
plan
]
• Th
roug
hout
the
scho
ol c
lass
room
act
iviti
es a
re d
esig
ned
to e
ngag
e st
uden
ts in
cog
nitiv
ely
chal
leng
ing
wor
k th
at is
alig
ned
to th
e st
anda
rds [
obse
rvat
ions
and
art
ifact
s: st
aff l
esso
n pl
ans,
w
alkt
hrou
ghs,
teac
her o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd e
valu
atio
ns]
• Co
nsist
ent p
ract
ices
are
obs
erva
ble
acro
ss m
ultip
le c
lass
room
s [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
less
on p
lans
, wal
kthr
ough
s and
teac
her
obse
rvat
ions
b. C
reat
es a
con
tinu
ous
impr
ovem
ent c
ycle
that
use
s m
ulti
ple
form
s of
dat
a an
d st
uden
t wor
k sa
mpl
es to
sup
port
indi
vidu
al, t
eam
, and
sch
ool-w
ide
impr
ovem
ent g
oals
, ide
ntify
and
add
ress
are
as
of im
prov
emen
t and
cel
ebra
te s
ucce
sses
Impl
emen
ts
Data
Dri
ven
Deci
sion
M
akin
g
Cons
isten
tly u
ses a
nd a
naly
zes
mul
tiple
form
s of d
ata
to
iden
tify
area
s of i
nstr
uctio
nal
impr
ovem
ent,
to re
fine
and
adap
t ins
truc
tiona
l pra
ctic
e,
and
to d
eter
min
e ap
prop
riate
st
rate
gies
acr
oss a
ll gr
ades
and
co
nten
t are
as
Use
s dat
a so
urce
s to
driv
e in
stru
ctio
nal d
ecisi
ons,
prio
ritize
sc
hool
wid
e ar
eas o
f im
prov
emen
t and
to id
entif
y a
few
targ
eted
scho
ol w
ide
stra
tegi
es fo
r ins
truc
tiona
l im
prov
emen
t
Use
s a fe
w d
ata
sour
ces t
o dr
ive
inst
ruct
iona
l di
rect
ion
and
uses
da
ta a
ppro
pria
tely
to
iden
tify
scho
ol w
ide
area
s of
impr
ovem
ent
Use
s dat
a in
cons
isten
tly a
nd/o
r is
not c
lear
how
to u
se d
ata
to d
rive
inst
ruct
iona
l str
ateg
ies o
r pr
actic
es
• Ke
y da
ta is
revi
ewed
at e
very
mee
ting
and
all t
each
ers a
re a
war
e of
sc
hool
and
gra
de ta
rget
s and
hav
e al
igne
d in
divi
dual
targ
ets f
or
thei
r stu
dent
s [ob
serv
atio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
ana
lysis
of d
ata,
RTI
dat
a an
d te
am m
inut
es, f
orm
ativ
e an
d su
mm
ativ
e as
sess
men
t ana
lysis
, th
e Sc
hool
Impr
ovem
ent P
lan,
and
evi
denc
e of
how
dat
a is
used
]
• U
ses d
isagg
rega
ted
stud
ent d
ata
to d
eter
min
e ad
ult p
riorit
ies,
m
onito
r pro
gres
s, a
nd h
elp
sust
ain
cont
inuo
us im
prov
emen
t [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
ana
lysis
of d
ata,
RTI
dat
a an
d te
am
min
utes
, for
mat
ive
and
sum
mat
ive
asse
ssm
ent a
naly
sis, t
he S
choo
l Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n, a
nd e
vide
nce
of h
ow d
ata
is us
ed]
• Mul
tiple
ana
lyse
s of s
tude
nt p
erfo
rman
ce d
ata
is ex
amin
ed to
su
ppor
t inf
orm
ed d
ecisi
on m
akin
g [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
gr
ade-
leve
l per
form
ance
dat
a, su
bjec
t-ar
ea p
erfo
rman
ce d
ata,
cl
assr
oom
leve
l per
form
ance
dat
a, in
divi
dual
stud
ent p
erfo
rman
ce
data
, stu
dent
wor
k an
d ev
iden
ce o
f dat
a us
e in
team
mee
tings
and
pl
anni
ng]
128
Impl
emen
ts
Data
Driv
en
Inst
ruct
ion
Supp
orts
and
dev
elop
s sta
ff ab
ility
to a
naly
ze d
ata
to
iden
tify
and
prio
ritize
nee
ds,
guid
e gr
oupi
ng, r
e-te
achi
ng,
and
to id
entif
y/pr
iorit
ize n
eeds
an
d co
ntin
uous
impr
ovem
ent;
build
staf
f cap
acity
to u
se d
ata
in d
eter
min
ing
team
and
in
divi
dual
goa
ls
Mul
tiple
sour
ces a
re u
sed
to
driv
e in
stru
ctio
nal d
ecisi
ons a
nd
uses
dat
a ap
prop
riate
ly to
id
entif
y/pr
iorit
ize sc
hool
wid
e ar
eas o
f im
prov
emen
t; da
ta is
ro
utin
ely
used
to id
entif
y an
d ad
just
scho
ol-w
ide
prio
ritie
s and
to
driv
e re
-tea
chin
g pl
ans a
nd
chan
ges i
n pr
actic
e fo
r ind
ivid
ual
teac
hers
Supp
orts
staf
f in
usin
g da
ta to
id
entif
y/pr
iorit
ize
need
s; d
ata
is us
ed
to d
rive
scho
ol-w
ide
prac
tices
Una
ble
to le
ad st
aff t
hrou
gh
cont
inuo
us d
ata
revi
ew o
r lac
ks
cons
isten
cy in
impl
emen
tatio
n
• Co
ntin
uous
dat
a re
view
pro
cess
is in
pla
ce to
ens
ure
that
stud
ents
le
arne
d ta
ught
mat
eria
l [ob
serv
atio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
ana
lyse
s of
inte
rim a
nd fo
rmat
ive
asse
ssm
ents
, cla
ssro
om o
bser
vatio
ns, a
nd re
-te
achi
ng b
ased
on
resu
lts]
• M
ultip
le a
naly
ses o
f stu
dent
per
form
ance
dat
a is
exam
ined
to
supp
ort i
nfor
med
dec
ision
mak
ing
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s:
grad
e-le
vel p
erfo
rman
ce d
ata,
subj
ect-
area
per
form
ance
dat
a,
clas
sroo
m le
vel p
erfo
rman
ce d
ata,
indi
vidu
al st
uden
t per
form
ance
da
ta, a
nd e
vide
nce
of d
ata
use
in te
am m
eetin
gs a
nd p
lann
ing]
• Cl
ear r
e-te
achi
ng p
lans
are
use
d to
gui
de th
e w
ork
of in
divi
dual
te
ache
rs [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
re-t
each
ing
plan
, tea
cher
ob
serv
ers]
c. Im
plem
ents
stu
dent
inte
rven
tion
s th
at d
iffer
enti
ate
inst
ruct
ion
base
d on
stu
dent
nee
ds
Use
s Di
sagg
rega
ted
Data
Uses
dis
aggr
egat
ed d
ata
to
crea
te st
ruct
ures
for
diffe
rent
iatio
n w
ith v
arie
d in
stru
ctio
nal s
trat
egie
s tha
t m
eet a
ll st
uden
t nee
ds;
focu
ses a
ll st
aff o
n cl
osin
g ac
hiev
emen
t gap
s bet
wee
n su
bgro
ups o
f stu
dent
s and
us
es d
ata
to q
uick
ly
dete
rmin
e ap
prop
riat
e in
terv
entio
ns fo
r stu
dent
s or
subg
roup
s not
mak
ing
prog
ress
Use
s disa
ggre
gate
d da
ta to
su
ppor
t diff
eren
tiatio
n an
d re
-te
achi
ng b
ut d
oes n
ot e
nsur
e th
at
inst
ruct
iona
l str
ateg
ies a
re
mat
ched
to th
e ne
eds o
f all
stud
ents
; eng
ages
all
staf
f in
anal
yzin
g an
d ut
ilizin
g di
sagg
rega
ted
data
to id
entif
y sc
hool
wid
e an
d in
divi
dual
st
uden
ts’ l
earn
ing
gaps
and
to
dete
rmin
e ap
prop
riate
in
terv
entio
ns
Inco
nsist
ently
use
s da
ta to
info
rm th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of
diffe
rent
iatio
n an
d in
terv
entio
ns;
intr
oduc
es st
aff t
o da
ta, b
ut m
ay n
ot
enga
ge st
aff i
n th
e an
alys
is of
dat
a
Does
not
effe
ctiv
ely
use
data
to
iden
tify
stud
ents
’ lea
rnin
g ga
ps;
does
not
att
empt
to e
nsur
e th
at
inst
ruct
ion
is di
ffere
ntia
ted
base
d on
stud
ent n
eed
or th
at st
uden
ts
rece
ive
appr
opria
te in
terv
entio
ns
• Di
ffere
ntia
ted
clas
sroo
m a
ctiv
ities
bas
ed o
n st
uden
ts re
adin
g or
ac
hiev
emen
t lev
els a
re p
rese
nt in
eve
ry c
lass
room
[ob
serv
atio
ns
and
artif
acts
: cla
ssro
om o
bser
vatio
ns, l
esso
n pl
ans,
stud
ent w
ork]
• Di
sagg
rega
ted
stud
ent d
ata
info
rms i
nstr
uctio
n [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd
artif
acts
: ana
lysis
of d
ata,
RTI
dat
a an
d te
am m
inut
es, f
orm
ativ
e an
d su
mm
ativ
e as
sess
men
t ana
lysis
, the
Sch
ool I
mpr
ovem
ent P
lan,
and
ev
iden
ce o
f how
dat
a is
used
]
• St
uden
ts re
ceiv
e ra
pid,
dat
a-dr
iven
inte
rven
tions
mat
ched
to
curr
ent n
eeds
, and
inte
rven
tion
assig
nmen
ts a
nd sc
hedu
les a
re
freq
uent
ly u
pdat
ed to
refle
ct st
uden
t nee
ds a
nd p
rogr
ess [
obse
r-va
tions
and
art
ifact
s: in
divi
dual
stud
ent p
erfo
rman
ce d
ata,
pro
fes-
siona
l lea
rnin
g on
diff
eren
tiatio
n, R
TI T
eam
min
utes
and
dat
a,
stud
ent w
ork,
cla
ssro
om o
bser
vatio
ns o
f diff
eren
tiate
d in
stru
ctio
n]
• M
ost e
ffect
ive
teac
hers
are
teac
hing
the
stud
ents
with
the
grea
test
ne
eds f
or g
row
th [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
stud
ent d
ata,
teac
her
eval
uatio
n da
ta]
d. S
elec
ts a
nd r
