Measuring Principal Effectiveness
Principal Evaluation System Concept Paper
Measuring Principal Effectiveness
Principals are the key to reform. While effective teachers are prerequisite, a
competent staff is not sufficient for a district trying to transform. Without effective
principals, any large system will find it next to impossible to develop capacity and place a
high-quality teacher in front of every child. In order to turn around, a struggling school
needs an effective principal to coach teachers, provide useful instructional feedback,
monitor the system for continuous improvement, and build a culture of excellence.
Being a principal in a district challenged by poverty is one of the most demanding
jobs in the nation. And there may be no more important work for any group of people in
society at this time. The urgency of the work requires a high level of responsibility and
accountability for results. This means that districts should invest heavily in the
recruitment of first-rate principals and develop their capacity to transform schools. The
urgency of the work also requires districts to accurately assess principal effectiveness,
emulating those who get results and removing those who, over time, are deemed
ineffective.
The stakes for our students are
high and failure is not an option.
Districts should be serious about this,
and principals should know this going
in. Any district that does not want to
introduce real accountability in the
system (for superintendents,
principals, and teachers) will continue
to work sub-optimally and will be
unable to transform.
“We still won’t get to where we need to go
unless we’re prepared to do three difficult,
but essential, things: rebuild our entire K–
12 system on a platform of accountability
[my emphasis]; attract more top-flight
recruits into teaching; and use technology
very differently to improve instruction.”
Joel Klein, “The Failure of American Schools,”
Atlantic Monthly, June 2011
As different principals will experience different levels of success (or failure), the
evaluation of principals should be similarly differentiated. DISD’s evaluation system for
principals hopes to accurately measure a principal’s effectiveness and compensate her
appropriately.
Results matter
Broadly, principals also need to demonstrate leadership and vision, and they must be
prepared to make tough decisions. These attributes will be assessed, using the principal’s
evaluation rubric. Operationally, a school leader’s main purpose is to improve the quality
of instruction and raise student achievement. At the end of the day, it is increased student
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 1
proficiency that matters most and encapsulates all of the performance measurements of
an effective principal.
Across the country, more and more districts are considering tying principal
evaluations to student achievement results. Doing so will require knowing clearly what
success looks like, monitoring the system consistently and regularly, coaching principals
and providing the support principals need to become effective instructional leaders.
Dallas ISD’s evaluation of principals will rely on a combination of performance
measurements and student achievement results. This document outlines each metric and
the varying levels of success.
Support
A rigorous evaluation system will only take root (and will only be fair) if there is a
great deal of support for those being evaluated. Indeed, the difference between a culture
of accountability and a culture of fear is the support provided for people to attain
rigorous, but achievable goals. In Dallas, we believe that principals are the key lever for
reform and the entire system should
The difference between a culture of
be designed to support the principals
accountability and a culture of fear is the
in improving instruction and helping
support provided for people to attain
principals coach and develop their
rigorous, but achievable goals.
teachers. (See the Support-Results
Diagram on page 4.)
Thus no aspect of the evaluation system for principals will be implemented without
significant efforts to build the skill and capacity of our principals to be successful.
Professional development will include job-embedded coaching that will help make our
principals among the best in the nation.
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 2
Support – Results Diagram
Support
Superintendent
Other departments
Results
Support
Teachers
Results
School Supervision
PRINCIPALS
Results
Support
Central Office
Student Achievement
Metrics
Metrics
Quality of Instruction
Philosophy/ Culture
Support
Metrics
Metrics
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 3
The Principal PEI Plan
Definitions
The following definitions will be useful in understanding this document:
 PEI (Principal Excellence Initiative): the District’s name for the new evaluation
system. The name mirrors the Teacher Excellence Initiative, which is the proposal for
the teacher evaluation system.
 Metrics: performance measurements or measurable outcomes used to assess principal
effectiveness. There are three types of metrics used in the principal PEI plan:
o Performance metrics – those measureable indicators that describe how well a
principal does his job. They focus on leadership, developing staff, and
improving the quality of instruction. Sixty percent of a principal’s annual
evaluation is based on performance metrics; the other forty percent is based on
student achievement results.
o Student achievement metrics – student achievement results related to
proficiency levels, academic growth, and student performance on District and
state common assessments.
o Progress-monitoring metrics – performance measurements that are assessed
during the year and that are aligned with the other metrics. These metrics
provide feedback to principals and help them gauge their progress.
