Day 5 Principal Evaluation Training.pdf - Eastern Suffolk BOCES

Annual Professional 

Performance Review (APPR): 

The Principal 

Part of the Reform Agenda of the 

New York State Board of Regents

Turnkey Training for Principal 

Evaluators and Lead Evaluators 

Presented by Eastern Suffolk 

BOCES 

2

Day 5 

Using the SLO Rating Rubric and 

Understanding the SLO and HEDI 

Rating

Workshop Objectives 

Participants will: 

• Use a quality rating system to ensure and 

improve the rigor and comparability of SLOs. 

• Discuss ways to ensure inter‐rater reliability 

in the SLO rating process to further 

consistency, equity, and fairness. 

• Experience nuanced aspects of the SLO 

process such as developing school SLOs and 

weighting multiple SLOs 

• Understand the Principal’s role in the SLO 

process

SLO Connections to ISLLC 

ISLLC Standard 1 

• An education leader promotes the 

success of every student by facilitating 

the development, articulation and 

stewardship of a vision of learning that 

is shared by all stakeholders. 

SLO Connection 

• SLOs are part of the plans for making 

this vision of learning a reality for all 

students. 

5

6 

A Sample SLO Process Flow

SLO Process Flow – The Principal’s 

Role 

There are four parts or hooks to the SLO Process 

Flow... PREPARATION, DEVELOPMENT, 

IMPLEMENTATION, AND RESULTS/ANALYSIS. 

Activity: 

• In each of your groups, focus on the area of the 

process flow chart assigned to find the places 

where the high level of participation of the 

principal is most critical. How will this make the 

implementation of SLOs better? 

7

District Decisions 

1. Assess and identify district‐priorities and academic 

needs. 

2. Identify who will have State‐provided growth 

measures and who must have SLOs as “comparable 

growth measures.” 

3. Determine district rules for how specific SLOs will be 

set. 

4. Establish expectations for scoring SLOs and for 

determining teacher ratings for the growth 

component. 

5. Determine district‐wide processes for setting, 

reviewing, and assessing SLOs in schools. 

8

District Decisions –Micro‐decisions 

• Review the micro‐decisions document 

• These decisions present “unpacked” district 

decisions to make regarding SLOs 

• We will work through one example together and 

highlight a few key decisions that need to be made. 

• Activity: 

We will assign a portion of the document for 

discussion and review by your group. We will 

also review all sections for all participants. 

9

10 

Micro‐decisions (at‐a‐glance)

11 


12 



• Learning Content –Whole versus Part 

• Who will decide whether part or all of the course standards 

will be included in the SLO? (This applies to areas where a 

choice exists, so State assessments are not included here.) 

• 

• District Staff 

• Principal 

• Teacher 

• Other 

13 

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each 

choice?

14 


Courses with 

a summative 

assessment 

Courses 

without a 

summative 

assessment 

Create/select an additional assessment (This 

is not permitted if using a State assessment.) 

Remain with one summative 

Create a summative 

Purchase a summative 

Attribute points based on school‐ or BOCES‐ 

wide, group/team results on State 

assessments ( (This will be an SLO.) )

• 

15 

Introduction to the Rubric

• 

16 


• 

17 


• 

18 


• 

19 


• 

20 


• 

21 


22 

Annotated SLO Rubric Form

23 

Annotated SLO Rubric Form

Introduction to the Rubric 

• Proposed uses of the rubric 

• Network Teams 

• BOCES guidance and monitoring 

• District guidance and monitoring 

• School/principal guidance 

• Teacher guidance 

24

Learning Content 

This is the content to be taught in the SLO. 

Task: 

Identify the course name and source of 

standards (Common Core, national, state, local) 

associated with this SLO, and specify the exact 

standards, performance indicators, etc., that 

will be taught, learned, and assessed. 

25

Learning Content – Quality Rating 2 

• Identifies course name. 

• Uses the appropriate body of standards 

(Common Core, national, state, local). 