etai
ns te
ache
rs w
ith
the
expe
rtis
e to
del
iver
inst
ruct
ion
that
max
imiz
es s
tude
nt le
arni
ng
Sele
cts a
nd
Assig
ns
Effe
ctiv
e Te
ache
rs
Impl
emen
ts a
cle
ar se
lect
ion
crite
ria a
nd st
rate
gica
lly
asse
sses
and
pla
ces t
each
ers
in g
rade
leve
l and
con
tent
ar
eas t
o cr
eate
a b
alan
ced
team
with
a v
arie
ty o
f st
reng
ths
Has
a cl
ear a
nd a
rtic
ulat
ed
sele
ctio
n cr
iteri
a in
pla
ce a
nd
asse
sses
staf
f ski
lls to
pla
ce
teac
hers
in g
rade
leve
l and
co
nten
t are
as
Has a
sele
ctio
n cr
iteria
and
ar
ticul
ates
the
inte
ntio
n of
sele
ctin
g st
aff b
ased
on
grad
e an
d co
nten
t nee
ds,
but d
oes n
ot h
ave
deta
iled
asse
ssm
ent
of st
aff s
kills
to
info
rm p
lace
men
t
Has n
o se
lect
ion
crite
ria a
nd th
e de
term
inat
ion
for w
hy te
ache
r se
lect
ion
occu
rs is
not
tr
ansp
aren
t
• S
elec
tion
proc
esse
s foc
us o
n m
atch
ing
staf
f to
spec
ific
posit
ion
expe
ctat
ions
[obs
erva
tion
and
art
ifact
s: b
uild
ing
staf
fing
plan
and
in
terv
iew
que
stio
ns]
Reta
ins
Effe
ctiv
e Te
ache
rs
Use
s mul
tiple
dat
a se
ts
incl
udin
g te
ache
r eva
luat
ions
to
info
rm a
form
al re
tent
ion
stra
tegy
that
cre
ates
op
port
uniti
es fo
r gro
wth
and
de
velo
pmen
t inc
ludi
ng
Iden
tifie
s effe
ctiv
e te
ache
rs a
nd
mov
es th
em in
to le
ader
ship
role
s; im
plem
ents
a fo
rmal
re
tent
ion
stra
tegy
that
re
cogn
izes
effe
ctiv
e st
aff
thro
ugh
perf
orm
ance
eva
luat
ion
Impl
emen
ts a
form
al
rete
ntio
n st
rate
gy
that
use
s tea
cher
ev
alua
tions
to
dete
rmin
e w
hich
te
ache
rs w
ill b
e
Has n
o cl
ear r
eten
tion
plan
in
plac
e
• Re
tent
ion
of te
ache
rs a
nd re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r lea
ders
hip
are
part
ly d
eter
min
ed o
n th
e ba
sis o
f dem
onst
rate
d ef
fect
iven
ess a
s m
easu
red
by st
uden
t lea
rnin
g [o
bser
vatio
n an
d a
rtifa
cts:
scho
ol
rete
ntio
n da
ta, n
ew st
aff s
uppo
rts,
staf
f clim
ate
surv
ey, a
nd e
xit
inte
rvie
w d
ata]
129
oppo
rtun
ities
for s
taff
to
assu
me
addi
tiona
l lea
ders
hip
role
s
and
give
s ret
entio
n of
fers
bas
ed
on e
ffect
iven
ess
give
n re
tent
ion
offe
rs, o
vert
ime
trac
ks re
tent
ion
rate
s
• Hi
gh p
erce
ntag
e of
teac
hers
rate
d ef
fect
ive
stay
in th
e sc
hool
[o
bser
vatio
n an
d a
rtifa
cts:
scho
ol re
tent
ion
data
, new
staf
f su
ppor
ts, s
taff
clim
ate
surv
ey, a
nd e
xit i
nter
view
dat
a]
e. E
valu
ates
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
teac
hing
and
hol
ds in
divi
dual
teac
hers
acc
ount
able
for
mee
ting
thei
r go
als
by c
ondu
ctin
g fr
eque
nt fo
rmal
and
info
rmal
obs
erva
tion
s in
ord
er to
pro
vide
tim
ely,
w
ritt
en fe
edba
ck o
n in
stru
ctio
n, p
repa
rati
on a
nd c
lass
room
env
iron
men
t as
part
of t
he d
istr
ict t
each
er a
ppra
isal
sys
tem
.
Obs
erve
s St
aff a
nd
Give
s Fe
edba
ck
Ensu
res t
hat s
yste
ms f
or
obse
rvat
ions
occ
ur m
ultip
le
times
a y
ear w
ith st
aff g
ettin
g re
gula
r, co
nsist
ent,
and
actio
nabl
e fe
edba
ck th
at is
sp
ecifi
c to
eac
h in
divi
dual
’s
deve
lopm
ent p
lan
from
m
ultip
le o
bser
vers
Prov
ides
freq
uent
and
regu
lar
obse
rvat
ions
and
act
iona
ble
feed
back
and
/or h
as sy
stem
s in
plac
e so
that
staf
f rec
eive
spec
ific
feed
back
from
mul
tiple
obs
erve
rs
Adhe
res t
o an
d co
mpl
etes
requ
ired
obse
rvat
ions
, but
do
es n
ot
diffe
rent
iate
fr
eque
ncy
of
obse
rvat
ion
or
feed
back
bas
ed o
n te
ache
r ski
ll an
d/or
ne
ed
Obs
erva
tions
are
infr
eque
nt a
nd
inco
nsist
ent;
feed
back
is v
ague
an
d ge
nera
l
• O
bser
vatio
n pr
otoc
ol/p
ract
ice
incl
udes
not
onl
y co
nsist
ent s
choo
l-w
ide
expe
ctat
ions
but
indi
vidu
al te
ache
r dev
elop
men
t are
as a
nd
stud
y of
spec
ific
stud
ent s
ub-g
roup
s as i
dent
ified
by
data
[o
bser
vatio
n an
d a
rtifa
cts:
sche
dule
of t
each
er o
bser
vatio
n an
d fe
edba
ck m
eetin
gs; w
ritte
n te
ache
r eva
luat
ions
, and
teac
her g
oal
sett
ing
wor
kshe
ets]
• Te
ache
rs re
ceiv
e fr
eque
nt o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
ctio
nabl
e fe
edba
ck
[obs
erva
tion
and
artif
acts
: cla
ssro
om o
bser
vatio
ns, o
bser
vatio
n re
cord
s, te
ache
r goa
l set
ting
wor
kshe
ets a
nd w
ritte
n fe
edba
ck]
Eval
uate
s St
aff
Com
plet
es a
ll as
pect
s of a
rig
orou
s eva
luat
ion
proc
ess
that
incl
udes
goa
l set
ting,
mid
-ye
ar fo
rmat
ive
and
sum
mat
ive
ratin
gs b
ased
on
obse
rvat
ions
an
d m
ultip
le m
etric
s of
stud
ent r
esul
ts; e
nsur
es th
at
eval
uatio
n pr
oces
ses a
re c
lear
an
d tr
ansp
aren
t to
all s
taff
and
incl
udes
ass
essm
ent o
f stu
dent
ou
tcom
es, l
earn
ing
envi
ronm
ent,
qual
ity o
f in
stru
ctio
n an
d pl
anni
ng a
nd
prep
arat
ion
Impl
emen
ts a
goa
l set
ting
proc
ess,
mid
-yea
r for
mat
ive
and
sum
mat
ive
ratin
gs b
ased
on
obse
rvat
ions
and
stud
ent
outc
ome
resu
lts; c
omm
unic
ates
cl
ear a
nd tr
ansp
aren
t eva
luat
ion
proc
esse
s
Atte
mpt
s to
impl
emen
t and
co
mm
unic
ate
a cl
ear
eval
uatio
n pr
oces
s th
at in
clud
es li
mite
d ob
serv
atio
n an
d st
uden
t out
com
e da
ta
Does
not
hav
e a
clea
r or
cons
isten
t eva
luat
ion
proc
esse
s;
does
not
com
plet
e ev
alua
tion
• Pe
rfor
man
ce e
xpec
tatio
ns a
re c
lear
and
alig
ned
with
dist
rict’s
po
licie
s, th
e sc
hool
miss
ion
and
scho
ol w
ide
expe
ctat
ions
[o
bser
vatio
n an
d a
rtifa
cts:
writ
ten
teac
her e
valu
atio
ns a
ligne
d to
st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t go
als,
impr
ovem
ent p
lans
for u
nder
pe
rfor
min
g st
aff]
• Ri
goro
us c
ompl
etio
n of
the
full
eval
uatio
n pr
oces
s is c
ompl
eted
for
ever
y te
ache
r [ob
serv
atio
n an
d ar
tifac
ts: e
valu
atio
n do
cum
enta
tion
and
cons
isten
cy b
etw
een
prac
tice
ratin
gs a
nd st
uden
t out
com
es
over
tim
e]
f. En
sure
s th
e tr
aini
ng, d
evel
opm
ent,
and
supp
ort f
or h
igh-
perf
orm
ing
inst
ruct
iona
l tea
cher
team
s to
sup
port
adu
lt le
arni
ng a
nd d
evel
opm
ent t
o ad
vanc
e st
uden
t lea
rnin
g an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Deve
lops
an
Inst
ruct
iona
l Te
am
Impl
emen
ts a
stra
tegy
to b
uild
th
e ca
paci
ty o
f tea
cher
team
s to
lead
effe
ctiv
e m
eetin
gs
focu
sed
on st
uden
t lea
rnin
g da
ta a
nd st
uden
t wor
k
Ensu
res t
hat e
ffect
ive
teac
her
team
s use
stud
ent l
earn
ing
data
an
d st
uden
t wor
k to
adv
ance
st
uden
t out
com
es
Intr
oduc
es c
omm
on
team
stru
ctur
es a
nd
expe
ctat
ions
for
teac
her t
eam
s
Does
not
cre
ate
cons
isten
t te
ache
r tea
m st
ruct
ures
•
Stru
ctur
es a
re e
stab
lishe
d fo
r job
-em
bedd
ed c
olla
bora
tive
lear
ning
[o
bser
vatio
n an
d a
rtifa
cts:
pro
fess
iona
l lea
rnin
g co
mm
uniti
es,
com
mon
pla
nnin
g tim
e, p
roto
cols
for e
xam
inat
ion
of p
ract
ice
desig
ned
to g
uide
col
labo
ratio
n]
• In
stru
ctio
nal t
eam
s sup
port
adu
lt le
arni
ng a
nd st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t [o
bser
vatio
n an
d a
rtifa
cts:
teac
her t
eam
con
vers
atio
ns a
bout
fo
rmat
ive
stud
ent d
ata,
teac
her t
eam
mee
tings
abo
ut in
stru
ctio
nal
stra
tegi
es, i
nstr
uctio
nal c
onsis
tenc
y, in
stru
ctio
nal d
evel
opm
ent o
f st
aff,
build
ing
staf
f dev
elop
men
t, ev
alua
tion
data
]
g. S
uppo
rts
the
syst
em fo
r pr
ovid
ing
data
-dri
ven
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t and