 Annual evaluation rating: the overall assessment of a principal’s effectiveness based
on the principal’s performance and achievement metrics during one year. A principal
receives an evaluation rating annually. It is possible for an annual evaluation rating to
be lower than the overall effectiveness level.
 Overall effectiveness level: the effectiveness level on the PEI scale to which a principal
will be assigned based on the average of the last two annual evaluation ratings.1 There
are seven effectiveness levels:
Prog I
Prog II
Prog III
Prof I
Prof II
Prof III
Exemp.
For DISD’s PEI plan, the levels denote varying degrees of effectiveness. The goal for
“progressing” principals is to reach proficiency.
1
If the principal is in his first year with the District, the effectiveness level will be based on just one annual evaluation
rating.
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 4
 Compensation level: the effectiveness level at which a principal is paid. The
compensation level will usually match the overall effectiveness level. However, if a
principal’s effectiveness level declines, he may be compensated at a higher level since
his effectiveness must decline two years in a row before his compensation is decreased
by one level.
 Principal performance rubric: the evaluation instrument that outlines principal
performance standards. The rubric accounts for the largest part of the assessment of a
principal’s performance.
Principal Effectiveness Metrics
A principal’s annual evaluation rating consists of two parts: 1) performance, and 2)
student achievement. The performance part is worth 60 points out of 100 total points. The
student achievement part is worth 40 points. Each part also comprises six different metrics.
The performance and achievement metrics are summarized in the chart below and are
described in more detail on pages seven through fourteen.
Measuring Principal Effectiveness – the Metrics
Achievement (40%)
Performance
(60%)
Area
Performance rubric
Systems review
Improving teacher effectiveness
Congruence between teacher performance
and student achievement
Student enrollment or student attendance
Parent climate survey
School STAAR results
Feeder group STAAR results
District common assessments
School achievement gap
College ready rate (HS); 7th grade writing
(MS); 4rd grade writing (ES)
Career ready rate (HS); 8th grade reading and
math (MS); 5th grade reading and math (ES)
Total Pts.
30
10
5
5
5
5
10
3
7
5
10
5
[The color-coded column shows the alignment with the progress monitoring metrics outlined
on pages 18-19.]
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 5
CLASS Assessment for Pre-K and K
Measuring Principal Effectiveness – the Metrics
Achievement (40%)
Performance
(60%)
Area
revised 28 Aug 2014
Performance rubric
Systems review
Improving teacher effectiveness
Congruence between teacher performance
and student achievement
Student enrollment or student attendance
Parent climate survey
Total Pts.
30
10
5
5
5
5
School STAAR results
District common assessments
School achievement gap
College ready rate (HS); 7th grade writing
(MS); 4rd grade writing (ES)
Career ready rate (HS); 8th grade reading and
math (MS); 5th grade reading and math (ES)
10
5
5
CLASS assessments
10
5
5
Page 6
PERFORMANCE
Performance metrics include the ability to lead transformation, improve instruction,
develop a positive and professional school culture, and other areas outlined in the performance
rubric. This part also includes an assessment of how well the school works as a system and an
assessment of the principal’s ability to improve the effectiveness of the teaching staff.
Performance
(60%)
Area
Performance rubric
Systems review
Improving teacher effectiveness
Congruence between teacher performance
and student achievement
Student enrollment or student attendance
Parent climate survey
Total Pts.
30
10
5
5
5
5
Specifically, principal effectiveness will be measured in the following six performance
areas:
 Performance rubric (30 pts.). A large part of principal performance will be assessed
using the principal evaluation rubric (dated Dec 2012). The rubric includes specific
performance criteria for leadership, the instructional program, staff development, effective
management, and professional responsibilities. The rubric also includes specific sources of
evidence to be used in assessing the various areas.
The various performance areas have different weights. A summary of the performance
areas and their weights can be found in Appendix A of this document.
Performance Rubric
Actual points from the
performance summary x .3
Total Poss. Pts.
30
 Systems review (10 pts.). The systems review assesses the strength of “philosophy,
processes, and implementation” in the school. The review is conducted by District level
coaches and evaluators, who also assess the quality of instruction and progress on the
School Action Plan. The results of climate surveys taken in November and April and
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 7
teacher responses in one-on-one informal interviews help assess philosophy and school
climate. The Systemic Coaching Cycle Rubric is attached at Appendix B.
