Dallas Independent School District

April 17, 2013

New Principal Evaluation System: How does it compare to previous years?

The Dallas ISD Board of Trustees approved the new principal evaluation system in January 2013. This act formalized a professional development process that began in June 2012 and included strong coaching of principals. While the evaluation instrument was new, many of the key components by which principals would be assessed were very similar to the ones outlined in the previous evaluation tools and the state competencies for principals. Effective principals have always been expected to align the curriculum, provide effective feedback to teachers, develop and implement strong action plans, improve the quality of instruction, and ensure a safe and positive learning environment. We outline below some of the similarities and differences between last years eva luation system and the new evaluation system. The key difference is that the executive directors under the new system are coaching and monitoring principal effectiveness in a much more rigorous way. The degree of accountability and the standards are higher, and more than a handful of principals will be assessed at the progressing levels. Characteristic 2011-2012 (old) 2012-2013 (new)* 60% performance/ 40% achievement

% evaluation based on performance 60% performance/ 40% achievement and % achievement Evaluators Average number of schools per evaluator Average number of instructional visits by the evaluator How performance is assessed

Seven executive Directors evaluated 224 21 executive directors evaluated 223 principals principals 32 Each school received one or two visits in a year on average 11 Each school received 12 visits in a year on average

Principals self-assessed and put together Executive directors assessed through a portfolio of their work observation and evidence of the quality of instruction and other actions of the principal 93% of principals received satisfactory evaluations None 135 hours; mostly focused on administration and management Very little; dependent upon executive directors and whether the principal was TBD 16 hours 175 hours; mostly focused on improving the quality of instruction A requirement for all executive directors to conduct job-embedded coaching for all

% of satisfactory evaluations Training provided to explain the evaluation system Professional development of principals Job-embedded coaching and professional development

struggling Number of principals on an improvement plan Number of principals non-renewed Number of principals who voluntarily did not return to the district Mid-year review 7 0 16

principals; approximately 12 times a year 68 TBD TBD

A review of a principals high priority goals

A comprehensive review of the action plan, curriculum alignment, instructional priorities, instructional feedback, quality of instruction, and school climate A comprehensive review of the action plan, curriculum alignment, instructional priorities, instructional feedback, quality of instruction, school climate, and the effectiveness of the school as a system Leadership, vision, the instructional program, staff development, effective management, and professional responsibilities. The evaluation process also includes an assessment of system effectiveness (including monitoring the system for continuous improvement), student attendance, parental climate surveys, and improving teacher effectiveness School and feeder pattern STAAR results, district mid- and end-of-year assessment results, school achievement gap, college and career readiness metrics, and graduation rate

System review

None

Performance areas

Continuous improvement, vision and goal setting, human capital development, monitoring teaching and learning, supporting student achievement, managing operations

Student achievement areas

School Effectiveness Index (SEI) andGraduation Rate/On-Track [in 20112012 only the SEI was used for the elementary and middle school principals evaluations; previous years had included school accountability rating, SEI, TAKS scores, and graduation rate or on-track performance]