sha
ring
of e
ffect
ive
prac
tice
by
thou
ghtf
ully
pro
vidi
ng a
nd p
rote
ctin
g st
aff t
ime
inte
ntio
nally
allo
cate
d fo
r th
is
purp
ose
Impl
emen
ts
Prof
essio
nal
Lear
ning
Impl
emen
ts a
job-
embe
dded
pr
ofes
siona
l lea
rnin
g sy
stem
fo
r con
siste
nt su
ppor
t, de
velo
pmen
t, co
achi
ng, a
nd
peer
lear
ning
opp
ortu
nitie
s;
allo
cate
s reg
ular
tim
e fo
r
Crea
tes m
ultip
le st
ruct
ures
for
teac
her l
earn
ing
incl
udin
g la
rge
grou
p pr
ofes
siona
l dev
elop
men
t, gr
ade
leve
l and
con
tent
team
sp
ecifi
c de
velo
pmen
t; pr
otec
ts
staf
f tim
e fo
r dev
elop
men
t
Relie
s on
who
le
grou
p de
velo
pmen
t se
ssio
ns in
clud
ing
trai
ning
s on
how
da
ta sh
ould
be
used
, w
ith so
me
spec
ific
Does
not
offe
r pro
fess
iona
l de
velo
pmen
t and
supp
ort t
hat i
s tim
ely,
rele
vant
or d
iffer
entia
ted
• Te
ache
r-dr
iven
pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t foc
uses
on
stud
ent
lear
ning
cha
lleng
es a
nd p
rogr
ess t
owar
d st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t goa
ls [o
bser
vatio
n an
d a
rtifa
cts:
teac
her t
eam
mee
tings
, bui
ldin
g st
aff
deve
lopm
ent p
lan,
and
pee
r visi
tatio
ns]
• St
aff d
evel
op a
bro
ad re
pert
oire
of i
nstr
uctio
nal s
trat
egie
s tha
t the
y
130
who
le g
roup
and
indi
vidu
al
staf
f dev
elop
men
t and
le
arni
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties
oppo
rtun
ities
su
ppor
ts
refe
renc
e in
thei
r les
son
plan
s [ob
serv
atio
n an
d a
rtifa
cts:
staf
f le
sson
pla
ns, t
each
er o
bser
vatio
ns, w
alkt
hrou
ghs
and
eval
uatio
ns
and
inst
ruct
iona
l str
ateg
y pr
ofes
siona
l dev
elop
men
t ses
sion
plan
]
• St
ruct
ures
are
est
ablis
hed
for j
ob-e
mbe
dded
col
labo
rativ
e le
arni
ng
[obs
erva
tion
and
art
ifact
s: p
rofe
ssio
nal l
earn
ing
com
mun
ities
, co
mm
on p
lann
ing
time,
pro
toco
ls fo
r exa
min
atio
n of
pra
ctic
e de
signe
d to
gui
de c
olla
bora
tion]
h. A
dvan
ces I
nstr
uctio
nal T
echn
olog
y w
ithin
the
lear
ning
env
ironm
ent
Prom
otin
g Gr
owth
of
Tech
nolo
gy
Activ
ely
supp
orts
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
tech
nolo
gy
to e
nhan
ce st
uden
t gro
wth
Und
erst
ands
and
enc
oura
ges
impl
emen
tatio
n of
tech
nolo
gy to
en
hanc
e st
uden
t gro
wth
Dem
onst
rate
s lim
ited
know
ledg
e of
in
stru
ctio
nal
tech
nolo
gy a
nd it
s pr
omot
ion
of
lear
ning
Does
not
supp
ort t
he u
se o
f in
stru
ctio
nal t
echn
olog
y w
ithin
th
e le
arni
ng e
nviro
nmen
t
• •
A cu
lture
and
exp
ecta
tion
of e
mpl
oyin
g a
crea
tive
use
of te
chno
logy
w
ithin
the
scho
ol.
•
Visib
le in
clus
ion
of d
igita
l-age
tool
s ut
ilize
d in
a v
arie
ty o
f typ
es o
f cl
assr
oom
s and
lear
ning
env
ironm
ents
.
•
Stud
ent e
ngag
emen
t is e
nhan
ced
beca
use
of in
tegr
atio
n of
dig
ital-a
ge
tool
s in
the
clas
sroo
ms a
nd sc
hool
env
ironm
ent
Impl
emen
ts a
nd e
valu
ates
tech
nolo
gica
l res
ourc
es a
nd a
pplic
able
ut
iliza
tions
.
131
IV. B
UIL
DIN
G AN
D M
AIN
TAIN
ING
COLL
ABO
RATI
VE R
ELAT
ION
SHIP
S—Th
e pr
inci
pal c
reat
es a
col
labo
rati
ve s
choo
l com
mun
ity
whe
re th
e sc
hool
sta
ff fa
mili
es, a
nd c
omm
unit
y in
tera
ct r
egul
arly
and
sha
re o
wne
rshi
p fo
r th
e su
cces
s of
the
scho
ol.
Elem
ent
Dis
ting
uish
ed
Prof
icie
nt
Basi
c U
nsat
isfa
ctor
y Ex
ampl
es o
f Evi
denc
e
a. C
reat
es, d
evel
ops
and
sust
ains
rel
atio
nshi
ps th
at r
esul
t in
acti
ve s
tude
nt e
ngag
emen
t in
the
lear
ning
pro
cess
Build
s On-
goin
g Re
latio
nshi
ps
Deve
lops
scho
ol-w
ide
capa
city
to
est
ablis
h tr
ustin
g re
latio
nshi
ps a
nd su
ppor
ts
posit
ive
rela
tions
hips
am
ong
and
betw
een
all s
take
hold
er
grou
ps
Enha
nces
and
mai
ntai
ns tr
ustin
g re
latio
nshi
ps a
mon
g an
d be
twee
n a
varie
ty o
f sta
keho
lder
gro
ups
Artic
ulat
es a
bel
ief
that
bui
ldin
g an
d m
aint
aini
ng
rela
tions
hips
are
im
port
ant,
but m
ay
not b
e ab
le to
su
cces
sful
ly e
stab
lish
or e
nhan
ce
rela
tions
hips
Does
not
dev
elop
pos
itive
re
latio
nshi
ps a
nd/o
r und
erm
ines
po
sitiv
e re
latio
nshi
ps th
at e
xist
• Pr
oces
ses a
re in
pla
ce to
ens
ure
mul
tiple
opp
ortu
nitie
s for
scho
ol
staf
f to
mee
t, in
tera
ct a
nd w
ork
with
fam
ilies
and
mem
bers
of t
he
com
mun
ity [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
bui
ldin
g cl
imat
e su
rvey
re
sults
, com
mun
ity a
nd u
nive
rsity
par
tner
ship
s]
• St
aff a
nd c
omm
unity
mem
bers
repo
rt a
re p
ositi
ve re
latio
nshi
ps w
ith
the
prin
cipa
ls an
d ot
her m
embe
rs o
f the
scho
ol [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd
artif
acts
: sch
ool c
limat
e su
rvey
]
b. U
tiliz
es m
eani
ngfu
l fee
dbac
k of
stu
dent
s, s
taff,
fam
ilies
, and
com
mun
ity
in th
e ev
alua
tion
of s
choo
l pro
gram
s an
d po
licie
s
Incl
udes
M
ultip
le
Voic
es a
nd
Pers
pect
ive
Inco
rpor
ates
man
y di
ffere
nt
pers
pect
ives
and
enc
oura
ges
diss
entin
g vo
ices
to g
ain
new
pe
rspe
ctiv
es a
nd to
impr
ove
the
scho
ol’s
inst
ruct
iona
l pro
gram
Inco
rpor
ates
diff
eren
t pe
rspe
ctiv
es in
to d
ecisi
ons a
nd
crea
tes f
orum
s to
hear
mul
tiple
an
d di
ssen
ting
view
poi
nts
Asks
for f
eedb
ack
to a
dev
elop
ed
plan
, but
doe
s not
se
ek in
put w
hen
deve
lopi
ng th
e pl
an fr
om
mul
tiple
voi
ces
Is d
isres
pect
ful a
nd/o
r exc
lude
s vo
ices
from
com
mun
ity fo
rum
s to
disc
uss s
choo
l per
form
ance
• Co
mm
unity
lead
ers a
nd sc
hool
syst
em m
anag
ers a
re a
ctiv
e pa
rtne
rs
in th
e le
ader
’s d
ecisi
on m
akin
g pr
oces
s [ob
serv
atio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
pa
rent
adv
isory
age
ndas
and
min
utes
, sch
ool l
eade
rshi
p te
am
incl
udes
par
ents
or c
omm
unity
mem
bers
, tim
es a
nd lo
catio
ns fo
r all
mee
tings
are
kno
wn,
scho
ol-w
ide
open
doo
r pol
icy]
c. P
roac
tive
ly e
ngag
es fa
mili
es a
nd c
omm
unit
ies
in s
uppo
rtin
g th
eir
child
’s le
arni
ng a
nd th
e sc
hool
s le
arni
ng g
oals
Enga
ges
Fam
ilies
Co
ntin
uous
ly c
reat
es tw
o-w
ay li
nks
betw
een
fam
ily p
rese
nce
in th
e sc
hool
env
ironm
ent a
nd th
e in
stru
ctio
nal p
rogr
am
Resp
ectf
ully
info
rms f
amili
es o
f le
arni
ng e
xpec
tatio
ns a
nd
spec
ific
way
s the
y ca
n su
ppor
t th
eir c
hild
ren’
s lea
rnin
g
Shar
es th
e sc
hool
va
lues
with
fa
mili
es a
nd w
ith
the
com
mun
ity
Does
not
mak
e tim
e to
mee
t with
fa
mili
es a
nd is
ope
nly
disr
espe
ctfu
l or d
ismiss
ive
of th
e ro
le o
f fam
ilies
• Fa
mili
es a
re in
clud
ed a
nd in
vest
ed in
the
scho
ol c
omm
unity
[o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
par
ent e
ngag
emen
t and
surv
ey d
ata,
PT
O/P
TA m
eetin
g at
tend
ance
, stu
dent
pro
gres
s rep
orts
, par
ent
acce
ss to
gra
des,
and
par
ent o
utre
ach
stra
tegy
]
• Fa
mili
es a
re a
war
e of
lear
ning
exp
ecta
tions
and
stra
tegi
es to
su
ppor
t stu
dent
lear
ning
out
side
the
scho
ol d
ay [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd
artif
acts
: par
ent e
ngag
emen
t and
surv
ey d
ata,
PTO
/PTA
mee
ting
atte
ndan
ce, s
tude
nt p
rogr
ess r
epor
ts, p
aren
t acc
ess t
o gr
ades
, and
pa
rent
out
reac
h st
rate
gy]
d. D
emon
stra
tes
an u
nder
stan
ding
of t
he c
hang
e pr
oces
s an
d us
es le
ader
ship
and
faci
litat
ion
skill
s to
man
age
it e
ffect
ivel
y
Build
s Ca
paci
ty to
M
anag
e Ch
ange
Crea
