1. PRINCIPALAND
TEACHER EVALUATION
Key Ideas, Your Role, and Your School’s
Leading and Lagging Indicators
Alexis Nordin
Research Associate III

2. Goals for Today
• Overview of the Principal Evaluation Components &
Timeline
• Introduction to the MPES Goal-Setting & Scoring Process
• Brief Summary of Teacher Evaluation & SLOs
• The Principal-Teacher Connection
• Definition of Leading and Lagging Indicators
• Counselors’ Role in the New Evaluation Processes

3. MPES OVERVIEW &
TIMELINE

4. MPES Overview
The Mississippi Principal Evaluation System (MPES) is
mandatory for all districts this year.
• Principal evaluation, including a student growth
component, is a requirement of Mississippi’s ESEA
flexibility waiver.
• Last year 34 districts (219 principals) piloted a principal
evaluation, focusing primarily on the VAL-ED component.
• Who is required to participate this year?
• Head principals of K-12 public schools
• Career and technical education directors
• Assistant principals & alternative school principals are NOT
required to participate this year (local decision)

5. MPES Components
Organizational
Goals (2)
20%
Language
Arts Goal
25%
Mathematics
Goal
25%
5
Circle Survey
30%

6. MPES Process and Target Dates
6
AUG:
Goal-Setting
Conference
DEC.-JAN:
Formative
Conference
APR.:
Circle
Survey
Conference
JULY: Summative
Assessment
Conference
Student/School
Growth Scored
Professional
Growth Goals
Conference

7. Goal-Setting
Conference
Language Arts Goal:
Form 2A
Mathematics Goal:
Form 2B
Organizational
Goals: Form 2C
Input Data in
Canvas
Formative
Conference
Discuss Progress
Toward Goals
Adjust Strategies
and Add Support
Complete Form 3
Input Data in
Canvas
Circle Survey
Conference
Certified Staff
Complete Survey
(Mid-Year)
Principal and
Supervisor
Complete Survey
(Mid-Year)
Principal and
Supervisor Review
Circle Survey
Results
Input Data in
Canvas
Summative
Assessment
& PGG
Conferences
Discuss Goals and
Rate Achievement
of Goals
Complete Form 4
Discuss
Professional
Growth Goals
Complete
Professional
Growth Goals Form
Input Data in
Canvas
7

8. MPES GOAL-SETTING &
SCORING

9. Setting MPES Language Arts and
Mathematics Goals (50%)
•Schoolwide goals - Based on
statewide tests (i.e., MCT2).
•Principals and supervisors - Set
quantifiable goals and quantifiable
ways to measure progress toward
each goal at the start of the school
year (Sept. 6).
9

10. Setting MPES Organizational Goals
(20%)
• Organizational Goals (2) Currently Based
On:
Leading indicators
Lagging indicators
These can include student assessments, but the
Language Arts and Mathematics goals should not
be used again in the Organizational Goals.
10

11. Goal Quantification
All Goals Must Be:
• Measurable (numerical targets)
• Ranges/degrees of achievement
• Mutually exclusive/contiguous
• Realistic/based on data
• Attainable/achievable
• Consistent and fair
• Agreed upon by the principal and supervisor at the
beginning of the year
11

12. MPES Goal Scoring
A Principal’s Goal Score is Based on a 1-4
Range:
4 – Distinguished (Substantially exceeds goal)
3 – Effective (Approaches or attains goal)
2 – Emerging (Some but not sufficient progress
toward goal)
1 – Unsatisfactory (Little or no progress toward
goal)
12

13. MPES Summative Assessment
Rating
Final Scoring (for Principals)
13

14. TEACHER EVALUATION
OVERVIEW & SLOS

15. Teacher Evaluation
• The process is being gradually implemented
over the next 3 years.
• You will see full implementation in the 2015-
2016 school year.
15

16. MS Teacher Evaluation
Components
50%
30%
20% Student
Growth
M-STAR
PGG

17. MS Teacher Evaluation 2015-2016
NON-STATE TESTED
TEACHERS
• M-STAR (30%)
• PGG (20%)
• Schoolwide Growth (20%)
• SLOs (30%)
20
%
30
%
30
%
20
%
STATE TESTED TEACHERS
• M-STAR (30%)
• PGG (20%)
• Schoolwide Growth (20%)
• Individual Growth (30%)
20
%
30
%
30
%
20
%