Overall Systems Review
Score
Strong (at least one strong rating and no weak ratings)
Proficient (no weak ratings)
Weak (there is one weak rating)
Unsat (there is more than one weak rating)
10
7
4
1
 Improving teacher effectiveness (5 pts.). This metric assesses the improvement in the
overall effectiveness of the teachers in a school. Each teacher evaluation is quantified per
the chart below. For example, a Proficient I annual evaluation is given three points and a
Proficient III annual evaluation receives five points.
Teacher Summative evaluations
Unsat
0
Prog. I
1
Prog. II
2
Prof. I
3
Prof. II
4
Prof. III
5
Exemp.
6
Teacher Effectiveness = Sum of evals/ no. of teachers =
The teacher effectiveness score is derived by adding the points for the teachers’ annual
evaluation ratings and dividing that number by the number of teachers. The teacher
effectiveness score at the beginning of the year is compared with the score at the end of the
year after the summative evaluations are done. The principal’s score is determined by the
degree of improvement in the teacher effectiveness score.
Improvement (Difference) in
Teacher Effectiveness score
Diff ≥ .75
.75 > Diff ≥ .5
.5 > Diff ≥ .25
.25 > Diff ≥ .1
.1 > Diff > 0
revised 28 Aug 2014
Score
5
4
3
2
1
Page 8
Teachers placed on an official improvement plan, removed from the school during the
school year, or who are non-renewed at the end of the school year do not count for this
metric. Novice teachers (who are automatically advanced if they are invited back to the
District) also do not count for this metric, except for those novice teachers who receive an
evaluation rating greater than Progressing I.
 Congruence between performance and achievement (5 pts.) If a system is not careful,
over time, teacher performance evaluations will become inflated, making it harder to
accurately assess staff effectiveness and the principal’s ability to build capacity. One way
to assess true capacity building versus evaluation inflation is to compare evaluation ratings
with achievement results, which tend to be more stable. Our premise is that these two
metrics are positively correlated (in a fair, accurate, and rigorous – FAR – evaluation
system). Thus a teacher who has an exemplary performance evaluation would obtain
higher student achievement results than a teacher who has a progressing rating.
Congruence metric
Unsat
Prog. I
Prog. II
-1
Unsat
Prog. I
Prog. II
Prof. I
Prof. II
0
Prof. I
Prof. III
Exemplary
Prof. III
Exemplary
2
Prof. II
Congruence = Sum of absolute values/ no. of teachers =
The congruence metric is derived by taking the absolute value of the difference between
each teacher’s performance rating (from the teacher evaluation rubric) and their
achievement score. The diagram above shows performance ratings and achievement
scores for three different teachers. The absolute values of the three congruence
measurements are 1, 0, and 2. The sum of the absolute values is then divided by the
number of teachers, providing the average congruence between performance and
achievement. A principal’s congruence score is based on this average. The goal would be
to get as close to “0” as possible.
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 9
Congruence between performance
ratings and achievement results
.5 ≥ Cong.
.75 ≥ Cong. > .5
1.0 ≥ Cong. > .75
1.25 ≥ Cong. > 1.0
1.5 ≥ Cong. > 1.25

Score
5
4
3
2
1
Student attendance or enrollment (5 pts.) This metric assesses the increase in student
attendance rates in the Division or the increase in the percentage of students in the District
boundaries who are attending DISD schools. For the 2012-2013 school year, the District
will collect baseline data. The principal will receive the higher of either the attendance or
enrollment score.
Attendance percentage
Score
attendance % ≥ 96.9
96.9 > attendance % ≥ 96.5
96.5 > attendance % ≥ 96.0
96.0 > attendance % ≥ 95.0
95.0 > attendance % ≥ 94.5
5
4
3
2
1
 Parent and Community survey (5 pts.). This metric assesses the support of the
community for the direction of the School and its engagement with parents. The
Department of School Leadership will select up to eight questions on the annual
community survey that captures what the community feels about the direction of the School
and how it is providing a good education for the children of the School. The Principal
receives a score based on the average percentage of respondents that answer either “agree”
or “strongly agree.”
Community survey – average percentage
responding with “agree” or “strongly agree”
> 85%
85% > survey results ≥ 75%
75% > survey results ≥ 65%
65% > survey results ≥ 55%
55% > survey results ≥ 45%
revised 28 Aug 2014
Score
5
4
3
2
1
Page 10
ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS
Achievement (40%)
Forty percent of a principal’s evaluation is tied to multiple measures of student
achievement. These include state assessment (STAAR) results, District common assessment
results, achievement gap data, college-ready rates (for high schools only), and other
achievement metrics.