tes s
pace
for s
taff,
stud
ents
, an
d fa
mili
es to
shar
e fe
elin
gs
abou
t cha
nge
and
supp
orts
the
com
mun
ity w
hile
des
crib
ing
the
poss
ibili
ties p
rese
nt in
the
futu
re;
mai
ntai
ns fo
cus o
n m
eetin
g sc
hool
go
als w
hen
tryi
ng to
con
fron
t and
su
ppor
t sta
ff in
cha
lleng
ing
valu
es,
belie
fs, a
ssum
ptio
ns, a
nd/o
r hab
its
of b
ehav
ior t
hat m
ay n
ot m
atch
Dire
ctly
add
ress
es a
nd h
elps
st
akeh
olde
rs u
nder
stan
d th
at
chan
ge m
ay ra
ise q
uest
ions
, do
ubt,
and
feel
ings
and
po
sitiv
ely
supp
orts
staf
f as t
hey
face
cha
lleng
es; b
alan
ces t
he
need
to m
ake
chan
ge w
ithin
the
scho
ol q
uick
ly w
hile
supp
ortin
g th
e st
aff’s
abi
lity
to le
arn
and
deve
lop
new
skill
s
Artic
ulat
es th
at
chan
ge w
ill ra
ise
emot
ions
and
at
tem
pts t
o su
p-po
rt st
aff,
but
does
not
ef
fect
ivel
y m
anag
e al
l nee
ds;
stru
ggle
s to
rem
ain
focu
sed
on sc
hool
goa
ls
Does
not
reco
gnize
the
role
that
th
e ch
ange
pro
cess
will
hav
e on
th
e sc
hool
com
mun
ity; d
oes n
ot
supp
ort s
taff
in c
hang
ing
staf
f va
lues
, bel
iefs
, ass
umpt
ions
, an
d/or
hab
its o
f beh
avio
r tha
t m
ay n
ot m
atch
the
scho
ol v
ision
• St
aff a
re su
ppor
ted
thro
ugh
the
chan
ge p
roce
ss [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd
artif
acts
: pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t on
the
rese
arch
on
chan
ge]
• Sc
hool
impr
ovem
ent o
utlin
es m
ultip
le ta
ctic
s and
stra
tegi
es a
nd c
an
be a
dapt
ed to
reac
h id
entif
ied
goal
s [ob
serv
atio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
the
Scho
ol Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n, fo
rmat
ive
and
sum
mat
ive
eval
uatio
n da
ta]
132
the
scho
ol v
ision
w
hen
tryi
ng to
co
nfro
nt a
nd
supp
ort s
taff
in
chal
leng
ing
valu
es, b
elie
fs,
assu
mpt
ions
, an
d/or
hab
its o
f be
havi
or th
at m
ay
not m
atch
the
scho
ol v
ision
Dem
onst
rate
s Pe
rson
al
Reso
lve
and
Resp
onse
to
Chal
leng
es
Focu
ses a
ll co
nver
satio
ns,
initi
ativ
es a
nd p
lans
on
impr
ovin
g st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t and
is
rele
ntle
ss in
pus
hing
staf
f to
mai
ntai
n an
d im
prov
e th
eir f
ocus
on
stud
ent o
utco
mes
; use
s eve
ry
chal
leng
e as
an
oppo
rtun
ity to
le
arn
and
deve
lop
them
selv
es a
nd
thei
r sta
ff
Dem
onst
rate
s per
sona
l res
olve
an
d m
aint
ains
staf
f foc
us o
n st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t goa
ls an
d de
mon
stra
tes p
ersis
tenc
e fo
r th
e st
aff i
n th
e fa
ce o
f ch
alle
nges
Som
etim
es
dem
onst
rate
s re
solv
e, b
ut m
ay
lose
focu
s or
mak
e co
nces
sions
on
stud
ent
achi
evem
ent
goal
s in
the
face
of
per
siste
nt
chal
leng
es
Does
not
dem
onst
rate
per
sona
l re
solv
e or
mai
ntai
n st
aff f
ocus
on
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent g
oals
and
does
not
con
stru
ctiv
ely
resp
ond
to c
halle
nges
• Pr
oces
ses a
re in
pla
ce to
iden
tify
and
addr
ess c
halle
nges
whe
n th
ey
arise
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: st
aff f
eedb
ack
surv
ey d
ata,
bui
ldin
g cl
imat
e su
rvey
, and
sup
erin
tend
ant o
bser
vatio
n]
13
3
V. L
EAD
ING
WIT
H IN
TEGR
ITY
AND
PRO
FESS
ION
ALIS
M—
The
prin
cipa
l wor
ks w
ith
the
scho
ol s
taff
and
com
mun
ity
to c
reat
e a
posi
tive
con
text
for
lear
ning
by
ensu
ring
equ
ity,
fulfi
lling
pro
fess
iona
l res
pons
ibili
ties
wit
h ho
nest
y an
d in
tegr
ity,
and
ser
ving
as
a m
odel
for
the
prof
essi
onal
beh
avio
r of
oth
ers.
El
emen
t D
isti
ngui
shed
Pr
ofic
ient
Ba
sic
Uns
atis
fact
ory
Exam
ples
of E
vide
nce
a. T
reat
s al
l peo
ple
fair
ly, e
quit
ably
, and
wit
h di
gnit
y an
d re
spec
t. Pr
otec
ts th
e ri
ghts
and
con
fiden
tialit
y of
stu
dent
s an
d st
aff
Mod
els E
quity
an
d Di
gnity
De
velo
ps st
ruct
ures
, out
reac
h an
d tr
aini
ng to
ens
ure
that
staf
f de
velo
p th
e sk
ill se
t to
trea
t all
peop
le e
quita
bly
and
with
resp
ect
Uph
olds
the
foun
datio
ns o
f m
utua
l res
pect
for a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs a
nd m
eets
all
lega
l re
quire
men
ts fo
r wor
k re
latio
nshi
ps; t
akes
swift
ap
prop
riate
act
ions
whe
n in
appr
opria
te c
ondu
ct is
re
port
ed o
r obs
erve
d
Mee
ts a
ll le
gal r
equi
rem
ents
for
wor
k re
latio
nshi
ps; t
akes
lim
ited
actio
ns w
hen
inap
prop
riate
co
nduc
t is r
epor
ted
or o
bser
ved
Does
not
trea
t and
/or
ensu
re th
at a
ll st
akeh
old-
ers a
re tr
eate
d re
spec
tful
ly a
nd d
oes n
ot
mee
t all
lega
l re
quire
men
ts fo
r wor
k re
latio
nshi
ps; d
oes n
ot
take
swift
app
ropr
iate
ac
tions
whe
n in
appr
opria
te c
ondu
ct is
re
port
ed o
r obs
erve
d
• A
ll st
aff a
re tr
eate
d w
ith re
spec
t and
con
flict
s are
dea
lt w
ith q
uick
ly a
nd e
ffici
ently
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s:
conf
lict r
esol
utio
n pr
otoc
ol, b
uild
ing
staf
f dev
elop
men
t pl
an, d
iscip
linar
y re
port
dat
a]
b. D
emon
stra
tes
pers
onal
and
pro
fess
iona
l sta
ndar
ds a
nd c
ondu
ct th
at e
nhan
ce th
e im
age
of th
e sc
hool
and
the
educ
atio
nal p
rofe
ssio
n. P
rote
cts
the
righ
ts a
nd c
onfid
enti
alit
y of
stu
dent
s an
d st
aff
Prot
ects
Rig
hts
and
Conf
iden
tialit
y
Teac
hes a
ll st
aff a
bout
FER
PA a
nd
deve
lops
syst
ems t
o en
sure
that
on
-goi
ng tr
aini
ng a
nd m
onito
ring
occu
r
Follo
ws F
ERPA
by
mai
ntai
ning
st
uden
t’s p
rivac
y by
kee
ping
st
uden
t lev
el d
ata
and
stud
ent
reco
rds a
nd a
ll in
form
atio
n di
rect
ly re
late
d to
stud
ents
(e.g
. co
unse
ling,
men
tal h
ealth
su
ppor
ts, a
nd/o
r det
ails
of th
e st
uden
t’s h
ome
life
conf
iden
tial)
Impl
emen
ts m
ost p
arts
of F
ERPA
in
a m
anne
r con
siste
nt w
ith th
e la
w; l
earn
s fro
m m
istak
es a
nd u
ses
them
as a
per
sona
l lea
rnin
g op
port
unity
to im
prov
e pr
actic
e
Does
not
follo
w F
ERPA
pr
otoc
ols o
r pol
icie
s to
mai
ntai
n an
d pr
otec
t st
uden
t priv
acy
and
does
no
t add
ress
staf
f who
do
not f
ollo
w F
ERPA
• St
aff a
re a
war
e of
the
law
s, p
olic
ies,
pro
cedu
res a
nd
guid
elin
es a
roun
d st
uden
t con
fiden
tialit
y [o
bser
vatio
ns
and
artif
acts
: FER
PA tr
aini
ng, v
olun
teer
and
staf
f co
nfid
entia
lity
stat
emen
ts, a
nd p
aren
t not
ifica
tion
of
right
s]
• Pa
rent
s are
aw
are
of th
eir r
ight
s [ob
serv
atio
ns a
nd
artif
acts
: pa
rent
han
dboo
k, p
roto
cols
for s
hari
ng IE
P m
inut
es]
c. C
reat
e an
d su
ppor
ts a
clim
ate
that
val
ues,
acc
epts
and
und
erst
ands
div
ersi
ty in
cul
ture
and
poi
nt o
f vie
w
Reco
gnize
s the
St
reng
ths o
f a
Dive
rse
Popu
latio
n
Reco
gnize
s and
inte
grat
es th
e le
arni
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties t
hat c
ome
from
a d
iver
se c
omm
unity
Exam
ines
and
add
ress
es a
ny
scho
ol st
ruct
ures
or s
choo
l pr
actic
es th
at li
mit
the
part
icip
atio
n of
gro
ups o
f st
uden
ts a
nd fa
mili
es
Dem
onst
rate
s per
sona
l com
fort
ta
lkin
g ab
out d
iver
sity
and
cultu
re
and
take
s the
step
s to
deve
lop
a pe
rson
al sk
ill se
t
Dem
onst
rate
s lim
ited
awar
enes
s of t
he im
pact
of
div
ersit
y on
stud
ent
lear
ning
• Sc
hool
act
ivel
y cr
eate
s opp
ortu
nitie
s for
all
com
mun
ity
mem
bers
to su
ppor
t div
erse
stud
ent n
eeds
[obs
erva
tions
an
d ar
tifac
ts: p
rofe
ssio
nal l
earn
ing
activ
ities
bui
ld
capa
city
