Harrison School District Two 1060 Harrison Road Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Principal and Assistant
Principal Evaluation System
Revised October 2015 Page 1
HARRISON SCHOOL DISTRICT TWO
PRINCIPAL AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL
EVALUATION SYSTEM
DOCUMENTS RECEIPT
I acknowledge that I have reviewed a copy of the Principal and Assistant Principal Evaluation
System Manual.
The Principal and Assistant Principal Evaluation System Manual can also be accessed on the
Harrison School District Two Human Capital website at www.hsd2.org.
My signature does not constitute agreement; it only signifies that I reviewed a copy of the
aforementioned document.
Principal/AP Name Printed Signature Date
School Leadership Officer Name Printed Signature Date
Revised October 2015 Page 2
Table of Contents
Section
1. Evaluation Process Procedures
2. Leadership Standards
Communication
Compliance
Culture
Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Awareness
Data Driven Decision Making
Management
Monitor and Evaluate Instructional Delivery
Professionalism
Recognition
Relationship
3. Performance Standards Rubric
4. Written Summative Form
5. Evaluation Metric Form
6. Compensation Form
Originally Adopted August 2011 Revised October 2015
Section 1: Evaluation Process Procedures
Revised October 2015 Page 1
INTRODUCTION: As required by Colorado’s Senate Bill 10-191, all principals and assistant principals must be evaluated
annually. The primary purpose of evaluation in Harrison School District Two is to assist principals and
assistant principals in developing and strengthening their professional abilities, improve the instructional
program, enhance the implementation of curricular programs, and measure professional growth,
development and level of performance of the administrator while maintaining compliance with Senate Bill
10-191.
Fifty percent of the evaluation is based on performance and fifty percent of the evaluation is based on the
academic growth of the students enrolled in the principal’s and assistant principal’s campus. Additionally,
SB 10-191 requires districts to consider the number and percentage of licensed personnel in the principal’s
and assistant principal’s campus who are rated as effective or highly effective, and the number and
percentage of licensed personnel in the principal’s and assistant principal’s campus who are rated as
ineffective but are improving in effectiveness.1
Harrison’s pay for performance plan for principals and assistant principals effectively measures a principal’s
and assistant principal’s success and compensates based on that success. In accordance with SB 10-191,
Harrison’s evaluation of principals and assistant principals will rely on a combination of performance
measurements and student achievement results.
1 For more information, see http://www.cde.state.co.us/EducatorEffectiveness/OverviewOfSB191.asp
Revised October 2015 Page 2
DEFINITIONS: The following definitions apply to the principal and assistant principal E&R Plan:
Accountability Year: the Accountability Year for principals and assistant principals is
the 4th Quarter a year in arrears and the first 3 Quarters of the current school year. For
example, the 2015-16 Accountability Year is the 4th Quarter of the 2014-15 school year
and Quarter 1, Quarter 2, and Quarter 3 of the 2015-16 school year.
Annual evaluation rating: the overall assessment of a principal’s/assistant principal’s
effectiveness based on the principal’s/assistant principal’s performance and achievement
metrics during one year. A principal/assistant principal receives an evaluation rating
annually. It is possible for an evaluation rating to be higher or lower than the overall
effectiveness level.
The Harrison E&R Plan for principals and assistant principals uses different terminology
than Colorado’s teacher and principal effectiveness legislation (SB 191). For purposes of
implementing SB 191, we adopt the following definitions:
An “effective” principal/assistant principal in the Harrison School District is one
who attains an annual evaluation rating (based on the principal’s/assistant
principal’s performance and student achievement data of students enrolled in the
principal’s/assistant principal’s campus) of Proficient I, Proficient II, or Proficient
III. A “highly effective” principal/assistant principal is one who attains an annual
evaluation rating of Exemplary.
A “partially-effective” principal or assistant principal is one who attains an annual
evaluation rating of Progressing II, or Progressing III.
Principals or assistant principals whose annual performance evaluation rating is
Progressing I shall be considered “ineffective.”