18. M-STAR Overview
Five domains (weighted equally)
• Planning
• Assessment
• Instruction
• Learning Environment
• Professional Responsibilities
20 standards included within the
domains

19. M-STAR Observation Process
FALL:
Formative
Observation:
including pre/post
conference
FALL-
SPRING:
5 Walk-
Throughs
feedback
SPRING:
Summative
Observations:
including pre/post
conference

20. PGG/M-STAR Annual Cycle
Begin School
Year with 2 PGG
Teacher works
on approved
PD activities
Formative
Observation
FEEDBACK
Walk Through
Observations
FEEDBACK
Teacher works
on approved
PD activities
Summative
Observation
Summative
Conference
PGG Developed

21. Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
• Can more accurately be described as ―student growth
targets‖
• Applicable to teachers of non-tested grades/subjects
• CTE population is piloting SLOs this year
• Pre-Post Test
• Pre-assessment scores set a baseline
• Post-assessment determines growth
• Individual student growth targets will be calculated for
each student based on a baseline
• Statewide goal is that students will show at least 60% of their
potential growth on the end-of-course assessment.
• Statewide goal is that at least 70% of a teacher’s students will meet
growth.

22. SLO Calculation
Scores 20 Potential 100
Pre-Test
Early Fall
Post-Test
Spring
Target
60% Student Growth
Could Improve 80 points
Growth 60%
60% x 80 = 48
20 + 48 = 68
This Student’s Post-Test Target

23. Teacher’s Report
Student Pre-Test Growth Target Post-Test Met Growth
Mike 20 68.0 70 YES
Julie 15 66.0 64 NO
Pam 10 64.0 75 YES
Sean 10 64.0 80 YES
Brad 30 72.0 70 NO
Amanda 40 76.0 80 YES
Bill 10 64.0 69 YES
Kristen 12 64.8 69 YES
Marilyn 22 68.8 69 YES
Jean 32 72.8 69 NO
Number Met 7
Number Not Met 3
% Student Meeting Target 70%

24. Quantification
Evaluation
Rating
4 3 2 1
SGT Met (%) >=
90%
70%-89% 50%-69% < 50%
Quantification is required to convert the GOAL
to a score that aligns with the teacher rating
system.
Scoring Rubric
Example: 70% of Teacher’s Students Met Growth
70% = 3

25. Teacher Evaluation Ratings
 Level 4 Distinguished: Indicates that the teacher’s
performance consistently exceeds expectations –
exemplary; cream of the crop!
 Level 3 Effective: Indicates that the teacher’s
performance meets expectations. Learning is evident
and Best Practices are frequent and intentional!
 Level 2 Emerging: Indicates that the teacher’s
performance inconsistently meets expectations. PD
is needed as teacher continues to learn about the
science of teaching and learning.
 Level 1 Unsatisfactory: Indicates that the teacher’s
performance does not meet expectations. An
immediate plan of improvement should be designed by
the administrator and teacher.

26. BRIDGING PRINCIPAL &
TEACHER EVALUATION

27. The Principal-Teacher Link:
• Principals and teachers must build partnerships in order
for each party to be successful.
• Principals will be evaluated on schoolwide student growth,
which requires instructional support in the classroom.
• Teachers will be evaluated on individual and schoolwide
student growth, which requires support from school
administrators.
• Each party will have input in the other’s evaluation
process.
Neither party can do it alone!

28. All Parties Must Work To Achieve:
• Honest and open feedback
• Trust and team building
• Leadership
• Buy-In
• Goals that complement one another (teachers
must reinforce their principal’s goals and vice
versa)
Does the above description fit your
school? Counselors are a great
resource!

29. Stephen Covey
―A cardinal principle of Total Quality
escapes too many managers: you
cannot continuously improve
interdependent systems and
processes until you progressively
perfect
interdependent, interpersonal
relationships.‖

30. DEFINING LEADING &
LAGGING INDICATORS

31. What Are ―Leading‖ Indicators?
• Monitored throughout the year
• Can be altered during the year to impact end-of-
year outcomes
• For example, drop-out rate during the year is a
―leading‖ indicator because it can be monitored
and intervention is possible throughout the school
year.
• As another example, hand-washing is a leading
indicator of sickness.