of s
taff
to su
ppor
t div
erse
stud
ent n
eeds
]
• O
ppor
tuni
ties e
xist
for s
tude
nts t
o be
in d
iver
se se
ttin
gs
and
to le
arn
abou
t div
erse
cul
ture
s [ob
serv
atio
ns a
nd
artif
acts
: par
tner
ship
s with
scho
ols t
hat m
ay h
ave
diffe
rent
pop
ulat
ions
, in
tra-
scho
ol c
onve
rsat
ions
for
stud
ents
to e
xplo
re c
ultu
re a
nd d
iver
sity]
134
Crea
tes a
Cu
ltura
lly
Resp
onsiv
enes
s Cl
imat
e
Enga
ges s
taff
in le
arni
ng a
nd
actio
n pl
anni
ng a
roun
d th
e tr
eat-
men
t of a
nd su
ppor
ts fo
r div
erse
gr
oups
in a
nd o
utsi
de th
e sc
hool
Prov
ides
diff
eren
tiate
d pr
ofes
siona
l dev
elop
men
t to
teac
hers
and
staf
f to
impr
ove
thei
r und
erst
andi
ng o
f how
th
eir o
wn
wor
ld v
iew
s inf
orm
th
eir i
nter
pret
atio
n of
the
wor
ld
and
addr
esse
s and
cor
rect
m
omen
ts o
f cul
tura
l in
com
pete
nce
Prov
ides
who
le g
roup
und
if-fe
rent
iate
d pr
ofes
siona
l de
velo
pmen
t abo
ut w
orki
ng in
an
d su
ppor
ting
a di
vers
e co
mm
unity
and
att
empt
s to
addr
ess m
omen
ts o
f cul
tura
l in
com
pete
nce
Does
not
add
ress
or
corr
ect i
ntol
eran
t or
cultu
rally
inco
mpe
tent
st
atem
ents
and
doe
s not
cr
eate
an
envi
ronm
ent
that
supp
orts
all
stud
ents
• St
aff p
artic
ipat
e in
and
lead
lear
ning
exp
erie
nces
whe
re
they
exp
lore
thei
r per
sona
l ass
umpt
ions
and
thei
r ap
proa
ch to
div
ersit
y [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
bui
ldin
g st
aff d
evel
opm
ent p
lan]
Enga
ges i
n Co
urag
eous
Co
nver
satio
ns
abou
t Div
ersit
y
Deve
lops
staf
f cap
acity
to e
ngag
e in
cou
rage
ous c
onve
rsat
ions
abo
ut
dive
rsity
and
cul
ture
—an
d ho
w
they
impa
ct st
uden
t lea
rnin
g
Build
s the
scho
ol’s
and
co
mm
unity
’s c
olle
ctiv
e ca
paci
ty
by in
itiat
ing
dire
ct c
on-
vers
atio
ns a
bout
cul
ture
and
di
vers
ity, a
nd h
ow th
ey im
pact
st
uden
t lea
rnin
g
Activ
ely
seek
s opp
ortu
nitie
s to
enga
ge in
cou
rage
ous
conv
ersa
tions
abo
ut d
iver
sity
and
cultu
re
Does
not
eng
age
in
cour
ageo
us c
onve
rsat
ions
ab
out b
iase
s or h
as li
mite
d sk
ill se
t in
addr
essin
g bi
ased
lang
uage
and
be
havi
ors
• Co
mm
unity
con
vers
atio
ns a
bout
cul
ture
and
div
ersit
y oc
cur r
egul
arly
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s: P
TA/P
TO
mee
tings
, pro
fess
iona
l lea
rnin
g co
nver
satio
ns to
dev
elop
st
aff c
apac
ity to
initi
ate
conv
ersa
tions
abo
ut c
ultu
re a
nd
dive
rsity
]
13
5
VI. C
REAT
ING
AN
D SU
STAI
NIN
G A
CULT
URE
OF
HIGH
EXP
ECTA
TIO
NS—
The
prin
cipa
l wor
ks w
ith st
aff a
nd co
mm
unity
to b
uild
a c
ultu
re o
f hig
h ex
pect
atio
ns
and
aspi
ratio
ns fo
r eve
ry st
uden
t by
sett
ing
clea
r sta
ff an
d st
uden
t exp
ecta
tions
for p
ositi
ve le
arni
ng b
ehav
iors
and
by
focu
sing
on
stud
ents
’ soc
ial-e
mot
iona
l le
arni
ng.
El
emen
t D
isti
ngui
shed
Pr
ofic
ient
Ba
sic
Uns
atis
fact
ory
Exam
ples
of E
vide
nce
a. B
uild
s a c
ultu
re o
f hig
h as
pira
tions
and
ach
ieve
men
t for
eve
ry st
uden
t
Link
s Asp
iratio
n to
Col
lege
and
Ca
reer
O
ppor
tuni
ties
Crea
tes s
truc
ture
s and
pro
cess
es
to m
ake
expl
icit
links
bet
wee
n st
uden
t asp
iratio
n, c
lass
es a
nd
cont
ent t
hey
are
lear
ning
in
scho
ol a
nd o
vera
ll ac
adem
ic
achi
evem
ent;
crea
tes
oppo
rtun
ities
for a
ll st
uden
ts to
le
arn
abou
t a ra
nge
of c
aree
rs so
th
at th
ey c
an c
reat
e th
eir o
wn
pers
onal
visi
ons a
nd c
aree
r as
pira
tions
Shap
es th
e en
viro
nmen
t to
mak
e ex
plic
it lin
ks b
etw
een
stud
ent a
spira
tion,
cla
sses
and
co
nten
t the
y ar
e le
arni
ng in
sc
hool
; cre
ates
stru
ctur
es th
at
expo
se a
ll st
uden
ts to
col
lege
an
d ca
reer
exp
erie
nces
; co
nnec
ts a
spira
tion
to c
olle
ge
and
care
er o
ppor
tuni
ties
Crea
tes a
few
del
iber
ate
rout
ines
th
at h
elp
stud
ents
con
nect
thei
r as
pira
tions
to c
lass
es a
nd c
onte
nt
they
are
lear
ning
in sc
hool
ac
hiev
emen
t; pr
ovid
es li
mite
d ex
posu
re to
col
lege
and
car
eer
oppo
rtun
ities
Does
not
hel
p st
uden
ts
link
thei
r asp
iratio
ns to
cl
asse
s and
con
tent
they
ar
e le
arni
ng in
scho
ol;
does
not
exp
ose
stud
ents
to
col
lege
or c
aree
r op
port
uniti
es
• Gr
owth
, not
just
att
ainm
ent i
s rec
ogni
zed
[obs
erva
tions
an
d ar
tifac
ts: p
aren
t edu
catio
n pr
ogra
mm
ing
on g
row
th
and
atta
inm
ent]
• Ef
fect
ive
effo
rt is
ack
now
ledg
ed a
nd c
eleb
rate
d [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
ass
embl
ies,
com
mun
ity
serv
ice
prog
ram
s, te
ache
r obs
erva
tion
and
wal
kthr
ough
da
ta, s
tude
nt re
cogn
ition
for e
ffort
]
• St
uden
ts a
nd fa
mili
es e
ngag
e in
rich
col
lege
-goi
ng a
nd
care
er a
cces
s exp
erie
nces
[obs
erva
tions
and
art
ifact
s:
colle
ge v
isits
, com
mun
ity p
artn
ersh
ips,
job
shad
owin
g,
inte
rnsh
ip, f
ield
trip
s, c
aree
r day
, fam
ily c
olle
ge a
nd
care
er a
war
enes
s pro
gram
min
g, a
nd ca
reer
pro
gram
s]
• St
uden
ts c
omm
unic
ate
thei
r asp
iratio
ns a
nd c
an id
entif
y co
nnec
tions
to c
urre
nt le
arni
ng g
oals
[obs
erva
tions
and
ar
tifac
ts: s
tude
nt g
oal s
heet
s]
Deve
lops
a
Stud
ent G
oal
Sett
ing
Proc
ess
Crea
tes s
yste
ms f
or st
uden
ts to
de
velo
p go
als,
cre
ate
a pl
an o
n ho
w th
ey w
ill re
ach
thei
r goa
ls,
benc
hmar
ks to
trac
k th
eir
prog
ress
, and
teac
hes s
tude
nts
how
to a
dapt
thei
r goa
ls an
d pl
ans a
s nec
essa
ry; c
reat
es
syst
ems f
or sh
arin
g go
als a
nd
lear
ning
Impl
emen
ts a
syst
em w
here
st
uden
ts c
reat
e sh
ort a
nd lo
ng
term
goa
ls; e
nsur
es th
at
stud
ents
revi
ew g
oals
at th
e en
d of
the
year
, but
may
not
ens
ure
that
goa
ls ar
e ad
apte
d an
d ad
just
ed th
roug
hout
the
year
Intr
oduc
es fo
rmal
goa
l set
ting
proc
ess w
here
stud
ents
iden
tify
goal
s and
cre
ate
a pl
an o
n ho
w
they
will
reac
h th
eir g
oals
Does
not
cre
ate
or su
ppor
t go
al se
ttin
g st
ruct
ures
for
stud
ents
•Stu
dent
s tra
ck th
eir o
wn
prog
ress
[obs
erva
tions
and
ar
tifac
ts:
stud
ent p
ortfo
lios,
evi
denc
e of
stud
ents
tr
acki
ng th
eir o
wn
prog
ress
, and
stud
ent s
urve
ys]
b. R
equi
res s
taff
and
stud
ents
to d
emon
stra
te c
onsi
sten
t val
ues a
nd p
ositi
ve b
ehav
iors
alig
ned
to th
e sc
hool
’s v
isio
n an
d m
issi
on
Tran
slate
s the
Sc
hool
Val
ues
into
Spe
cific
Be
havi
ors
Tran
slate
s the
scho
ol v
alue
s int
o sp
ecifi
c ag
e-ap
prop
riate
be
havi
ors a
nd e
nsur
es th
at a
ll st
aff a
nd st
uden
ts le
arn
the
expe
cted
beh
avio
rs; b
uild
s sta
ff an
d st
uden
t cap
acity
to d
eliv
er
clea
r and
con
siste
nt m
essa
ging
ab
out t
he v
alue
s and
beh
avio
rs to
al
l sta
keho
lder
s
Tran
slate
s the
scho
ol v
alue
s int
o sp
ecifi
c be
havi
ors a
nd e
nsur
es
that
all
staf
f and
stud
ents
lear
n th
e ex
pect
ed b
ehav
iors
; ens
ures
st
aff d
eliv
er c
lear
and
con
siste
nt
mes
sagi
ng a
bout
that
val
ues
and
beha
vior
s to
stud
ents
Atte
mpt
s to
tran
slate
the
scho
ol
valu
es in
to sp
ecifi
c be
havi
ors b
ut is
in
cons
isten
t in
ensu
ring
that
all
stud
ents
lear
n ex
pect
ed b
ehav
iors
Does
not
mak
e va
lues
or
beha
vior
al e
xpec
tatio
ns
clea
r to
staf
f or s
tude
nts
• Va
lues
and
beh
avio
rs a
re re
fere
nced
in d
aily
scho
ol
stru
ctur
es: [
obse
rvat
ions
and
art
ifact
s: S
choo
l Im
prov
emen
t Pla
n, P
BIS
build
ing
plan
, cod
e of
con
duct
, pa
rent