• Names the exact standards, performance 

indicators, etc. 

26


Meets all of the following: 

• Meets the Quality Rating 2 criteria. 

• Selects specific and measurable standards, 

indicators, etc. 

• Selects the most important standards, 

indicators, etc. for the course. 

• Includes Common Core standards to supplement 

NYS Learning Standards for courses other than 

ELA or math (e.g., Literacy in History/Social 

Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects). 

27


Meets one or both of the following: 

• Aligns to district and/or school priorities. 

• Aligns to future coursework, as well as college 

and career readiness. 

28

29 

Global II Regents SLO

30 


31 


32 

Global II Regents SLO Rosters

Learning Content – Training SLO 

Activity: 

• Using the Annotated SLO Rubric Form, assign 

a quality rating to the sections on the training 

SLO: Global II Regents SLO on your own 

• Discuss the rating with your group, and decide 

on a final quality rating for this element. Was 

there much disagreement? If so, what were 

the sticking points? 

33

• Activity: 

Applying the SLO Rubric 

Use the rubric to find quality ratings for the 

provided SLO(s). 

7 th Grade Visual Arts, Grade 2 ELA, 

Instrumental Music Grade 5, Physical education 

9‐12, ELA 9 Self‐contained Special Education 

34

SLO Scoring 

• Review the Grade 7 Visual Arts SLO and its 

completed roster (where actual summative 

scores are now recorded) 

• Note the number of students who achieved 

their targets 

• In light of the established HEDI, this teacher 

earned 14 points for the State growth portion 

of the teacher evaluation 

35

SLO Scoring 

• Count students in SLO 105 

• Subtract number who did not take summative 8 

• Find number of students with two points in time 97 

• Count number of students making their targets 78 

(19 students did not make their targets) 

• Compute percent of students achieving targets 

(count those making target/number of students) (78/97) * 100 = 80.41% 

Rounded = 80% 

• Compare to HEDI structure: 80% = 14 points 

(Effective) 

36

Activity: 

SLO Scoring 

• Review the Grade 2 ELA and Global II SLOs and their 

completed rosters. 

• Note the number of students who achieved their 

targets. 

• In light of each established HEDI, determine how many 

points earned for the State growth portion of each 

teacher’s evaluation. 

37

SLO Scoring –Grade 2 ELA SLO 






• Compute percent of students achieving targets (15/21) * 100 = 

71.4% 

• (count those making target/number of students) Rounded = 71% 

• Compare to HEDI structure: 71% = 4 points (Developing) 

38

SLO Scoring –Global II Regents SLO 






• Compute percent of students achieving targets (50/56) * 100 = 89.2% 

(count those making target/number of students) = Rounded = 89% 

• Compare to HEDI structure: 89% = 18 points (Highly Effective) 

39

Weighting Multiple Assessments 

• Review the Grade 7 Visual Arts SLO 

• If another measure were used for evidence, such as 

a multiple choice, the two measures would need to 

be weighted 

• In this case, we may want to weight the 

performance assessment more, such as 80%, since it 

is a more authentic measure 

• The weighting would be articulated in the SLO 

• Though two scores would be generated, only the 

overall score(s) need to be listed on file 

40

Weighting Multiple Assessments 

Activity: 

• Review the Grade 2 ELA and Global II SLOs. 

• Discuss briefly which types of assessments may 

best supplement each of these two SLOs, and how 

they may be weighted. 

41

Weighting Multiple SLOs 

• Review the Grade 7 Visual Arts SLO 

• Keeping in mind this SLO involved 97 students (with 

pre‐and summative scores) and earned a HEDI point 

value of 14, let’s change the scenario. The Grade 7 

Visual Arts teacher now had a second SLO involving 29 

students, which earned a HEDI of 18 points 

• How many points has the teacher earned for the State 

growth portion of the evaluation? 

