1 of 47

2 of 47

BEFORE WE START….

Please be sure to print out a copy of the OPES rubric and have highlighters or pens ready to go!

3 of 47

LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT

4 of 47

Training Objectives

Think about and plan evidence you might be able to provide to assist your evaluator in making the most valid assessment.

Examine and categorize unbiased evidence to inform administrator performance ratings.

Understand the objectives and procedures of Principal Evaluation and how to apply those procedures to your particular job responsibility.

Participants will…

5 of 47

Training Agenda

Welcome & Overview

What: Rubric Deep Dive

Why: Administrator Growth

1

2

3

4

5

How: What Does the Rubric Look

Like and Sound Like in Your Job?

Practice Calibration

6 of 47

Where

How

What

Safe Space for Coaching

Courageous Authenticity & Integrity

Self-Awareness

Where have you realized a strong coaching relationship?

What insight did you gain from it?

When have you experienced clarity of expectations, transparency of thinking?

How do you identify habits or concepts we need to “unlearn” to make room for new thinking?

Suggested Time:

7 min

Facilitation:

Ask participants the following questions:

WHERE – Where have you realized a strong coaching relationship? What insight did you gain from it?
WHAT – What helps you to make your evaluative thinking visible, clarify expectations, & enforce common values?
HOW – How do you identify habits or concepts we need to “unlearn” to make room for new thinking?

Trainers may consider using Talking Chips (http://swmcdn.com/site_0156/UnionProfessionalDevelopment_112712.pdf or https://sites.google.com/a/emints.org/cooperative-learning-strategies/talking-chips) to have facilitated conversation or allow small groups time to discuss together.

If using chips, depending on size of groups, assign each person 2 chips to use throughout the conversation.
Trainers can use poker chips, or something similar, or even sticky notes as chips.

Notes:

Self-reflection is the purpose of this activity. First, evaluators need to reflect on their past experiences as an evaluator. Even more important is helping evaluators understand their role in leading this evaluation process. They need to assist administrators to make the transition to become even better leaders than they are now.

7 of 47

ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS

While principals must be evaluated on each standard on the rubric, the rubric may be tailored to the specific duties of an assistant principal.
For example: An assistant principal who primarily does discipline, attendance, and teacher observations may only be evaluated on standards that address those areas)

8 of 47

HOWEVER….

Remember that one of the main jobs of the assistant principal may be to prepare for the principal role.

Therefore, it is important that assistant principals gradually experience all areas of the rubric.

9 of 47

Ohio Standards for Principals

The 2018 Ohio Standards for Principals reflect changes in the role of the building principal and a greater understanding of the effect of their leadership on student learning and achievement.

Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Core Values

Standard 2: Ethics and Professional Norms

Standard 3: School Improvement

Standard 4: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

Standard 5: Professional Capacity of School Personnel

Standard 6: Equity and Cultural Responsiveness

Standard 7: Community of Care and Support

Standard 8: Meaningful Engagement of Families and Community

Standard 9: Strategic Staffing

Standard 10: School Operations

10 of 47

OPES 2.0 Coaching Cycle:�Conversations for Continuous Improvement

11 of 47

Principal Evaluation System

12 of 47

13 of 47

Performance Level Definitions

Suggested Time:

10 min

Facilitation:

Ask participants to first independently consider what distinguishes each level in the definitions
Turn to shoulder/elbow partner and discuss findings
Share out

Notes:

All administrators, at all stages of their careers, will be assessed on their expertise and performance—in the classroom and school setting.
Trainer’s background information on the characteristics OPES Revision Stakeholder Work Group felt distinguished Skilled from Accomplished administrators:

When they wrote these definitions (and the rubric), they started with Skilled administrators because that's where effective leadership is occurring.
Reinforce that a Skilled rating is the rigorous, expected performance level. Skilled administrators consistently demonstrate competency in all standards, influence culture, and meet the needs of stakeholders.

Performance can be fluid. Administrators will move back and forth between Accomplished and Skilled or Skilled and Developing at any point during the week or even during the day. It's the body of evidence, or the consistency of the evidence, that will ultimately determine an administrator's Final Holistic Rating.