/stu
dent
han
dboo
k, a
nd re
ferr
al lo
gs -
disc
iplin
e,
tard
ies,
abs
ence
s]
• A sy
stem
of p
ositi
ve a
nd n
egat
ive
cons
eque
nces
is
cons
isten
t with
the
scho
ol v
alue
s (w
ith a
ge a
ppro
pria
te
diffe
rent
iatio
n) a
cros
s cla
ssro
oms,
gra
des a
nd c
onte
nt
area
s [ob
serv
atio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
PBI
S pl
an fo
r bui
ldin
g,
code
of c
ondu
ct, p
aren
t/st
uden
t han
dboo
k, re
ferr
al lo
gs
- disc
iplin
e, ta
rdie
s, a
bsen
ces]
136
• W
ritte
n va
lues
and
bel
iefs
refle
ct h
igh
expe
ctat
ions
for
all s
tude
nts [
obse
rvat
ions
and
art
ifact
s: sc
hool
leve
l and
gr
ade
leve
l goa
ls]
Deve
lops
a
Code
of
Cond
uct
Impl
emen
ts tr
acki
ng sy
stem
s to
asse
ss h
ow w
ell i
ndiv
idua
l st
uden
ts a
nd st
uden
t coh
ort
grou
ps m
eet c
ondu
ct
expe
ctat
ions
and
val
ues;
use
s m
ultip
le fo
rms o
f stu
dent
dat
a to
m
onito
r and
revi
se th
e co
de o
f co
nduc
t and
iden
tify
benc
hmar
ks
and
mile
ston
es to
gau
ge a
nd
mea
sure
ado
ptio
n of
beh
avio
rs
Deve
lops
cle
ar e
xpec
tatio
ns fo
r st
uden
t con
duct
bas
ed o
n th
e sc
hool
val
ues a
nd b
elie
fs a
nd
iden
tifie
s cle
ar p
ositi
ve a
nd
nega
tive
cons
eque
nces
; ens
ures
th
at e
very
adu
lt un
ders
tand
s th
eir r
ole
in im
plem
entin
g bo
th
posit
ive
and
nega
tive
cons
eque
nces
and
that
co
nseq
uenc
es a
re c
onsis
tent
ly
impl
emen
ted
Deve
lops
com
pone
nts o
f an
effe
ctiv
e sy
stem
of c
ondu
ct fo
r st
aff a
nd st
uden
ts a
nd b
uild
s sta
ff ag
reem
ent o
n th
e ty
pes o
f stu
dent
ac
tions
that
are
con
siste
nt w
ith
scho
ol v
alue
and
beh
avio
rs;
crea
tes c
onsis
tent
resp
onse
s and
co
nseq
uenc
es fo
r stu
dent
s who
ha
ve h
ad b
ehav
iora
l inf
ract
ions
in
the
past
Tole
rate
s disc
iplin
e vi
ola-
tions
and
enf
orce
s cod
e of
co
nduc
t inc
onsis
tent
ly
• Sc
hool
-wid
e co
de o
f con
duct
alig
ned
with
dist
rict a
nd
scho
ol p
riorit
ies i
s in
plac
e [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
co
nsist
ent c
ode
of c
ondu
ct a
cros
s cla
ssro
oms,
dat
a on
at
tend
ance
, tar
dies
, and
offi
ce re
ferr
als,
ana
lysis
of
stud
ents
mos
t fre
quen
tly re
ferr
ed]
• Co
de o
f con
duct
is c
onsis
tent
ly im
plem
ente
d ac
ross
all
clas
sroo
ms [
obse
rvat
ions
and
art
ifact
s: p
ositi
ve
reco
gniti
on o
f stu
dent
s and
staf
f who
con
siste
ntly
de
mon
stra
te p
ositi
ve b
ehav
iors
c. L
eads
a sc
hool
cul
ture
and
env
ironm
ent t
hat s
ucce
ssfu
lly d
evel
ops t
he fu
ll ra
nge
of st
uden
ts’ l
earn
ing
capa
citie
s-ac
adem
ic, c
reat
ive,
soci
al-e
mot
iona
l, be
havi
oral
and
phy
sica
l
Crea
tes a
Cu
lture
that
Su
ppor
ts S
ocia
l Em
otio
nal
Lear
ning
Build
s the
cap
acity
of a
dults
to
use
and
trai
n ot
hers
on
the
five
Illin
ois S
ocia
l-Em
otio
nal L
earn
ing
Com
pete
ncie
s (se
lf-aw
aren
ess;
se
lf- m
anag
emen
t; so
cial
aw
aren
ess;
rela
tions
hips
skill
s an
d re
spon
sible
dec
ision
mak
ing)
; us
es a
var
iety
of a
sses
smen
ts to
ga
uge
the
SEL
skill
s of s
tude
nts
and
uses
that
dat
a to
dev
elop
ad
ditio
nal c
urric
ulum
and
su
ppor
ts; b
uild
s the
cap
acity
of
all a
dults
to su
ppor
t the
pos
itive
gr
owth
of s
tude
nt e
mot
iona
l sk
ills
Trai
ns a
dults
on
how
to su
ppor
t po
sitiv
e st
uden
t gro
wth
thro
ugh
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
Illin
ois
Soci
al- E
mot
iona
l Lea
rnin
g Co
mpe
tenc
ies (
self-
aw
aren
ess;
se
lf-m
anag
emen
t; so
cial
aw
aren
ess;
rela
tions
hips
skill
s an
d re
spon
sible
dec
ision
m
akin
g); u
ses a
var
iety
of
asse
ssm
ents
to g
auge
the
SEL
skill
s of s
tude
nts a
nd u
ses t
hat
data
to d
evel
op a
dditi
onal
cu
rric
ulum
and
supp
orts
Shar
es th
e Ill
inoi
s Soc
ial-E
mot
iona
l Le
arni
ng C
ompe
tenc
ies (
self-
awar
enes
s; se
lf-m
anag
emen
t; so
cial
aw
aren
ess;
rela
tions
hips
sk
ills a
nd re
spon
sible
dec
ision
m
akin
g); u
ses a
lim
ited
amou
nt o
f to
ols a
nd a
sses
smen
ts to
gau
ge
the
SEL
skill
s of s
tude
nts
Does
not
shar
e or
im
plem
ent t
he Il
linoi
s So
cial
-Em
otio
ns L
earn
ing
Com
pete
ncie
s; d
oes n
ot
asse
ss st
uden
t SEL
skill
s an
d do
es n
ot su
ppor
t the
de
velo
pmen
t of S
EL sk
ills
• Ad
ults
supp
ort S
EL sk
ill d
evel
opm
ent [
obse
rvat
ions
and
ar
tifac
ts: r
efer
ral d
ata,
stud
ent s
urve
y]
• St
uden
ts d
emon
stra
te a
n in
crea
se in
SEL
skill
s [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
stud
ent r
efer
ral d
ata
and
posit
ive
rela
tions
hip]
• Ap
prop
riate
soci
o-em
otio
nal s
uppo
rts a
re p
rovi
ded
to a
ll st
uden
ts [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
Bui
ldin
g st
aff
deve
lopm
ent p
lan,
teac
her t
rain
ing
on S
EL, a
nd
obse
rvat
ion
and
wal
kthr
ough
dat
a]
• Co
re c
ompo
nent
s of s
ocia
l, em
otio
nal,
beha
vior
al
supp
orts
are
in p
lace
to su
ppor
t stu
dent
lear
ning
[o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
teac
her l
esso
n pl
ans,
stud
ent
surv
ey d
ata,
pos
itive
pee
r, fa
mily
, and
wor
k re
latio
nshi
ps]
Crea
tes a
Cu
lture
that
Su
ppor
ts
Effe
ctiv
e Ef
fort
Crea
tes s
truc
ture
s tha
t sup
port
th
e de
velo
pmen
t of e
ffect
ive
effo
rt sk
ills f
or e
very
stud
ent
(team
wor
k, st
udy
skill
s,
orga
niza
tion,
tim
e m
anag
emen
t, re
silie
ncy,
val
uing
mist
akes
, se
ekin
g as
sista
nce;
per
siste
nce)
; in
corp
orat
es e
ffect
ive
effo
rt in
to
ever
y as
pect
of t
he sc
hool
cul
ture
Trai
ns a
dults
to su
ppor
t the
de
velo
pmen
t of e
ffect
ive
effo
rt
skill
s (te
amw
ork,
stud
y sk
ills,
or
gani
zatio
n, ti
me
man
agem
ent,
resil
ienc
y, v
alui
ng
mist
akes
, see
king
ass
istan
ce;
pers
isten
ce) f
or e
very
stud
ent
Intr
oduc
es th
e co
ncep
t of e
ffect
ive
effo
rt sk
ills (
team
wor
k, st
udy
skill
s,
orga
niza
tion,
tim
e m
anag
emen
t, re
silie
ncy,
val
uing
mist
akes
, se
ekin
g as
sista
nce;
per
siste
nce)
; pr
ovid
es li
mite
d de
velo
pmen
t for
st
aff o
n ho
w to
bui
ld st
uden
ts’
effe
ctiv
e ef
fort
skill
s
Does
not
intr
oduc
e or
su
ppor
t the
dev
elop
men
t of
effe
ctiv
e ef
fort
skill
s;
does
not
reco
gnize
the
role
of e
ffort
in im
prov
ing
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent
• Ef
fect
ive
effo
rt is
ack
now
ledg
ed a
nd c
eleb
rate
d [o
bser
vatio
ns a
nd a
rtifa
cts:
ass
embl
ies,
com
mun
ity
serv
ice
prog
ram
s, te
ache
r obs
erva
tion
and
wal
kthr
ough
da
ta, s
tude
nt re
cogn
ition
for e
ffort
]
• St
uden
ts d
escr
ibe
and
dem
onst
rate
effe
ctiv
e ef
fort
be
havi
ors a
nd b
elie
fs a
cros
s cla
ssro
oms [
obse
rvat
ions
an
d ar
tifac
ts: c
omm
unic
atio
n se
rvic
e an
d st
uden
t wor
k]
| Ill
inoi
s Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r Sch
ool L
eade
rs |
Deve
lope
d by
New
Lea
ders
for N
ew S
choo
ls &
ISBE
137
PEAC and Growth through Learning Links
Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) http://www.isbe.state.il.us/peac/default.htm
Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) http://www.isbe.state.il.us/PERA/default.htm
Growth through Learning http://growththroughlearningillinois.org/Home.aspx
138
UJl
sco
very
ED
UC
AT
ION
•
The
Van
derb
iltA
sses
smen
tof
Lead
ersh
ipin
Edu
catio
nis
a
rese
arch
base
dev
alua
tion
tool
that
mea
sure
sttl
eef
fect
iven
ess
ofsc
hOO
llea
ders
bypr
ovid
ing
ade
taile
das
sess
men
tof
a
prin
cipa
l'sbe
havi
ors.