School STAAR results
Feeder group STAAR results
District common assessments
School achievement gap
College ready rate (HS); 7th grade writing
(MS); 4rd grade writing (ES)
Career ready rate (HS); 8th grade reading and
math (MS); 5th grade reading and math (ES)
10
3
7
5
10
5
 School STAAR results (10 pts.). The principal's score is based on the best of the
following three STAAR metrics: 1) Percentage of all tests resulting in an advanced
rating, 2) A longitudinal growth measurement, 3) A measurement based on the
percentage of students exceeding the District mean score (students grouped with
academic peers)
revised 28 Aug 2014
Growth in % of commended/ advanced
Score
growth in % is ≥ 2.5
2.5 > growth in % ≥ 2.0
2.0 > growth in % ≥ 1.5
1.5 > growth in % ≥ 1.0
1.0 > growth in % ≥ .5
10
8
6
4
2
Page 11
 Feeder Group STAAR results (3 pts.). The principal's score is based on the best of
the following three STAAR metrics: 1) Percentage of all tests resulting in an advanced
rating, 2) A longitudinal growth measurement, 3) A measurement based on the
percentage of students exceeding the District mean score (students grouped with
academic peers)
Growth in % of commended/ advanced
Score
growth in % is ≥ 2.5
2.5 > growth in % ≥ 1.5
1.5 > growth in % ≥ .5
3
2
1
 District common assessments (7 pts.). The District will administer common
assessments at every grade level and for 95% of all subjects and courses. For this
metric, however, the District will consider only the semester exams administered in
reading, writing, math, and science courses. Part of the score is related to student
proficiency (status). Up to ten points is awarded for the percentage of student scores
that are proficient or advanced. The second part is related to “peer group medians.”
For the second part, students are placed in peer group “buckets” based on their reading
level. A student’s result on the common assessment is compared with the median score
of all the students in his bucket. The school’s score is based on the percentage of
students scoring at or above the mean.
District common assessments – % Proficient or
Advanced on both mid-year and end-of-year assess.
Combined P/A % ≥ 68
68 > Combined P/A % ≥ 66
66 > Combined P/A % ≥ 64
64 > Combined P/A % ≥ 62
62 > Combined P/A % ≥ 60
60 > Combined P/A % ≥ 58
Score
7
6
5
4
3
2
For the 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 school years, as the District is ramping
up student proficiency, principals will receive 1 point for every 4 percentage points
increase in District common assessments status.
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 12
District common assessments -- % of scores above
the median
% above median ≥ 55
55 > % above mean ≥ 50
50 > % above mean ≥ 45
45 > % above mean ≥ 40
40 > % above mean ≥ 35
35 > % above mean ≥ 30
Score
10
8
6
4
3
2
 School achievement gap (5 pts.). This is a new metric for DISD. It is based on the
decrease in the combined achievement gap percentage in STAAR reading and math –
School Hispanic/state Anglo average; School Black/state Anglo average.2
Average decrease in combined achieve. gap
Score
decrease in gap is ≥ 2.5%
2.5% > decrease in gap is ≥ 2.0%
2.0% > decrease in gap is ≥ 1.5%
1.5% > decrease in gap is ≥ 1.0%
1.0% > decrease in gap is ≥ .5%
5
4
3
2
1
 College ready graduation rate (5 pts.). This metric is tied to the increase in the
percentage of juniors or seniors who take the ACT or SAT exam and who are college
ready (1100 on Reading and Math SAT or 23 composite ACT).
2
% of college-ready juniors and seniors
Score
% college ready is ≥ 12%
12% > % college ready is ≥ 10%
10% > % college ready is ≥ 8%
8% > % college ready is ≥ 7%
7% > % college ready is ≥ 6%
5
4
3
2
1
The 2012-2013 data will represent a baseline. Once these data come in, we will revise the cutpoints.
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 13
 Career ready graduates (5 pts.). This metric includes either an increase in the
graduation rate or percentage of graduates who receive a "career ready certificate." The
criteria for a career-ready certificate is still being developed, thus 2012-2013 data will
represent a baseline. For purposes of this metric, the career-ready graduates will only
include those who are not going directly to college.