14 of 47

OPES 2.0 Common Language:�Administrator Performance �Evaluation Rubric

15 of 47

Administrator Performance Evaluation Rubric

46-52

16 of 47

Rubric Structure

Levels of Performance

46-52

Domain

Standards

Indicators

17 of 47

RUBRIC ACTIVITY

HAVE A COPY OF THE OPES RUBRIC OPEN IN FRONT OF YOU

HAVE HIGHLIGHTERS OR OTHER WRITING UTENSIL READY TO GO!

STARTING WITH ”SKILLED,” HIGHLIGHT OR UNDERLINE SIGNIFICANT WORDS

THEN MOVE TO “ACCOMPLISHED” AND NOTE THE DIFFERENCES; DO THE SAME WITH “DEVELOPING”

18 of 47

Break

19 of 47

Looks Like / Sounds Like

Administrator Administrator behaviors/actions	Stakeholder Stakeholder behaviors/actions
Evidence Potential sources of evidence	Essence Essence of the standard

Suggested Time:

40 min for activity

25 min for charting and gallery walk
15 min for share out

Facilitation:

Divide the room into small groups

Assign each group a standard, ensuring that there are enough groups so that each standard from the rubric is represented

15 min: Have participants fill in their assigned chart for their standard on chart paper (can use templates in workbooks for notes)

administrator behaviors/actions and what it will look/sound like to an observer;
stakeholder behaviors/actions and what it will look/sound like to an observer;

Have a short discussion around who “stakeholders” might be when going over the task

potential sources of evidence; and
the essence/implications of the standard (the heart of the standard – explained in their own words)

10 min: Have participants engage in a gallery walk where attendees are to add any thoughts/considerations to others' charts.
15 min: Facilitate whole group share out charted notes and group additions to charts. One person from each group should share these out.

Notes:

Be sure to ask: “What does each standard look/sound like for administrators? Teachers? Students? Other stakeholders? What is the essence of this standard? What are the implications of this standard on administrator growth and performance?”
Keep poster charts up for duration of training and refer to during evidence collection conversations
Note to participants that these rubric activities can be great to use with their administrators as well to help them get to know the rubric.

20 of 47

LOOKS LIKE SOUNDS LIKE

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WzwlyRpatdV9l93_LKs_mUAaVRKVM-rK/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103554849579746543113&rtpof=true&sd=true

21 of 47

Coaching Administrators:�Planning for Continuous Improvement

22 of 47

A Note About Self-Assessment

What role can each of the options for Self-Assessment play in Principal Evaluation and the Professional Growth Plan process?

Administrators may select from the following tools to help them to engage in the process of reflection and self-assessment:

Self-Assessment Summary Tool for Administrators Ohio Standards for Principals (2018);
Ohio Standards for Professional Development; and
Available data sources for the school and district.

23 of 47

A Note About Goal Setting

What makes an effective and meaningful goal for a Professional Growth Plan?

24 of 47

Characteristics of Strong Goals

Clear
Provide focus and direction
Have a direct impact on student learning
Help administrators attain high levels of performance and effectiveness
Based on accurate assessment of administrator performance and student learning needs

Developed using multiple sources of data aligned to district/building improvement plans
Measurable progress indicators
Discussed frequently between administrator and evaluator (3x suggestion)

25 of 47

Some Examples of Goals

How aligned are these goals to the characteristics we’ve talked about?

How might they be improved?

Provide more opportunities for teacher leadership on the campus.

Plan and deliver my school’s summer reading professional development institute.

Improve the quality of the coaching questions I ask teachers.

26 of 47

Model Evaluation Process

27 of 47

Overview

Professional Growth & Improvement Plans

A Professional Growth Plan or an Improvement Plan will be developed annually with each administrator and will be based on the results of previous evaluations available within the district. Professional Growth or Improvement Plans will also be aligned to an existing building or district’s continuous improvement plan and/or goals.

Scheduled conversations should take place several times during the year to provide direction about performance, goals, and progress, as well as supports needed.

Suggested Time:

2 min

Facilitation:

Everyone will either have a Professional Growth Plan or Improvement Plan, based on the previous year’s performance.