E&R – Effectiveness and Results: the District’s name for the pay-for-performance plan.
Teachers also have an E&R Plan.
Metrics: performance measurements or measurable outcomes used to assess principal
and assistant principal effectiveness. There are three types of metrics used in the
principal E&R Plan:
o Performance metrics – those measureable indicators that describe how well a
principal/assistant principal does their job. They focus on leadership through
communication, recognition, and effective instructional delivery.
o Student achievement metrics – student achievement results related to
proficiency levels, academic growth, and student performance on District,
national, and state common assessments.
Revised October 2015 Page 3
o Progress-monitoring metrics – performance measurements that are assessed
during the year through the fall, winter and spring staff file reviews. These
reviews provide feedback to principals/assistant principals and help them gauge
their progress.
Overall effectiveness level: the effectiveness level on the E&R scale to which a
principal/assistant principal will be assigned based on the performance evaluation and
achievement measures. The overall effectiveness level also determines the salary. There
are seven effectiveness levels:
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp
There are three levels that fall below “effective.” The Progressing I, II, and III categories
note the varying degrees of progress being made. Four levels denote varying degrees of
effectiveness. For Harrison’s E&R Plan for principals and assistant principals,
proficiency denotes effectiveness.
Principal/assistant principal performance rubric: the evaluation instrument that outlines
principal/assistant principal performance standards. The rubric accounts for one hundred
(100) percent of a principal’s/assistant principal’s performance.
Effective Partially-Effective Highly-
Effective
Revised October 2015 Page 4
PRINCIPAL AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS METRICS: A principal’s or assistant principal’s annual evaluation rating consists of two parts: 1)
performance, and 2) student achievement. Each part is worth fifty (50) percent or half of the
total one hundred (100) percent. The performance and achievement metrics are summarized in
the chart below and are described in more detail on the following pages.
Measuring Principal Effectiveness – the Metrics
Area
Per
form
an
ce
(50%
)
Performance rubric
Ach
iev
emen
t
(50%
)
School Performance Framework
State Assessment/ACT
National Assessments
District Assessments
ACCESS Growth
District Performance Framework
Revised October 2015 Page 5
PERFORMANCE: Principal and assistant principal performance will be assessed using the principal and assistant
principal evaluation rubric (dated March 2014). The rubric includes specific performance
criteria for leadership, the instructional program, staff development, effective management,
professional responsibilities, retention of effective teachers, and improving teacher effectiveness.
The rubric also includes specific sources of evidence to be used in assessing the various areas. It
contains ten (10) performance standards that equal a maximum of five (5) points each resulting
in a total possible score of fifty (50) performance points.
TEACHER RETENTION:
The goal of the District is to retain as many proficient or distinguished teachers as possible. To
achieve this goal, the District will determine the number of effective teachers (Proficient I or
higher) the campus has at the end of the year (based on that year’s evaluations) and then identify
the number of effective teachers who start the next school year with the District. This measure is
included in the principal’s and assistant principal’s performance score within the principal and
assistant principal evaluation rubric under Standard 3: Culture.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient – 3 Exemplary – 5
Percentage of
effective teachers
(Proficient I or
higher) returning is
less than 49%.
Percentage of
effective teachers
(Proficient I or
higher) returning is
between 50-69%.
Percentage of
effective teachers
(Proficient I or
higher) returning is
between 70-89%.
Percentage of
effective teachers
(Proficient I or
higher) returning is
90% or greater.
Teach for America (TFA) teachers will not be counted in this retention metric. However, if a
TFA teacher returns to the District for a third year and has received a “Proficient” or higher
evaluation rating, the District will add one to the numerator of this metric. Any TFA teacher
starting a fourth year in the District will be considered a regular teacher for this metric.
Revised October 2015 Page 6
IMPROVING TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS:
Improving teacher effectiveness assesses the improvement in the overall effectiveness of the
teachers at a campus. Each teacher summative evaluation is quantified per the chart below. For
example, a Proficient I annual evaluation is given three (3) points and a Proficient III annual
evaluation receives five (5) points.
