Rachel Ricci
Position Paper 2
Fundamentals of Curriculum
Principal Evaluation Models
Under Governor Christie’s administration, several changes have been occurring in education, one being a reform in the tenure law. New Jersey New Jersey
Some of the goals of the new principal evaluation system include having improved tools to measure effectiveness, determining who is excelling and who is not, providing feedback, and clarifying the expectations for performance. In essence, according to the DOE, a high-quality principal evaluation system will enable districts to improve school leadership and provide important data for districts to use in assessing progress, setting goals and priorities, and making decisions about the professional development needs of school leaders. The Principal Evaluation Pilot Program is 100% federally funded through Race to the Top, Phase 3 (RTTT3) grant monies and the NJDOE will provide approximately $500,000 to fund an allocated number of participating districts. The grant awards are intended to cover training, site based follow up support, data management and supporting materials necessary for implementation.
School districts have the choice to participate in this pilot program. There are benefits from participating in the pilot including state support and exposure to the system prior to statewide implementation. In order to participate, school districts must use research based evaluation systems for evaluating principals during the 2012-13 school year. Three such approved evaluation instruments are James Stronge’s Leadership Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System, Dr. Robert Marzano’s Administrative Evlauation Model, and McRELS’s Principal Evaluation System. The components that must be addressed include measures of professional practice, with a 10% component that is linked to the teacher evaluation practices. Another component that must be included is based on direct measures of student achievement. Comprehensive training of the chosen evaluation model must be completed by administrators who will evaluate principles.
Approved Evaluation Instruments according to the NJ DOE:
· This system was developed by Dr. James Stronge for collecting and presenting data to document performance based on well-defined job expectations.
· LEPES uses seven standards and multiple performance indicators. The seven standards include instructional leadership, school climate, human resources management, organizational management, communication and community relations, professionalism and student progress. Principals will be rated using performance appraisal rubrics.
· Documenting performance is done through a self evaluation, informal observations, documentation logs, staff surveys and goal setting.
· Rating Scale: Highly Effective, Effective, Partially Effective, Ineffective
· Interim, Formative and Summative Evaluations
· If a principal’s performance does not meet the expectations established by the school district, the principal will be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.
· The goal is to support the continuous growth and development of each principal by monitoring, analyzing, and applying pertinent data compiled within a system of meaningful feedback.
2. The School Leadership Evaluation Model designed by Dr. Robert
Marzano
· This model was based off of extensive research on school administrator competence. Specific school leader actions and behaviors were identified that have a relationship with student achievement.
· From the research obtained (which can be viewed on the Marzano website listed under references), 24 categories of principal actions and behaviors were identified. These 24 categories were organized into five domains: a data-driven focus on student achievement, continuous improvement of instruction, a guaranteed and viable curriculum, cooperation and collaboration, and school climate.
· Scales were created to rate each of the elements in its corresponding domain. Each goal is marked as innovating, applying, developing, beginning or not using.
· Marzano’s leadership model is coordinated and compatible with the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model.
3. McREL Principal Evaluation System
· The intended purpose of McREL’s Principal Evaluation System is to assess the principal’s performance in relation to the research-based strategies that have been proven to be effective.
· Conducted extensive research that found leadership matters. The general effect of principal leadership on student achievement has a correlation of 0.25. A meta-analysis identified 21 leadership responsibilities associated with 66 leadership practices, which all have statistically significant relationships with student achievement.
· There is a seven step process from orientation, to principal self assessment, to evaluator principal meetings, to mid year discussions, to consolidated performance assessment, to end of the year performance discussion and finally to final evaluation and goal setting meeting with outlined principal and evaluator responsibilities.
· Progress is evaluated using rubrics with ratings of developing, proficient, accomplished, distinguished and not demonstrated.
· McREL’s model includes multiple indicators and web-based tracking and reporting of results.
There are pros and cons of the increased accountability seen in NJ schools. Those in favor of increased accountability through tenure reform and increased evaluative measures see the change as a necessary extension of a state’s responsibility to improve student learning. Proponents see the reform as a necessary, more radical change in low performing school districts. The state will be able to use achievement data collected from school districts to bolster accountability efforts. Under the principal evaluation pilot, principals will be given the opportunity to develop professional improvement plans and are given professional development opportunities. Teachers will feel accountability is spread more uniformly. Principals will be assessed on research based criteria for effective leaders. Those doing a good job will have a job and those who are not will be forced to improve or leave their position.
Those against tenure reform and increased accountability by the state feel the state does not have the ability to effectively run school districts since they are not involved or present in the community and individual schools. Opponents feel the reform needs to get to the root of the social problems facing disadvantaged students in urban school districts. The use of standardized test scores being the primary criteria for decisions is narrow. Both principles and teachers feel the pressure of high stakes testing. Teaching and leadership practices will focus too highly on state testing, instead of addressing the other needs of the students. The multiple evaluations conducted through the year are time consuming and intrusive. Could the time and federal funding be better spent? The debate continues and tenure reforms with increased evaluative measures are happening whether we like it or not.
References:
1. State of New Jersey
2. Notice of Grant Opportunity :
3. NJ Spotlight:
4. Dr. James Stronge’s Leader Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System:
5. Dr. Robert Marzano’s Administrator Evaluation Model: http://www.marzanoresearch.com/services/leader_evaluation.aspx
6. McREL Principal Evaluation System:
No comments:
Post a Comment