42

Weighting Multiple SLOs – Grade 7 

• Sum of the number of students 

97 + 29 = 126 

Visual Arts 

• Compute the proportion of students covered by each SLO 

97/126 = .7698 

29/126 = .2302 

• Multiply the proportion by the HEDI points for two partial HEDIs 

that will be added together. (We are weighting the overall HEDI 

by the number of students.) 

.7698 * 14 = 10.7772 

.2302 * 18 = 4.1436 

• Overall HEDI = sum of these partial HEDI values 

10.7772 + 4.1436 = 14.9208 

Rounded = 15 (Effective) 

43

SLOs for Group/Team, School, BOCES 

Results 

• Review Page 1 of the Purple Memo 

• In the absence of assessments, certain teachers may 

earn up to 20 points for State growth via group‐, team, 

school‐, or BOCES‐level result. 

• Ensure the rationale for taking this approach with 

teacher groups is strong. 

• Let’s look at an SLO set for all arts teachers at Sample 

Middle School 

44


Results 

Population: All students in the 6 th , 7 th , and 8 th grade ELA courses 

at Sample Middle School 

• Learning Content: All NYS P12 CCLS for ELA and Literacy in 

grades 6, 7, and 8 

• Evidence: The NYS ELA assessment for grade 6, 7, and 8 

• Baseline: Student performance on last year’s ELA assessments 

showed school proficiency rates of 56%, 60%, and 62% for 

grades 5, 6, and 7 respectively (Grade 5 proficiency rates 

calculated based on average of feeder schools) 

45


Results 

• Targets: The average growth in ELA proficiency for students in grades 6, 7, and 8 will 

increase by 5% 

• HEDI: 

Highly effective: Average growth is 6.5% or higher 

HIGHLY 

EFFECTIVE 

46 

Effective: Average growth is 4.5% ‐ 6.4% 

Developing: Average growth is 2.5% ‐ 4.4% 

Ineffective: Average growth is 2.4% or less 

EFFECTIVE DEVELOPING INEFFECTIVE 

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 

7.5 

and 

above 

7.0- 

7.4 

6.5- 

6.9 

6.3- 

6.4 

6.1- 

6.2 

5.9- 

6.0 

5.7- 

5.8 

5.3- 

5.6 

5.1- 

5.2 

4.9- 

5.0 

4.7- 

4.8 

4.5- 

4.6 

4.3- 

4.4 

4.1- 

4.2 

3.5- 

4.0 

2.9- 

3.4 

2.7- 

2.8 

2.5- 

2.6 

2.0- 

2.4 

1.5- 

1.9 

1.4 

or 

less


Results 

• Interval: September 4, 2012 through April 19, 2013 

• Rationale: 

• Students enrolled in the arts courses at Sample Middle School will engage 

in literacy‐infused instruction and be exposed to ELA standards through 

the arts 

47 

• The evidence of the State assessment is directly tied to the students’ 

ongoing work and learning in the arts by way of assessing ELA skills taught 

in the arts 

• The targets are rigorous, as our school ELA performance usually only 

climbs 1 or 2 percentage points a year 

• Students will read about artists studied, record text‐based responses, and 

engage in other ELA activities which will be recorded in their learning 

folios


Activity: 

Results 

• Craft an SLO for a teacher group based on 

group/team‐, school‐, or BOCES‐level performance. 

48

SLO Process Assessment Tool 

• Most/all principals are charged with leading the 

SLO process for their schools. 

• We have developed the following SLO Process 

Assessment Tool to qualify various levels of 

effective levels of SLO implementation. 

• Let’s review the structure and purpose of the SLO 

Process Assessment Tool 

49

50 

SLO Process Assessment Tool

51 


52 


53 


54 


55 


56 


The Principal’s Work 

in the SLO Process 

• Activity: 

Examine the case study and using the SLO 

Process Assessment Tool, and the rubric 

your district is using or considering, try to 

evaluate the principal’s work in the 

section of the SLO process your group is 

assigned. 

How did the principal do?

How Does the Work Get Done? 