% of career-ready graduates
Score
% career ready is ≥ 12%
12% > % career ready is ≥ 10%
10% > % career ready is ≥ 8%
8% > % career ready is ≥ 7%
7% > % career ready is ≥ 6%
OR increase in 4-yr graduation rate
graduation rate ≥ 82%
82% > graduation rate ≥ 80%
80% > graduation rate ≥ 78%
78% > graduation rate ≥ 76%
76% > graduation rate ≥ 74%
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
Summary data
While a principal has to be skilled in a number of areas and has numerous
responsibilities, one can identify key performance areas in which a principal must be
proficient. Additionally, effective principals must be able to get results. Taken together, the
performance and achievement metrics outlined above provide an accurate assessment of a
principal’s effectiveness. The six performance metrics focus on the principal’s ability to
improve instruction, work systemically, and manage human capital in a way that will improve
the overall effectiveness of the staff. The achievement metrics are tied to both academic
growth and the overall proficiency level of the students.
The chart on page 15 provides a summary of the principal’s performance and serves as
the principal’s “report card.”
Additionally, progress-monitoring metrics keep the entire system focused on supporting
principals and allow both supporters and implementers to gauge progress and respond to
feedback. These metrics can be found on page 17. Job-embedded professional development
and coaching focused on the metrics will put the principal in the best position possible to
succeed.
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 14
Principal Effectiveness Level
Principals will receive an evaluation rating every year. The evaluation rating is based
on a combination of performance and achievement results as described above. A principal
may earn up to 100 points.
A principal’s effectiveness level is an average of her last two evaluation ratings. For
example, if a principal earned 64 points (a Proficient I evaluation rating) in 2011-2012, and 70
points (a Proficient II evaluation rating) in 2012-2013, her average score would be 67. This
would equate to an effectiveness level of Proficient II.
Principals remain at their effectiveness level until the average evaluation rating score
over the last two years is within the range for the next higher effectiveness level. Beginning in
the 2015-2016 school year, should a principal’s average evaluation rating score fall below her
effectiveness level for two consecutive years, she may be moved to the next lower level.3
Principals who have an evaluation rating and are moved to a school in order to help the
school improve, may keep the evaluation rating they earned at the previous school for two
additional years.
3
Nothing in this document prohibits the District from removing a principal per policy and law, or grants property rights
beyond what is provided for in State law.
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 15
Principal Evaluation – 2012-2013
Name ______________
Performance
Poss.
Pts.
30
10
5
5
5
5
Metric
Rating/ Result
Points
Performance rubric
Systems review
Improving teacher effectiveness
Congruence between teacher performance and
student achievement
Student enrollment or student attendance
Parent climate survey
60
Performance Subtotal
Achievement
Poss.
Pts.
10
3
7
5
10
5
Metric
Rating/ Result
Points
School STAAR results
Feeder group STAAR results
District common assessments
School achievement gap
College ready rate (HS); 8th grade national reading
assess (MS); 3rd grade reading (ES)
Career ready rate (HS); 8th grade math and science
(MS); 4th grade writing (ES)
40
Achievement Subtotal
100
TOTAL POINTS
Evaluation Rating
Prog I
38 – 44
Prog II
45 – 51
Prog III
52 – 58
Prof I
59 – 65
Prof II
66 – 72
Prof III
73 – 79
Exemp.
80 - 100
Prof I
64 - 70
Prof II
71 - 77
Prof III
78 - 84
Exemp.
85-100
Starting in the 2014-2015 school year
Prog I
43 - 49
Prog II
50 - 56
revised 28 Aug 2014
Prog III
57 - 63
Page 16
Progress-monitoring metrics
Any evaluation process should help improve performance and include ways for the
person being evaluated to receive feedback and also check his progress. The progressmonitoring metrics on page twenty help assess performance and achievement throughout the
year and provide evidence of success on the various measures of principal effectiveness.
Success on the progress-monitoring metrics is highly correlated with overall principal
effectiveness.
Support
For example, during the mid-year review, the Department of School Leadership and I
assess the principal’s ability to provide effective instructional feedback. We also assess
curriculum alignment and how the principal ensures that the taught curriculum is the aligned
curriculum. Both of these areas – providing instructional feedback and aligning the curriculum
– are critical to improving the quality of instruction. The mid-year review metrics will thus
contribute to an assessment of the principal’s
performance as an instructional leader and also
directly impact attempts to improve teacher
effectiveness.