32. Other Leading Indicators
• Length of instructional day/year
• Student participation rate on State assessments in
language arts and mathematics
• Student/teacher attendance rates
• Number/percent of students completing advanced
coursework (AP/IB), early-college high schools, or dual-
enrollment classes
• Disciplinary incidents
• Truancy
• Teachers’ performance level on a teacher evaluation
system

33. What Are ―Lagging‖ Indicators?
• Measured at the end of the academic year (―after
the fact‖)
• For example, graduation rate is a ―lagging‖
indicator because it is calculated per 4-year
cohort after the students have already passed
through the educational system.
• To return to the hand-washing example, sickness
is a lagging indicator because, once it is evident,
prevention is no longer an option.

34. Other Lagging Indicators
• Student achievement proficiency
• Student academic growth
• Achievement gaps in both proficiency and growth among
student subgroups
• Percent of seniors who take the ACT and their average
score
• College enrollment rates
• Graduation rates
• School improvement status and AMOs met and missed
• Percent of English learners who reach English proficiency

35. Sample Leading Indicator Goal
(Justification)
35

36. Sample Leading Indicator Goal
(Goal Statement)
36

37. UNDERSTANDING YOUR
ROLE IN THE NEW
EVALUATION PROCESSES

38. MPES Circle Survey (30%)
• All certified staff participate in the survey
• Concise, secure survey (usually takes less than 30 min.)
• MDE will establish survey criteria (tools must be
valid, reliable, and research-based) and give districts a
choice in which survey to use
• One choice is being developed by the Research and
Curriculum Unit at MSU for MDE and will be free of
charge to schools
• Survey comprises 30% of Summative Assessment Score
for principal
• Survey includes 3 components:
 Certified Staff (10%), Principal (10%), and Supervisor
(10%)
38

39. Circle Survey
• Anonymous staff component
 Survey completed online
 Each principal will have an assigned ID number that
staff members will enter to match their feedback to the
correct principal
 Secure login information will be provided to certified
staff members.
 Certified staff will complete the survey by entering the principal
ID number and their randomly assigned participant ID number.
• Survey may be completed at each participant’s
convenience or in a lab setting
• Alignment of the survey score with the MPES 1-4 rating
system
39

40. Circle Survey
• How will the participant IDs be randomly assigned to
certified staff?
Usually accomplished in one of two ways:
1. Fishbowl method—participant IDs are randomly
selected by each qualified survey participant.
2. Survey IDs are randomly generated and given to
an elected certified staff member in the school (who
does not participate in the survey for that year) to
distribute to qualified survey participants.
The principal and the MDE officials assessing survey
results will have no way to link a specific participant ID
to a specific certified staff member within a school.
40

41. Sample Key Processes of Circle
Survey
• High Standards for Student Learning
• Rigorous Curriculum
• Quality Instruction
• Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior
• Connections to External Communities
• Performance Accountability
Examples above based on the VAL-ED
survey developed by Vanderbilt University.
41

42. Sample Survey Question 1
―The principal fosters effective human resources
leadership by assisting with selection and
induction, and by supporting, evaluating, and
retaining quality instructional and support
personnel.‖
Survey participant ranks principal on 1-4 scale or ―No
evidence.‖
Example above based on James
Stronge’s Principal Evaluation.
42

43. Sample Survey Question 2
―The principal fosters the success of all
students by demonstrating professional
standards and ethics, engaging in
continuous professional development, and
contributing to the profession.‖
Survey participant ranks principal on 1-4 scale or ―No
evidence.‖
Example above based on James
Stronge’s Principal Evaluation.
43

44. CONCLUSION

45. Recap
• Principal evaluation and teacher evaluation are changing
across the nation due to federal requirements. Counselor
evaluation is up next—see Lois Kappler’s presentation
this afternoon.
• Mississippi’s principal evaluation system has already
been reviewed favorably by the federal government.
• Teacher evaluation and SLOs are now being piloted by
CTE populations.
• Teamwork and buy-in from all stakeholders are critical to
our success.
• Patience is a virtue as we all assume new roles and
responsibilities!

46. THANK YOU FOR
ATTENDING.
QUESTIONS?
Alexis Nordin
662-325-1191
alexis.nordin@rcu.msstate.edu