Teacher Effectiveness = Sum of evals/no. of teachers =
The teacher effectiveness is measured by adding the points for the teacher’s annual evaluation
ratings and dividing the 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 completed. The principal’s or assistant principal’s teacher effectiveness measure
is determined by the degree of improvement. This measure is included in the principal’s and
assistant principal’s performance score within the principal and assistant principal evaluation
rubric under Standard 7: Monitor and Evaluate Instructional Delivery.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient – 3 Exemplary – 5
Teacher
effectiveness score
at the beginning of
the year as
compared at the end
of the year
illustrates a
difference of less
than 10%.
Teacher
effectiveness score
at the beginning of
the year as
compared at the
end of the year
illustrates a
difference between
10% and 24%.
Teacher
effectiveness score
at the beginning of
the year as
compared at the end
of the year
illustrates a
difference between
25% and 74%.
Teacher
effectiveness score
at the beginning of
the year as
compared at the end
of the year
illustrates a
difference of 75%
or greater.
Teachers placed on a remediation plan, removed from the campus during the school year, or who
are non-renewed at the end of the school year are not counted in this metric. Novice teachers
(who are automatically advanced if they are invited back to the District) also do not count in this
metric, except for those novice teachers who receive an annual evaluation rating greater than
Progressing I.
Unsat Prog. I Prog. II Prof. I Prof. II Prof. III Exemp.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Revised October 2015 Page 7
INPUT FROM OTHERS:
Included in the Performance metric is input from the teachers employed in the principal’s and
assistant principal’s campus as well as input from the students enrolled in the campus and their
parents. CRS § 22-9-106(3.2) (b) states “Each principal’s evaluation shall include input from
the teachers employed in the principal’s school and may include input from the students enrolled
in the school and their parents. Each school district shall specify the manner in which input from
teachers and from students and parents, if any, is collected but shall ensure that the information
collected remains anonymous and confidential.”
Revised October 2015 Page 8
ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS: Fifty (50) percent of a principal’s and assistant principal’s evaluation is tied to multiple measures
of student achievement based on the accountability year. These include State Assessment/ACT
results, District Assessment results, School Performance Framework, National Assessments,
ACCESS Growth, and District Performance Framework.
School Performance Framework
School accreditation ratings are determined by the Colorado Department of Education and come
directly from the School Performance Frameworks. There are four categories: Performance,
Improvement, Priority Improvement, and Turnaround based on the overall performance rating
score. This metric is based on the school’s overall percentage of framework points earned out of
one hundred (100) points.
State Assessments /ACT
The State Assessment metric is related to academic growth. The eligibility date for students is
October 1 for all scores attributed to the administrator.
As per HB 15-1323, results from spring 2015 administration of CMAS assessments (which
include science, social studies, PARCC English Language Arts, and PARCC math) will not be
used in effectiveness ratings for the 2015-16 accountability year. Therefore, for 2015-16 the
state assessment accountability wedge for MS and ES administrators will be distributed among
other assessment measures within the pie. In future years, CMAS results will be a metric in
Principal and Assistant Principal evaluations of student achievement, beginning with the 2016-17
accountability year.
The ACT metric is related to college and career readiness. The ACT score is based on the
average composite score of eligible 11th grade students at the campus.
National Assessments (ACT Aspire)
The District is working with vendors and technical assistants to research growth metrics for ACT
Aspire.
District common assessments
The December CBMs administered in RWC (reading, writing, and communicating), math,
science, and social studies courses will be the accountable assessments. The District assessment
metric is a measure of the percent of eligible students that score at or above the District median
of their academic peers.
Revised October 2015 Page 9
The District removes all students who are ineligible based on campus entry dates. (Reference the
E&R Data System Calendar for eligibility dates). Students who are tagged as habitually absent,
who are eligible for Co-Alt, or who are NEP are also removed.