PRINCIPALS
Results
The chart on page twenty-one shows the
connection between the progress-monitoring
metrics and the metrics for performance and
student achievement. All of the metrics fall
under three broad areas for principals: 1) student
achievement, 2) the quality of instruction, and 3)
the school’s culture (in DISD, we often use
“philosophy,” which includes culture, beliefs, and
the priorities of an
organization).
Student Achievement
Metrics
Quality of Instruction
Philosophy/ Culture
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 17
Progress-monitoring metrics
Date
Aug-12
Sep-Dec 12
Nov 12
Dec 12
Dec 12 –
Jan 13
Dec 12
Jan 13
Date
Jan-May 13
Apr 13
Apr-May
13
May 13
Jun 13
Metric
School Action Plan
Data reviews
Philosophy -- climate survey
Action Plan -- independent review
Mid-year Review
Quality of instruction -- 30 spot obs. in Oct Dec; focus on lsn. obj., DOLs, alignment,
engagement
Student Achievement – Semester Common
Assessments
Metric
Data reviews
Philosophy -- climate survey
Systems Review
Quality of instruction -- 30 spot obs. In
Feb/Mar/Apr; focus on Obj., DOLs,
alignment, engagement
Student Achievement – Semester Common
Assessments
revised 28 Aug 2014
Target
Actual
Proficient on rubric
TBD
Average of 75% (4 or 5) on seven questions
Making adequate progress
Proficient on instructional feedback rubric;
Proficient (7) on curriculum alignment rubric;
overall proficient on the review
Average of 1.5 on objectives and multiple
response strategies; average of 1.25 on DOLs
and purposeful alignment
TBD
Target
Actual
TBD
Average of 75% (4 or 5) on seven questions
Prof. medium on all three areas -- philosophy,
processes, implementation; proficient on
accomplishment of Action Plan
Average of 2.0 on objectives and multiple
response strategies; average of 1.5 on DOLs
and purposeful alignment
TBD
Page 18
Measuring Principal Effectiveness – Connection with Progress-monitoring Metrics
Principal Effectiveness Metrics
Pts.
Performance rubric
Achievement (40%)
Performance (60%)
30
revised 28 Aug 2014
Systems review
10
Improving teacher effectiveness
5
Congruence between teacher
performance and student
achievement
Student enrollment or student
attendance
Parent climate survey
Progress-monitoring Metrics
School Action Plan, mid-year review, systems
review, data reviews, climate survey, quality
of instruction coaching sessions and metrics
Climate survey, systems review, mid-year
review, data reviews
Quality of instruction coaching sessions and
metrics, mid-year review, systems review,
data reviews
5
NA – data collected at the end of the year
5
Daily student attendance
5
NA -- Community climate survey (April)
School STAAR results
Feeder group STAAR results
District common assessments
10
3
School achievement gap
College ready rate (HS); 8th grade
national reading assess (MS); 3rd
grade reading (ES)
Career ready rate (HS); 8th grade
math and science (MS); 4th grade
writing (ES)
5
NA – data calculated at the end of the year
NA – data calculated at the end of the year
District common assessments – mid-year and
final exams
NA – data calculated at the end of the year
NA – data calculated at the end of the year
7
5
NA – data calculated at the end of the year
5
Page 19
Appendix A
Principal Performance Evaluation
See evaluation rubric for more detailed descriptions of performance areas.
A. LEADERSHIP
Points
Wt.
A1. ESTABLISHES A SHARED VISION OF SUCCESS
 Reinforces core beliefs
 Guides staff to a shared vision
 Establishes goals and clarifies purpose
A2. LEADS CHANGE
 Leads change
A3. MAXIMIZES HUMAN POTENTIAL
 Maximizes potential
 Inspires staff
A4. DEMONSTRATES OTHER LEADERSHIP SKILLS
 Communicates well and practices sense-making
 Makes effective decisions
 Demonstrates broad perspective
1
U
2
Prog
3
Prof
4
E
U
Prog
Prof
E
U
Prog
Prof
E
U
Prog
Prof
E
2x
1x
1x
Wt.
2x
Wt.
1x
1x
Wt.
2x
1x
1x
SUB-TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Unsat
12-23
Prog I
24-28
revised 28 Aug 2014
Prog II
29-33
Prof I
34-36
Prof II
37-40
Exemplary
41-48
Page 20
B. THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM
B1. MAINTAINS A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM OF INSTR.
