Administrative Performance
Assessment System for Principals
A
leader evaluation process focused on
self-assessment and professional
growth that is aligned with the
nationally recognized Interstate
School Leaders Licensure Consortium
Standards.
Links
to Content:
Demonstration Site:
Cranston
School District
Target Population:
All district principals
Background:
In 2002, the Cranston School District developed a new standards-based
teacher evaluation tool. This became an impetus for the district
to review its administrator evaluation. Prior to 2002, the administrator
evaluation used by the district was not based on a national
model or set of standards. Previously, the administrator used
the process as a self-assessment and provided evidence in ten
categories as to his/her effectiveness of job performance. There
were guides to the data collection to be used by the administrator
and the evaluator. The administrator was rated as: not effective,
minimally effective, effective, and highly effective. He/she
then wrote goals for the coming year.
The district determined that this evaluation instrument was
too general and not based on national research. Grant funding
allowed the district to develop a committee of administrators
to analyze both evaluation documents and the respective process
and to create one based on the national Interstate
School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards.
Need and Intent:
The purpose of the Cranston Public School’s evaluation
process is to promote self-assessment and subsequent growth.
It encourages a focus on student achievement and school improvement,
which is the basis of decision-making and action. This document
endeavors to make professional growth the foundation of the
evaluation and aids in developing common standards of leadership
expectations based on the
ISLLC Standards.
Implementation Guide:
(also found in
Administrative
Performance Assessment document itself)
1. Every year for the first three years of employment, newly
hired administrators to the Cranston Public Schools shall be
formally evaluated. All other administrators will be formally
assessed once every three years, unless the administrator has
received two or more unsatisfactory ratings, whereby he/she
would participate in a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP).
The PIP would be a working plan of action developed between
the evaluator and administrator. This plan would address the
identified deficiencies in the
Administrative
Performance Assessment. One unsatisfactory would require
the administrator to address the deficiency within the goal-setting
phase of the evaluation.
2. The formal evaluation will consist of a pre-conference (to
occur between the months of July through October) between the
administrator and his/her evaluator (superintendent or designee).
At the conference, the
Administrative
Performance Assessment will be reviewed with the administrator
and completed. Any expectations or clarifications of the instrument
will be discussed at this conference.
3. A post-conference will be held in June to review the
Administrative
Performance Assessment instrument. At that time, the administrator
and his/her evaluator will sign the document that will then
be placed in the administrator’s personnel file. Upon
a satisfactory rating, the administrator will begin Tier I and
complete a Professional Learning Plan.
4. If the administrator is rated “unsatisfactory”
on any of the standards identified in the
Administrative
Performance Assessment, he/she will begin Tier II and be
required to develop a Professional Improvement Plan with the
superintendent or his designee. This plan may include activities
such as coaching/mentoring from another individual from within
or outside the school system, focused readings, or participation
in a planned sequence of conferences, workshops or other professional
requirements.
5. If a Professional Improvement Plan has been initiated due
to unsatisfactory ratings, a mid-year conference will be held
during the months of January through March in order to discuss
how the administrator is progressing with respect to overall
performance, goal attainment and the standard outlined in the
Administrative
Performance Assessment document.
6. A mid-year conference will also be held for first year administrators,
and any administrator, who is determined to be at risk.
Program Components and Materials:
Contact for More Information:
Name: Norman Laliberte
Job Title: Executive Director of Educational Programs
& Services
Role in Project: District Administrator
Phone: (401) 270-8172
E-mail: nlaliberte@cpsed.net
Address: 845 Park Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910