DPAS II

Updated Training for DPAS II for Administrators

Educator Accountability

Educator Professional Development and Accountability Act of 2000 Established DPAS II for all educators Required that the system have no more

than 5 components, with one component addressing student improvement.

Required that evaluators be properly trained and credentialed.

DPAS II Pilot

Regulations apply only to the two districts piloting DPAS II Appoquinimink Caesar Rodney

During the pilot, any rating received on a Summative Evaluation is not included in the determination of a pattern of ineffective administration.

Who is an Administrator?

For the purposes of DPAS II, an administrator is a professional employee of a school board serving in a supervisory capacity which involves the oversight of an instructional program.

Administrator

Inexperienced – less than three years of service as an administrator

Experienced – three or more years of service as an administrator

Role Experienced – three or more years of service as an administrator in the role in which employed

DPAS II for Administrators Four Components

Each component weighted equally Taken together, the components of the DPAS II

system provide a strong focus on teaching and learning

Components 2 through 4 directly relate to an administrator’s daily responsibilities

Component 1 examines the administrator’s performance in light of national standards for school leaders

Components Component 1 – Leader Standards Component 2 – Goals and Priorities Component 3 – School or District

Improvement Plan Component 4 – Measures of Student

Achievement

Component 1 – Leader Standards

Assesses the administrator’s performance against six national standards

Establish a context in which administrators focus on components 2, 3, and 4

Assessed through an electronic survey

Component 1

School Leader Survey Provides judgment about 4 components

of professional practice for each of six school leader standards

Survey completed by: Administrator completes a self-assessment Teachers who are supervised by the

administrator complete an anonymous survey by April 1

Evaluator completes a survey

Component 1

School Leader Survey All surveys are forwarded electronically

to the evaluator, who develops a composite score of the data from the three surveys

Evaluator develops a summary assessment in the spring of the year

Components 2, 3 and 4 Components 2, 3 and 4 are intentionally

aligned with the school improvement plan and the district strategic plan

Designed to work together to reinforce and support improved student performance and to drive continuous improvement

Data and evidence collected by administrator as part of the process should be a natural harvest of the administrator’s ongoing work.

Component 2 – Goals and Priorities

Sources of Goals Most should be linked directly to an

administrator’s school or district improvement plan

Should be focused on improving practice and student performance

May include a goal based on leader standards May focus on unique school or district conditions May result from the administrator’s self-

reflection

Component 2 – Goals and Priorities

Substance of goals should: Connect to ISLLC Standards for School Leaders Be organizationally grounded Emphasize the direct contributions of the

administrator Be anchored in analysis of data Be limited in number Have a longitudinal focus Be challenging Be mutually determined

Component 2 – Goals and Priorities

Process Spotlights mutual determination Features ongoing dialogue between the

administrator and the evaluator Delineates clearly expected

performances Specifies evidence that will be provided Establishes criteria for success

Component 3 – School or District Improvement Plan

Process mirrors that employed in Component 2

Evaluator and administrator review school or district improvement plan and identify specific goals and targets

An agreed upon timeline for achievement of targets will be developed

Component 4 – Student Improvement

Achievement and improvement in 3 broad areas grounds this part of the system School Accountability DSTP data Other measures of student achievement

Process

Goal Setting

Conference

Leader Standards

Survey

SummativeEvaluation

&Conference

Mid-Year Conference

Procedures Determine administrators to be

evaluated and their status Administrator submits completed goal

form prior to August 15, based on the Summative Evaluation conference held during the summer. New administrators should complete the goal form within one month of employment

Procedures Administrator and evaluator meet within

one month of summative conference, and no later than September 15 to agree upon goals. For superintendents, conference with the Board will take place prior to June 30

Mid-year conference will be held in December or January

Written summary of mid-year conference prepared by the evaluator

Procedures Evaluator and administrator agree on who

will complete Leader Standards Survey Survey completed by April 1 Evaluator develops a composite of data

from survey Administrator compiles student

achievement data and progress on goals and submits to evaluator at least one week in advance of summative conference

Procedures Summative Conference

Held during the summer (Superintendent and Board will hold a summative conference no later than June 15)

All four components reviewed and discussed Initiate discussion of goals for the upcoming

year. Evaluator completes Summative Evaluation

Form and forwards to administrator within one week of conference

Waiver Process

DPAS II features an annual process, but certain aspects may be waived for experienced educators whose performance is at least satisfactory. One year cycle for inexperienced

administrators Two year cycle for experienced

administrators whose performance is satisfactory

Waiver Year During a waiver year, the goal setting

process and conference continue Evaluator and administrator meet at least

four times over the two-year cycle Summer or early fall of year 1 for agreement on

goals Mid year each year to discuss progress End of year 2 to for summative conference

The Leader Standards survey is conducted in the spring of year two

Component Performance Levels Satisfactory Performance

Clear and convincing evidence that the administrator has met established targets;

Demonstrated flexibility in adapting to unusual circumstances;

School leader know what to do and does it; Administrator understands the concept

underlying the component and implements it well

Component Performance Levels

Unsatisfactory Performance Little or no evidence of achievement of

established targets Administrator does not yet appear to

understand the concepts underlying the component and was unable to meet the established targets

Summative Performance Levels

Effective Four satisfactory ratings among the four

components Needs Improvement

One unsatisfactory rating among the four components

Ineffective Two or more unsatisfactory ratings

among the four components

Pattern of Ineffective Administration

Needs Improvement rating for a third consecutive year results in a pattern of ineffective administration

Effective Ineffective Ineffective

Needs Improvement

Needs Improvement

Ineffective

Needs Improvement

Ineffective Needs Improvement

Needs Improvement

Ineffective Ineffective

Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective

Ineffective Ineffective Needs Improvement

Ineffective Needs Improvement

Ineffective

Ineffective Needs Improvement

Needs Improvement

Improvement Plan

Developed when an administrator receives: An overall rating of Needs Improvement

or Ineffective on the Summative Evaluation

A rating of Unsatisfactory on any component of the Summative Evaluation

Improvement Plan Must include:

Definition of specific deficiencies Measurable goals for improving

deficiencies to satisfactory level Evidence that must be provided or

behaviors that must be demonstrated Procedures for evaluating and

documenting improvement Timeline Record of judgment and date completed

Development of Improvement Plan

Expectation of mutual development Both evaluator and administrator

complete a preliminary Assistance Plan

Meet to bring two preliminary plans together into one final Assistance Plan

If consensus cannot be reached, the evaluator will develop the Plan.

Appeal Process An administrator may appeal any rating on

the Summative Evaluation, either a component rating or the overall rating Must submit additional information specific to

the point pf disagreement in writing within 10 days

If the differences cannot be resolved, the appeal is forwarded to the supervisor of the evaluator.

If the Superintendent is also the evaluator, the appeal is directed to him/her

The decision of the evaluator is final