 Establishes a standards-based and aligned curriculum
 Helps staff understand and learn what great looks like
 Develops a program of instruction that meets the needs of all
students
B2. IMPROVES THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION
 Provides effective instructional feedback
 Improves the quality of instruction
 Conducts effective formal observations and evaluations
B3. PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT OF INSTRUCTION
 Ensure student proficiency is progress-monitored and
accurately assessed
Points
Wt.
1
U
2
Prog
3
Prof
4
E
U
Prog
Prof
E
U
Prog
Prof
E
2x
1x
1x
Wt.
2x
3x
2x
Wt.
1x
SUB-TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Unsat
12-23
Prog I
24-28
Prog II
29-33
Prof I
34-36
Prof II
37-40
Exemplary
41-48
C. STAFF DEVELOPMENT
Points
Wt.
C1. DEVELOPS STAFF
 Provides effective professional development
 Develops leadership capacity
C2. FACILITATES INDIVIDUAL GROWTH
 Facilitates individual growth of teachers
C3. HIRES QUALITY STAFF
 Recruits and hires effective teachers
 Retains proficient teachers
Unsat
7-13
Prog I
14-15
revised 28 Aug 2014
Prog II
16-18
1
U
2
Prog
3
Prof
4
E
U
Prog
Prof
E
U
Prog
Prof
E
1x
2x
Wt.
1x
Wt.
2x
1x
SUB-TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Prof I
19-21
Prof II
22-24
Exemplary
25-28
Page 21
D. EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
D1. MANAGES RESOURCES EFFECTIVELY
 Manages personnel and material resources
 Aligns budget with instructional program and professional
development
D2. TIME MANAGEMENT
 Develops effective school and class schedules
 Manages his individual time well
D3. SCHOOL CLIMATE
 Maintains a safe and orderly learning environment
Points
Wt.
1
U
2
Prog
3
Prof
4
E
U
Prog
Prof
E
1x
2x
Wt.
1x
1x
2x
SUB-TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Unsat
7-13
Prog I
14-15
Prog II
16-18
Prof I
19-21
Prof II
22-24
Exemplary
25-28
E. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
E1. MAINTAINS POSITIVE RELATIONS w/ DIST. AND
COMMUNITY
 Maintains positive relations with District personnel
 Builds positive relations with parents and school stakeholders
E2. GROWS PROFESSIONALLY
 Maintains personal professional development
 Contributes to the profession
Points
1
2
3
4
Wt.
U
Prog
Prof
E
U
Prog
Prof
E
1x
2x
Wt.
1x
1x
SUB-TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Unsat
5-8
Prog I
9-10
revised 28 Aug 2014
Prog II
11-12
Prof I
13-14
Prof II
15-16
Exemplary
17-20
Page 22
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
For each performance category assign the following points:
Unsat
0
Prog I
2
Prog II
4
Criteria
Leadership
Instructional Program
Staff Development
Effective Management
Professional Responsibilities
Prof I
6
Weight
3x
3x
2x
1x
1x
Prof II
8
Rubric Pts.
Exemplary
10
Total
/30
/30
/20
/10
/10
GRAND TOTAL
Unsat
1-19
Prog I
20-39
Prog II
40-59
Prof I
60-71
Prof II
72-84
Exemplary
85-100
Summative comment:
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 23
Systemic Coaching Cycle Rubric
Appendix B
Weak
PHILOSOPHY
L
M
Proficient
H
Leaders may have developed a vision; however the
staff does not act upon that vision. There is very little
congruence between the stated or written priorities
and what the staff believes the priorities should be.
Leaders’ plan to meet building goals does not address
differences in beliefs or priorities among the staff.
Teachers, lacking direction or agreement on the
direction, act in disconnected ways. There is no
identifiable and positive school culture that would
support a unified vision.
L
PROCESSES
M
L
H
L
M
M
H
Teachers and leaders develop a vision for the school and act
upon that vision. The vision is aligned with that of the
district’s and community’s. There is a focused action plan
with measurable goals that are also prioritized. Teachers
have input into the action plan and take concrete steps to
help implement the plan. There is great congruence
between what the top priorities of the school are and what
teachers believe they should be. The vision, goals, and plan
are revisited regularly and often. When conflicts arise, the
priorities are followed. The behavior of the staff
continually reinforces the school’s philosophy. Teacher
leaders establish high expectations and ensure new teachers
and others understand and act upon the school’s philosophy.
The students in the school and the community members
identify the culture of the building as one of inclusion for
all students.