VA
L-E
Dfo
cuse
son
the
skill
san
d
beha
Vio
rsun
ique
toH
Iero
lean
dca
reer
ofa
prin
Cip
al.
prov
idin
g
eVid
ence
that
ttle
appr
opria
tean
dne
cess
ary
inst
ruct
iona
l
lead
ersh
ipbe
havi
ors
are
exhi
bite
dat
the
scho
ol.
The
valid
and
relia
ble
resu
ltsof
the
VA
L-E
Dsu
rvey
are
also
desi
gned
tohe
lp
the
prin
cipa
lbe
com
ea
bette
rle
ader
fex
tIer
scho
ol.
Tha
nkY
ouFo
rC
hoos
ing
VA
L-E
D!
1'"
~ ~~
,.J>
=r-
,~f ~
...
*\...
VA
ND
ER
BIL
TA
SSE
SSM
EN
Tof
LE
AD
ER
SHIP
inE
DU
CA
TIO
N
Tak
ea
Surv
eyA
dmin
Log
in
JY'V
m:D
~
Forg
O[u
scrn
ame
and
pass
wor
d?
3600
Feed
back
360"
asse
ssm
ents
prov
ide
the
best
feed
back
topr
inci
pals
beca
use
they
inco
rpor
ate
inpu
tof
all
mem
bers
ofth
esc
tlOof
spr
ofes
sion
al
com
mun
ity.
Con
tinue
read
ing
Lin
ks
Per
form
ance
Rub
ric
Iden
tifie
sth
ose
lead
erst
llpbe
havi
ors
that
rese
arch
has
show
nto
beas
soci
ated
wIth
impr
oved
teac
h.ng
ana
Incr
ease
dst
uden
tac
hiev
emen
t.
£~C
.I""
'tV
iew
aS
ampl
eIt>
,>,~
~\
Sur
vey
.G
coa
'..:I
{)••
...w
-~
Vie
wS
ampl
eR
epor
ts~
Res
earc
han
dR
esul
ts
VA
L-E
DF
ram
ewor
k
Iden
tifie
sth
ein
ters
ectio
nof
two
key
dim
ensi
ons
ofle
ader
ship
beha
vior
s:co
reco
mpo
nent
san
dke
ypr
oces
ses.
VA
L-E
DH
andb
ook
PrO
VId
esfu
ndam
enta
lin
form
atio
nfo
rU
Sin
gan
din
terp
retin
gH
Iere
sults
ofth
eV
AL-
ED
.
H~l
pF
AO
Sur
vey
Oui
ckst
art
How
toT
ake
aS
urve
y
See
Wha
tT
hey'
reSa
ying
abou
tV
AL
-ED
"Our
dist
rict
sele
cted
VA
L-E
Das
part
ofou
rpr
inci
pal
eval
uatio
nsy
stem
due
toits
unpa
ralle
led
relia
bilit
yan
d
valid
ity.
and
for
the
com
preh
ensi
veda
tath
atit
prov
ides
.M
ost
impo
rtan
tly.
VA
L-E
Din
clud
esfe
edba
ckfr
om
the
entir
ete
ache
rfa
culty
-a
resp
onse
grou
pth
atis
best
able
topr
ovid
ein
sigh
ton
thei
rpr
inci
pal's
inst
ruct
iona
lle
ader
ship
.P
rinci
pals
rece
ive
deta
iled
data
onth
eir
perf
orm
ance
inor
der
togr
owan
dim
prov
eas
educ
atio
nal
lead
ers,
and
with
the
com
preh
ensi
veV
AL-
ED
data
.ou
rdi
stric
tis
able
tota
ilor
and
dire
ctou
r
limite
dpr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
tfu
nds
for
the
grea
test
impa
ct."
-K
aren
Kem
p,S
enio
rC
oord
inat
orof
Lead
ersh
ipD
evel
opm
ent,
Pol
kC
ount
yP
ublic
Sch
ools
(FL)
139
Definitions of terms used on
VAL-ED (Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education) Survey
Kev Components-High Standardsfor Student Learning -There are individual, team, and school goals for rigorousstudent academic and social learning.-Rigorous Curriculum (content) -There is ambitious academic content provided to all students incore academic subjects.-Quality Instruction (pedagogy) -There are effective instructional practices that maximize studentacademic and social learning.-Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior -There are integrated communities of professionalpractice in the service of student academic and social learning. There is a healthy school environmentin which student learning is the central focus.-Connections to External Communities -There are linkages to family and/or other people andinstitutions in the community that advance academic and social learning.-Performance Accountability - Leadership holds itself and others responsible for realizing highstandards of performance for student academic and social learning. There is individual and colIectiveresponsibility among the professional staff and students.
Kev Processes-Planning-Articulate shared direction and coherent policies, practices, and procedures for realizing
high standards of student performance-Implementing-Engage people, ideas, and resources to put into practice the activities necessary torealize high standards for student performance.-Supporting-Create enabling conditions; secure and use the financial, political, technological, andhuman resources necessary to promote academic and social learning.-Advocating-Promotes the diverse needs of students within and beyond the school.-Communicating-Develop, utilize, and maintain systems of exchange among members of the schooland with its external communities.
-Monitoring-Systematically collect and analyze data to make judgments that guide decisions andactions for continuous improvement.
Sources of Evidence
>- Reports from others>- Personal observations>- School Documents
>- School projects and activities>- Other sources
No evidence (automatically rates principal as ineffective)
Reproduced with permission from VAL-ED (Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education) foruse with Principal Mentor Program at Governors State University.
140
Su
pp
ort
ing
Res
earc
h&
Pu
blic
atio
ns
Por
ter,
A.C
.,P
olik
off,
M.S
.,G
oldr
ing,
E.,
Mur
phy,
J.,
Elli
ott,
S.N
.,&
May
H.
(In
Pre
ss).
Dev
elop
ing
aps
ycho
met
rical
lyso
und
asse
ssm
ent
ofsc
hool
lead
ersh
ip:
The
VA
L-E
Das
aca
sest
udy.
Edu
catio
nal
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Qua
rter
ly.
Pol
ikof
f,M
.S.,
May
,H
.,P
orte
r,A
C.,
Elli
ott,
S.N
.,G
oldr
ing,
E.,
&M
urph
y,J.
(In
Pre
ss).
An
exam
inat
ion
ofdi
ffere
ntia
lite
mfu
nctio
ning
inth
eV
ande
rbilt
Ass
essm
ent
ofLe
ader
ship
inE
duca
tion.
Jour
nal
ofS
choo
lLe
ader
ship
.M
urph
y,J.
,G
oldr
ing,
E.,
Cra
vens
,X
.,E
lliot
t,S
.N.,
&P
orte
r,A
.C.
(In
Pre
ss).
The
Van
derb
iltA
sses
smen
tof
Lead
ersh
ipin
Edu
catio
n:M
easu
ring
lear
ning
-cen
tere
dle
ader
ship
.E
ast
Chi
naN
orm
alU
nive
rsity
Jour
nal.
Gol
drin
g,E
.,C
rave
ns,
X.,
Mur
phy,
J.P
orte
r,A
,E
lliot
t,S
.,&
Car
son,
B.
(200
9).
The
eval
uatio
nof
prin
cipa
ls:
Wha
tan
dho
wdo
stat
esan
dur
ban
dist
ricts
asse
ssle
ader
ship
?E
lem
enta
ryS
choo
lJo
urna
l,11
0(1)
,19
-39.
Gol
drin
g,E
.,C
rave
ns,
X.
C.,
Mur
phy,
J.,
Elli
ott,
S.
N.,
Por
ter,
A.
C.
&C
arso
n,B
.,(2
008)
.T
heev
alua
tion
ofpr
inci
pals
:W
hat
and
how
dost
ates
and
urba
ndi
stric
tsas
sess
lead
ersh
ip?
The
Ele
men
tary
Sch
ool
Jour
nal
(Acc
epte
d)
Gol
drin
~,
E.,
Por
ter,
AC
.,M
urph
y,J.
,E
lliot
t,S
.N.,
&C
rave
ns,
X.
(200
7,M
arch
).A
sses
sing
lear
ning
-cen
tere
dle
ader
ship
:C
onne
ctio
nsto
rese
arch
,pr
ofeS
Sio
nal
stan
dard
s,an
dcu
rren
tpr
actic
e.N
ewY
ork,
N.Y
.:W
alla
ceF
ound
atio
n.G
oldr
ing,
E.,
Por
ter,
A.,
Mur
phy,
J.,
Elli
ot,
S.,
&C
rave
ns,
X.
(In
Pre
ss).
Ass
essi
ngLe
arni
ng-C
ente
red
Lead
ersh
ip:
Con
nect
ions
toR
esea
rch,
Sta
ndar
dsan
dP
ract
ice.
Lead
ersh
ipan
dP
olic
yin
Sch
ools
.G
oldr
ing,
E.
Por
ter,
AP
ollik
off,
M(2
008)
.R
epor
ton
the
Stu
dyto
Eva
luat
eth
eP
erfo
rman
ceLe
vel
Des
crip
tors
for
the
VA
L-E
D.
New
Yor
k,N
Y:
Wal
lace
Fou
ndat
ion.
Mur
phy,
J.,
Elli
ott,
S.N
.,G
oldr
ing,
E.,
&P
orte
r,A
C.
(200
7).
Lead
ersh
ipfo
rle
arni
ng:
Are
sear
ch-b
ased
mod
elan
dta
xono
my
ofbe
havi
ors.
Sch
ool
Lead
ersh
ip&
Man
aaem
ent,
27(2
),17
9-20
1.
Mur
phy,
J.,
Elli
ott,
S.
N.,
Gol
drin
g,E
.,&
Por
ter,
AC
.(in
pres
s)Le
ader
sfo
rpr
oduc
tive
scho
ols.
Inte
rnat
iona
lE
ncyc
lope
dia
ofE
duca
tion
(3rd
ed.)
.O
xfor
d,E
lsev
ier.
Mur
phy,
J.,
Elli
ott,
S.N
.,G
oldr
ing,
E.B
.,&
Por
ter,
AC
.(2
006)
.Le
arni
ng-c
ente
red
lead
ersh
ip:
Aco
ncep
tual
foun
datio
n.N
ewY
ork,
NY
:W
alla
ceF
ound
atio
n.
Mur
phy,
J.F
.,G
oldr
ing,
E.B
.,C
rave
ns,
X.C
.,E
lliot
t,S
.N.,
Por
ter,
AC
.(2
007,
Aug
ust)
.T
heV
ande
rbilt
Ass
essm
ent
ofLe
ader
ship
inE
duca
tion:
Mea
surin
gLe
arni
ng-C
ente
red
Lead
ersh
ip.