Administrators new to the profession or district will work collaboratively with their evaluator to develop a Professional Growth Plan.

Direct participants to review the criteria for the two plans as described on noted pages in workbook and work with a partner to identify the similarities and differences by completing a Venn Diagram
Share out

Notes:

The next 4 slides can be used to compare participant responses as the share-out is facilitated. Ask what notes they had that are included. Are there any listed that they did not note?
Use these notes to reinforce key characteristics of Professional Growth Plans and Improvement Plans
Trainers should enthusiastically stress the importance of the Professional Growth Plan to participants. If OPES 2.0 is to be used as a true growth model, the Professional Growth Plan must be the driving force for this process. Evaluators need to understand the new importance placed on Professional Growth Plans in OPES 2.0. They are now a living, breathing document. (Can be stressed through this slide and throughout this section, and the entire training.)

28 of 47

Similarities

Both PGPs and IPs are:

Determined by OPES 2.0 Final Holistic Rating,
Individualized to the needs of the administrator & school,
Driven by SMART goals that have a direct impact on student learning,
Directed by regular communication and collaborative conversation, and
Focused on no more than two goals.

29 of 47

Differences

Professional Growth Plans are:
Designed to keep administrators in the driver’s seat for implementation & completion, Composed of a sequence of appropriate activities leading toward the goal(s),	Continually monitored and discussed with the evaluator throughout the year (recommended at least 3x a year), and Characterized by various levels of autonomy.

30 of 47

Differences

Improvement Plans are:
Developed when an administrator’s performance overall – or in one or more areas – is scored Ineffective Implemented at the discretion of the district at any time based on deficiencies in any component Designed to identify specific deficiencies in performance and foster growth Reassessed based on multiple observations Transitioned to PGP when an acceptable level of improvement has been documented	Initiated by the evaluator and developed through meeting of evaluator and administrator Must include Specific areas of growth Measurable goals Aligned professional development or strategies to accomplish goals Resources needed Timeline with progress and coaching checkpoints Procedures for determining acceptable improvement

31 of 47

Apply It

��

Review the administrator profile on the next slide.

Determine if the administrator in the scenario is best served by a Professional Growth Plan or Improvement Plan

Practice writing a first draft of your designated plan

1

2

3

Suggested Time:

40 min

10 min for Steps 1 and 2. Note that there is no one right answer because evaluators can place an administrator on an Improvement Plan at any time. Evaluators must ensure they have sufficient evidence to support their decision.
20 min for Step 3
10 min for debrief

Facilitation:

Ask participants to review the scenario and determine if the administrator needs a Professional Growth Plan or an Improvement Plan (Individually or with a partner)
Compare answers with table groups and determine “correct” answers as a whole group before moving to STEP 3
Participants will have 20 minutes to practice writing a Professional Growth Plan or an Improvement Plan (Individually or with a partner) based on one of the scenarios. (If they have time, groups can start on another practice plan, whichever they did not do first.)

After 20 minutes, bring group together and debrief using the prompts that follow the application.

Remind participants that, as evaluators, they will not be developing these plans in isolation as OPES 2.0 places heavy emphasis on collaborative planning with the administrator. This is an opportunity for them to practice and gain familiarity with the process and forms.

Notes:

If they have time, participants can start on another practice plan, whichever type they did not do first.

Notes:

Though a lot of the plans could be completed with the information in the scenario, it’s great for participants to recognize what else they wish they had and will therefore want to collect in their own practice.

32 of 47

Practice Scenario A

Mrs. Z is a veteran principal, having been a leader for over 18 years. She leads a new school that has a high number of student suspensions, especially among African American and Hispanic males. Last year she addressed the problem by instituting zero-tolerance policies and increasing the length and severity of disciplinary consequences. Despite being in place for two years, the new policies have failed to reduce the number of suspensions or the disproportionate number of suspensions among males in these two student groups. She scored “Developing” on last year’s Final Holistic Rating.

This year, she unilaterally replaced the zero-tolerance system with a positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) system. She provided the faculty with a short introduction to PBIS. She has been observed interacting with students during hallway transitions. Her use of the PBIS hallway expectations were inconsistent.