Proficient
Curriculum, assessment, and instruction are not
aligned or there is not a process to tighten the
alignment. Staff development is often ad hoc or bears
only a loose relationship to the building action plan.
Administrators overly rely on the latest program or
initiative instead of practices to solve identified
weaknesses. Building leaders and teachers collect
data of student progress, but the data is not used to
improve instruction. Special education is seen as a
separate program and not all students have access to a
rigorous curriculum. There is no process to develop
good habits of mind among students.
revised 28 Aug 2014
H
Leaders have clearly articulated a vision for the
school. Teachers generally share that vision and can
describe what success looks like. There is a focused
improvement/action plan that is aligned with the
mission and that has measurable goals that are also
prioritized. Leaders are intentional about ensuring
everyone on the staff understands the school’s
priorities and teachers can name the top priorities.
The plan is followed. The school’s culture supports
the vision and goals. The students in the school and
the community members identify the culture of the
building as one of inclusion for all students.
Weak
L
M
Strong
Strong
H
Teachers receive training on key practices such as
curriculum alignment, use of data, differentiated
instruction, time on task, or direct instruction. There
is a process to align curricula: teachers have explicit
lists of what students have to know and be able to do,
and assessments are closely tied to these learning
objectives. There is a process in place to collect
data/evidence of student progress and proficiency.
Teachers use achievement data to improve
instruction. All students have access to core
proficiencies and a rigorous curriculum. Teachers and
administrators take concrete steps to develop good
habits of mind among students. Building leaders
develop practices to expand parental involvement.
L
M
H
Staff development is closely aligned with building
goals and priorities. There is careful and purposeful
integration of the processes to define the curriculum,
develop aligned assessments, and strengthen
classroom instruction. There is a process in place to
collect evidence of student progress and proficiency.
Teachers work collaboratively and use achievement
data to improve instruction. All students have access
to a rigorous curriculum and instruction is
differentiated to meet the needs of both struggling and
advanced students. Students have opportunities to
extend time and learning beyond the school day.
Teachers meet regularly in professional learning
communities to share best practices, monitor student
progress, and design interventions. The staff takes
concrete steps to develop good habits of mind among
students and leadership density among the staff. The
school develops practices to engage the community
and expand parental involvement.
Page 24
Systemic Coaching Cycle Rubric (cont.)
Weak
IMPLEMENTATION
L
M
Proficient
H
The quality of instruction is inconsistent and/or poor.
The range of instructional strategies is narrow and the
strategies are not the most appropriate or effective.
The staff fails to implement the school’s action plan.
Administrators monitor instruction, but feedback is
vague or teachers do not adjust instruction based on
feedback. Administrators evaluate teachers regularly;
however, evaluations provide little useful information
to improve classroom instruction. Poor performing
teachers are not held accountable. Staff development
is not tied to data about teacher areas for
improvement.
L
M
Strong
H
The school gets results. The quality of instruction is
proficient and improving. Teachers use a wide range
of instructional strategies matched to the appropriate
level of rigor and relevance. The staff effectively
carries out the school’s action plan. Administrators
monitor instruction frequently and provide clear
feedback on instruction. Teachers act upon the
feedback they receive. Teachers are evaluated
regularly, and evaluations are conducted with a rubric
that outlines specifically what great teaching looks
like. Administrators collect data on teacher
performance. These data help plan staff development
and strengthen teacher performance. Teachers adjust
instruction based on new training and data.
L
M
H
The school gets results. Good quality instruction is
pervasive. Teachers consistently draw on an
extensive repertoire of instructional strategies that
challenge all students to think critically. The staff
effectively carries out the school’s action plan. Key
building actions are frequently checked against the
goals for consistency. The staff holds itself
accountable. Administrators monitor instruction
frequently and provide clear feedback on instruction.
Teachers welcome observations and feedback. Spot
observations include specific feedback tied to the
building priorities and staff development goals.
Teachers are evaluated regularly, and evaluations are
conducted with a rubric that outlines specifically what
great teaching looks like. All teachers develop a
specific improvement plan collaboratively with the
administrators and work to fulfill the goals of that
plan. Administrators collect data on teacher
performance. Poor performing teachers are
remediated. Use and effectiveness of key practices
are measured. Data on achievement is collected and
analyzed by building leaders. This data helps plan
staff development and strengthen teacher
performance. The building leadership is intentional
about collecting and acting upon relevant feedback
from parents and the community.
Notes:
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 25
revised 28 Aug 2014
Page 26