• Activity: Discuss your district’s organizational 

structure with your group. Who will be 

responsible for each section of the SLO 

process? How is the work distributed? Who 

will supervise or review the work done? 

Remember the four parts or hooks of the SLO 

Process Flow…PREPARATION, DEVELOPMENT, 

IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS/ANALYSIS.

Tool Sharing: School SLO Calendars 

59

60 

Tool Sharing: School SLO Calendars

Year in Review: School Reflection 

• It is helpful to reflect on the SLO processes 

at the end of the year to inform and 

improve next year’s implementation. 

• Let’s look at some data displays intended to 

generate ideas for which data points a 

school may wish to document. 

61

Year in Review: School Reflection 

• Activity: 

62 

Take some time to review the data and 

reflect on implications for next year’s SLO 

process. 

Craft a potential plan of action resulting 

from the data and its implications.

Teacher Name 

63 

Content area 

School Reflection: Sample Data 

Grade 

Target statement 

Approver 

Actual SLO 

success rate 

HEDI rating 

by SLO 

Final 

HEDI rating* 

State test results - 

Proficiency 

Learning Content 

Evidence 

Baseline 

Targets 

Population 

HEDI 

Interval 

Rationale 

A ELA 2 80% will grow by 30 points AP 75% 8 12 n/a 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 

A Math 2 80% will grow by 20 points PR 83% 16 12 n/a 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 

B ELA 1 80% will grow by 40 points AP 76% 9 13 n/a 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 

B Math 1 80% will grow by 20 points PR 85% 18 13 n/a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

C ESL-coteach 2 80% will grow by 30 points AP 78% 11 11 n/a 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 

D ELA 3 80% will grow by 40 points AP 62% 0 2 63% 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 

D Math 3 80% will grow by 20 points PR 70% 3 2 62% 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 

E ELA 2 80% will grow by 30 points AP 79% 12 16 n/a 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 

E Math 2 80% will grow by 20 points PR 92% 20 16 n/a 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 

F ELA 1 80% will grow by 40 points AP 69% 2 7 n/a 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

F Math 1 80% will grow by 20 points AP 78% 11 7 n/a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

G ELA K 80% will grow by 40 points AP 76% 9 11 n/a 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 

G Math K 80% will grow by 20 points PR 80% 13 11 n/a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

H ELA 3 80% will grow by 40 points AP 92% 20 20 90% 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 

H Math 3 80% will grow by 20 points PR 94% 20 20 85% 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 

I ELA 2 80% will grow by 30 points AP 74% 7 13 n/a 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 

I Math 2 80% will grow by 20 points PR 87% 18 13 n/a 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 

J ELA 1 80% will grow by 40 points AP 77% 10 15 n/a 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 

J Math 1 80% will grow by 20 points PR 92% 20 15 n/a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

* HEDI rating is based on two equal sized classes Quality Rating Obtained

64 

Principal 

Highly Effective Effective 

Developing Ineffective 

School Reflection: 

Sample HEDI Ratings 

Assistant Principal 

Highly Effective Effective 

Developing Ineffective

Year in Review: District Reflection 

• It is helpful to reflect on the SLO processes 

at the end of the year to inform and 

improve next year’s implementation. 

• Let’s look at some data displays intended to 

generate ideas for which data points a 

district may wish to document. 

65

Year in Review: District Reflection 

• Activity: 

• Take some time to review the data and 

reflect on implications for next year’s SLO 

process. 

• Craft a potential plan of action resulting 

from the data and its implications. 

66

67 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

District Reflection: 


HEDI Distribution: State 20% 

ELA Math Social Studies Science 

Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective

68 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

District Reflection: 


HEDI Distribution: State 20% 

Arts Health, PE, FACS CTE LOTE 

Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective

Future training dates: 

Day 6 – August 9 Westhampton Beach 

Contact Information: 

Wendell Chu – wchu51@aol.com 

Alan Van Cott –avcott@aol.com 

69

Day 5 Principal Evaluation Training.pdf - Eastern Suffolk BOCES

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?