ACCESS Growth
The District administers ACCESS for ELLs to students in Kindergarten – 12th grade. The metric
is based on eligible students’ median growth percentile across all contents. Growth is available
for students in 1st-12th grade.
District Performance Framework
District accreditation ratings are determined by the Colorado Department of Education and come
directly from the District Performance Framework. There are five categories: Accredited with
Distinction, Accredited, Accredited with Improvement Plan, Accredited with Priority
Improvement Plan, or Accredited with Turnaround Plan based on the overall performance rating
score. This metric is based on the district’s overall percentage of framework points earned out of
one hundred (100) points.
Revised October 2015 Page 10
PRINCIPAL AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
LEVEL:
Principals and assistant principals will receive an evaluation rating every year. A principal’s or
assistant principal’s effectiveness level is an average of the last two annual evaluation ratings.
For example, if a principal or assistant principal earned 64.37 points (a Proficient I evaluation
rating) in 2013-14, and 70.34 points (a Proficient II evaluation rating) in 2014-15, the average
score would be 67.355. Truncating to the tenths place would result in a score of 67.3 and would
equate to an effectiveness level of Proficient II. One year of evaluation ratings will be used to
assess a principal’s or assistant principal’s effectiveness level when they are a new principal or
assistant principal of Harrison School District Two.
Principals or assistant principals remain at their overall effectiveness level until the average
evaluation rating scores over the last two years is within the range for the next higher
effectiveness level. Should a principal’s or assistant principal’s average evaluation rating score
fall within a higher overall effectiveness level, they will be moved to the next higher level.
Should a principal’s or assistant principal’s average evaluation rating score fall below their
overall effectiveness level for two consecutive years, they will be moved to the next lower level.3
Principals or assistant principals who have an evaluation rating of Proficient and are moved to a
campus in order to help the campus improve, may keep the evaluation rating they earned at the
previous campus for two additional years.
PRINCIPAL AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL COMPENSATION: The overall effectiveness level determines the base salary of the principal or assistant principal.
Principals and assistant principals receive additional compensation for the size of the campus, the
level (elementary, middle, or high), and years of experience. The size of the campus is
determined by the data received from the prior year’s October count. The Superintendent has the
authority to make the final determination of a principal’s or assistant principal’s compensation
on the total compensation scale.
Principals and assistant principals with no prior year’s data will be placed on the E&R pay scale
as per the Superintendent’s and the Human Capital Officer’s determination. Input will be
accepted from the School Leadership Officers (SLOs) when necessary for placement.
3 Nothing in this document prohibits the District from removing a principal at any time or grants property rights beyond what is provided for in State law.