Jour
nal
ofE
ast
Chi
naN
orm
alU
nive
rsity
.P
orte
r,A
.C.,
Gol
drin
g,E
.B.,
Mur
phy,
J.,
Elli
ott,
S.N
.,&
Cra
vens
,X
.(2
006)
.A
fram
ewor
kfo
rth
eas
sess
men
tof
lear
ning
-cen
tere
dle
ader
ship
.N
ewY
ork,
NY
:W
alla
ceF
ound
atio
n.
Por
ter,
A.C
.,G
oldr
ing,
E.B
.,E
lliot
t,S
.N.,
Mur
phy,
J.,
Pol
ikof
f,M
.,an
dC
rave
ns,
X.
(200
8).
Set
ting
Per
form
ance
Sta
ndar
dsfo
rth
eV
AL-
ED
Ass
essm
ent
ofP
rinci
pal
Lead
ersh
ip,
New
Yor
k:N
Y:
Wal
lace
Fou
ndat
ion.
Por
ter,
A.C
.,G
oldr
ing,
E.B
.,M
urph
y,J.
,E
lliot
t,S
.N.,
Pol
ikof
f,M
.,an
dM
ay,
H.
(200
8).
VA
L-E
DA
sses
smen
tof
Prin
cipa
lLe
ader
ship
Tec
hnic
alM
anua
l,N
ewY
ork,
NY
:W
alla
ceF
ound
atio
n.E
lliot
t,S
.N.,
Por
ter,
A.C
.,G
oldr
ing,
E.B
.,M
urph
y,J.
,P
olik
off,
M.,
and
May
,H
.(2
008)
.V
AL-
ED
Use
rs'
Gui
de,
New
Yor
k,N
Y:
Wal
lace
Fou
ndat
ion.
Th
ese
and
oth
erp
ub
licat
ion
sar
eal
lav
aila
ble
for
do
wn
load
ath
ttp
://w
ww
.val
ed.c
om
.
!E!a
~
141
Job Description/Responsibilities for Principal/Assistant Principal Evaluation
Developed from the Illinois Standards and Indicators for School Leaders
I. Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results The school leader works with the staff and community to build a shared mission, and vision of high expectations that ensure all students are on the path to college and career readiness and hold staff accountable for results.
The school leader: A. coordinates efforts to establish and implement a shared mission and vision for the school that leads to academic growth for all learners B. ensures that the school’s identity, vision, and mission drive all school decisions C. conducts difficult but crucial conversations with individuals, teams, and staff based on student performance data in a timely manner for the purpose of enhancing student learning and achieving improved results
II. Leading and Managing Systems Change The school leader creates and implements systems to ensure a safe, orderly, and productive environment for student and adult learning for the purpose of achieving school and district improvement goals. The school leader: A. develops, implements, and monitors the outcomes of the school improvement plan which measure school wide academic achievement and school climate indicators B. establishes and maintains a safe, clean, orderly and effective learning environment C. collaborates with district and school staff to appropriately allocate personnel, time, material, and adult learning resources to achieve school improvement plan goals D. utilizes current technologies to support leadership and management functions
III. Improving Teaching and Learning
The school leader works with the school staff and community to develop a research-based framework for effective teaching and learning that is continuously refined to improve instruction for all students. The school leader: A. develops, in collaboration with staff, a consistent framework for effective teaching and learning that includes a rigorous and relevant standards-based curriculum, research-based instructional practices, and high expectations for student performance B. establishes a continuous improvement cycle that uses multiple forms of data and student work samples to support individual, team, and school-wide improvement goals, identify and address target areas for improvement, measure outcomes and celebrate successes C. ensures that differentiated instructional practices which address identified student needs are implemented with fidelity D. selects and retains teachers with the expertise to deliver instruction that maximizes student
142
learning and respects the individual needs of all students E. evaluates the effectiveness of instruction and of individual teachers by conducting frequent formal and informal observations and provides timely, specific feedback on instruction as part of the district teacher appraisal system F. ensures the development of high performing instructional teacher teams by providing training and support grounded in best practices which are designed to advance student learning and the individual performance of each student G. develops systems and structures for professional development and teacher collaboration that provide and protect time allotted for development H. advances instructional technology within the learning environment I. ensures that professional growth plans are linked to data derived from school improvement plan results and teacher evaluations
IV. Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships The school leader creates a collaborative school community where the school staff, students, families, and community interact regularly and share ownership for the success of the school. The school leader: A. creates, develops and sustains relationships that result in active student engagement in the learning process B. utilizes meaningful feedback of students, staff, families, and community in the evaluation of instructional programs and school procedures C. proactively engages families and communities in supporting student learning and the school’s shared mission, vision and learning goals D. demonstrates the ability to understand, apply and monitor the change process
V. Leading with Integrity and Professionalism The school leader works with the staff and community to create a positive context for learning by ensuring equity, fulfilling professional responsibilities with honesty and integrity, and serving as a model for professional behavior of others. The school leader: A. treats all people fairly, equitably, and with dignity and respect B. demonstrates personal and professional standards and conduct that enhance the image of the school and the educational profession C. protects the rights and confidentiality of all students and staff D. creates and supports a climate that values, accepts and understands cultural diversity and multiple perspectives
VI. Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations The school leader works with staff and community to build a culture of high expectations and aspirations for every student by setting clear staff and student expectations for positive learning behaviors and by focusing on students’ social-emotional learning The school leader: A. establishes and monitors a culture of high aspirations and achievement for every student B. requires staff and students to demonstrate consistent values and positive behaviors aligned to the school’s vision and mission C. leads a school culture and environment that successfully develops the full range of students’ learning capacities – academic, creative, social-emotional, behavioral and physical
143
1 S. La Grange Road, 2nd Floor, La Grange, IL 60525-2455 1-866-LiveText (1-866-548-3839) [email protected] www.livetext.com
LiveText’s Top Ten
Top ten reasons to consider LiveText as your learning assessment
and data reporting system…
Experience Reigns… LiveText has over ten years of successful assessment and accreditation experience with over 500 higher education institutions.
Proven Success… LiveText has assisted various programs, including general education, teacher education, business, healthcare, sciences, and even academic affairs, in successfully evaluating and reporting learning to demonstrate institutional effectiveness.
Superior Support… On site, via email, or over the phone, LiveText support is always at your fingertips, tailored to fit your needs.
Easy to Start, Easy to Maintain…Seamless integration with all major Student Management Systems, LiveText easily imports real-time program and department courses, rosters, and student demographic data.
Comprehensive Assessment… From Course-Embedded Assessment, Third-Party Assessment, Blind and Multiple Assessor, and Student-Learning Outcomes Assessment, to Peer and Self Assessments, LiveText offers the most complete assessment solution available.
Flexibility without Complexity… Our technology adapts to your program needs to help you successfully measure and showcase student learning and does not force you to change your program to meet the needs of technology.
Easy to Use… Need a solution to help rather than overload your instructors? Designed with faculty in mind, LiveText offers easy and clear capabilities for faculty members to effectively assess student work in just a few clicks of the mouse.
Connected through Partnerships… LiveText stays ahead of the trends and develops the tools and resources you need through active partnerships with accreditation, e-Portfolio, assessment, and higher education organizations.
Manage Field Experiences in One Place… Our integrated Field Experience Management Module allows you to manage, track, document, and place students into field studies, clinical practice, internships, and student teaching, as well as collect and report on assessments and supervising staff/mentor demographics, and progress.
Build a Learning Community… For over ten years, LiveText has hosted an annual assessment and collaboration conference where your peers present on the best practices and learning trends in their intuitions. The LiveText Collaborative Network of Users is the very pulse of LiveText, and the thousands of educators dedicated to sharing their goals, plans, and experiences is an invaluable resource only LiveText can offer.
Email [email protected] or visit www.livetext.com to request your demo today.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
144
1 S. La Grange Road, 2nd Floor, La Grange, IL 60525-2455 1-866-LiveText (1-866-548-3839) [email protected] www.livetext.com
©2012 LiveText, Inc. All rights reserved.
FOR STUDENTS
Develop professional and personal portfolios containing a variety of file types (audio, video, images, etc.) to track growth and development
Document all service learning, internship, and field experiences outside the classroom
Author reflective journals, projects, assignments, and other web-based documents for all learning experiences
Access thousands of standards-based videos, images, and audio resources
Connect to instructors, peers, and assessors for immediate feedback, coaching, mentoring, and team based collaboration
Share work samples and e-Portfolios with potential employers and track their views
Upload, store, and access all your files using the personal File Manager
Track internship hours and complete all field-based course requirements using the fully integrated Field Experience Management module
FOR FACULTY
Streamlined workspace to manage all assessment activity
Develop course-based assessments
Connect instantly to students to communicate feedback, coaching, and mentoring for improvement
Easily track goals with custom rubrics, surveys, and course evaluations
Create comprehensive, clear reports that reflect the assessment process and assist in making meaningful course improvements
Create and maintain professional and personal e-Portfolios to showcase scholarly work, service to the institution, and professional achievements
FOR ADMINISTRATORS
Assessment planning features allow customizable reporting on program, college, and institutional outcomes
Generate powerful data reports with aggregated summaries, as well as drill downs for detailed analysis, track program goals, and report annually or by term on outcomes and goals for departments, programs, majors, and both academic and non-academic divisions
Design a customized ExhibitCenter™ showcasing assessment evidence and continuous improvement plans for accreditation
Our Single Sign-On Technology allows for easy, seamless access with Blackboard® 9.1 SP4+ and 8.x, and Moodle™ 1.9 and 2.0 platforms. Instructors can use the Turnitin® plagiarism checker within LiveText
Enjoy seamless compatibility with Student Information System, including Datatel, Jenzabar, Oracle's PeopleSoft, and Sungard's Banner. Upload complete catalog, demographic profile, and student rosters easily
Supervisors & mentors can complete all field-based course requirements using the fully integrated Field Experience Management module
Track progress of Institutional or Programmatic Assessment Plans
The Benefits of LiveText
145
Governors State University Principal Performance-Based Evaluation Plan
Leadership Team
Dr. Donna Joy Project Leader 708.534.1649
Margarite Crivellone Coordinator, Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) 708.534.6989 [email protected] Dr. Dorothea Fitzgerald Coordinator, VAL-ED Graduate Cohort Director 708.534.4536 [email protected] Dr. Pamela Guimond Co-Director, Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) 708.534.4546 [email protected] Lynne Hostetter Administrative Assistant 708.534.8043 [email protected] Alicia McCray Director, Metropolitan Institute for Leadership in Education (MILE) 708.534.4015 [email protected]
Jacquelyn McKenzie Administrative Assistant 708.235.7594 [email protected] Dr. Karen Peterson Co-Director, Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) 708.534.4377 [email protected] Dr. Linda Proudfit LiveText Facilitator 219.928.3324 [email protected] Gabrielle Sutton Assistant to MILE Director 708.235.7591 [email protected] Patricia Welch VAL-ED Trainer 708.534.4948 [email protected]
Dr. Joseph Murphy - Consultant to the Initiative - Vanderbilt University - Nashville, Tennessee
146