Professional Growth Plan

Improvement

Plan

33 of 47

The Purpose of Coaching is to

Provide meaningful feedback to the observed administrator,
Create an opportunity to coach the administrator on goals and identified areas of support,
Promote self-reflection, and
Enhance or improve the administrator’s practices.

34 of 47

35 of 47

The PRINCIPAL STORY

36 of 47

VIEWING OPTIONS

CLIPS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV38-gxMI8k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtJjLnS7M40&t=32s

ORDER THE FULL SCREENING RIGHTS:

https://nomadicpictures.org/store/

37 of 47

START WITH TRESA DUNBAR in your groups

38 of 47

CONCENTRATE ON THESE STANDARDS

1 Mission, Vision, and Core Values

3 School Improvement

4 Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment

5 Professional Capacity of School Personnel

8 Meaningful Engagement of Families and Community

10 School Operations

39 of 47

AS A GROUP…..

1. REVIEW YOUR EVIDENCE AND DIVIDE IT INTO STANDARDS—avoiding judgement!

2. MAKE A LIST OF EVIDENCE AND WHICH STANDARD EACH REPRESENTS

3. START WITH SKILLED.

AS A GROUP, COME TO CONSENSUS ON THE RATINGS

40 of 47

CONCENTRATE ON THESE STANDARDS

1 Mission, Vision, and Core Values

3 School Improvement

4 Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment

5 Professional Capacity of School Personnel

8 Meaningful Engagement of Families and Community

10 School Operations

41 of 47

KERRY PURCELL

42 of 47

NOW FOR KERRY: REPEAT THE PROCESS—THIS TIME, SOLO

REVIEW YOUR EVIDENCE AND DIVIDE THAT EVIDENCE INTO STANDARDS—avoiding judgement!

REVIEW

MAKE A LIST OF EVIDENCE AND WHICH STANDARD EACH PIECE OF EVIDENCE BEST REPRESENTS—still no judgement!

MAKE

START WITH SKILLED.

START

RATE ALL 6 STANDARDS AND THEN SHARE WITH THE LARGER GROUP AFTER EVERYONE IS FINISHED.

USE

43 of 47

SHARE RATINGS AND CALIBRATION

After everyone has completed individual ratings…

Some ideas:

Google form where each person places their ratings anonymously
Zoom Poll if doing the meeting virtually
Survey Monkey
Sticky notes on poster paper (hint: write on the sticky side of the note so that no one can see others’ ratings)

After the ratings are in, discuss each standard and rationale for each rating.

44 of 47

WHAT WOULD COACHING LOOK LIKE FOR TRESA? KERRY?

WHICH STANDARD WOULD YOU REINFORCE?

WHICH STANDARD WOULD YOU REFINE?

WHAT COACHING STYLE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR EACH PRINCIPAL?

45 of 47

THE MODEL(BEST PRACTICE)

SELF-ASSESSMENT AND PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PLANS(OR IP)

PRE CONFERENCE

FIRST 30 MINUTE OBSERVATION

WALKTHROUGHS AND GATHERING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

POST CONFERENCE AND FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT

PRE CONFERENCE

2^ND 30 MINUTE OBSERVATION

ADDITIONAL WALKTHROUGHS

FINAL SUMMATIVE CONFERENCE AND RATINGS

46 of 47

Wrap Up

1 of 47

2 of 47

3 of 47

4 of 47

5 of 47

6 of 47

7 of 47

8 of 47

9 of 47

10 of 47

11 of 47

12 of 47

13 of 47

14 of 47

15 of 47

16 of 47

17 of 47

18 of 47

19 of 47

20 of 47

21 of 47

22 of 47

23 of 47

24 of 47

25 of 47

26 of 47

27 of 47

28 of 47

29 of 47

30 of 47

31 of 47

32 of 47

33 of 47

34 of 47

35 of 47

36 of 47

37 of 47

38 of 47

39 of 47

40 of 47

41 of 47

42 of 47

43 of 47

44 of 47

45 of 47

46 of 47

47 of 47