Originally Adopted August 2011 Revised October 2015
Section 2: Leadership Standards
Revised October 2015 Page 1
Harrison School District Two
Instructional Leadership Standards
I. Communication-establishes strong lines of communication with stakeholders.
a. Faculty, Student and Parent Handbook
b. School & Staff Newsletters
c. Staff and leadership meetings
d. Website/Social Media
e. Parent Conferences
f. Timely staff communication
II. Compliance-adheres to local, state, and federal policies, procedures and regulations
a. Budget; resources aligned to support district and school initiatives
b. Teacher and Administrative Evaluation Timelines
c. Attendance
d. Discipline
e. Special Education/504
f. Gifted & Talented (GT)
g. Unified Improvement Plan (UIP)
h. Title I
i. Cultural Linguistic Diverse Education (CLDE)
j. Literacy Plan (students below grade level)
k. CDE Policies/Procedures
l. District Initiatives
m. Testing Regulations
III. Culture-fosters shared belief and a sense of community and cooperation
a. School vision, mission, and positioning statement
b. Staff members can articulate the school’s vision
c. High expectations for all students and teachers
d. Positive School-wide Discipline System
e. Reduction of incidents of violence and suspensions
f. Collaborative Decision-Making
g. Teacher Retention
h. Student and Parent Satisfaction Survey
i. Safe Learning Environment
Revised October 2015 Page 2
IV. Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Awareness-is knowledgeable about current
curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices
a. Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
b. Scheduling-Teacher assignments that are purposeful
c. Focus on Standards Based Instruction
d. Professional Development related to school improvement goals
e. District Curriculum
V. Data Driven Decision Making-utilizes student data and a variety of data sources to make
recommendations for improving instructional practices and positively impacting student
achievement
a. Review of Disaggregated data by subgroups
b. Root Cause Analysis
c. Common/Formative/Summative Assessments
d. State and Local Assessments
e. Data Walls
f. Data Talk Teams
g. Response to Intervention (RTI)
VI. Management- coordinates the efforts of personnel to accomplish desired goals and
objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively
a. Established and effective leadership teams
b. Administrative Duties
c. Manage all appropriate resources
d. Facilities/Grounds
e. Transportation
f. Scheduling
g. Effective Time Management
VII. Monitor and Evaluate Instructional Delivery-improves instructional practices through the
purposeful observation and evaluation of staff
a. Spot Observations
b. Formal and Summative Evaluation Feedback
c. Examination of student work
d. Implementation and monitoring of district initiatives
e. Instructional Rounds
Revised October 2015 Page 3
VIII. Professionalism-maintains appropriate and respectful behavior with all stakeholders
a. Attendance
b. Professional Appearance and Demeanor
c. Shows respect and concern for others
d. Deals effectively with challenging situations
e. Models positive behavior for employees
f. Collaborative with colleagues
g. Positive interactions with student/parent/staff/supervisors
IX. Recognition-fosters an environment that positively recognizes individuals
a. Teacher incentives
b. Student/Staff/Community recognition
c. Very Important Parent (VIP) Program-Participation
d. Recognition of contributions
X. Relationship-develops an awareness of the personal aspects of stakeholders.
a. Organized parent groups (PTO, PTA, VIP)
b. Established partnerships (Business, Faith-based community associations)
c. Building rapport with parents, students, staff, colleagues, and supervisors
Overall Rating Points Overall Rating Band Range
0-7 Progressing I 8
8-15 Progressing II 8
16-22 Progressing III 7
23-30 Proficient I 8
31-37 Proficient II 7
38-45 Proficient III 8
46-50 Exemplary 5
Originally Adopted August 2011 Revised October 2015
Section 3: Performance Standards Rubric
Revised October 2015 Page 1
RUBRIC ASSESSMENT
Name:_______________________________
Date:________________________________
Principal/Assistant Principal
Self-Assessment Evaluator Assessment
Standard 1: Communication
The school leader will establish strong lines of communication with stakeholders.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient - 3 Exemplary - 5
Fails to satisfy the component
as defined.
Fails to develop a coherent plan to
effectively communicate with all
staff and stakeholders.
COMMENTS:
Defines a communications plan for
staff and stakeholders; however,
actual communications lack purpose,
clarity, consistency, or regularity.
COMMENTS:
Designs and utilizes a system of
open communications that provides
for the timely, responsible sharing of
information to, from, and with staff
and stakeholders.
Provides information in various
formats in multiple ways through
different media in order to ensure
communication with staff and
stakeholders.
COMMENTS:
…and
Ensures that staff and stakeholders
are aware of school goals for
instruction and achievement,
activities used to meet these goals,
and progress toward meeting these
goals.
COMMENTS:
Revised October 2015 Page 2
Standard 2: Compliance
The school leader will ensure that the school has processes and systems in place for budgeting, staffing, problem solving,
communicating expectations and scheduling that result in organizing the work routines in the building. The school leader
must efficiently, effectively, and safely manage the building to foster staff accountability and student achievement.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient - 3 Exemplary - 5
Fails to satisfy the
component as defined.
Fails to comply with policies,
mandates, and contractual
agreements in a timely and/or
complete manner.
COMMENTS:
Inconsistently complies with
local, state, and federal
mandates and all contractual
agreements in a timely
and/or complete manner.
COMMENTS:
Designs protocols and processes
in order to comply with local,
state, and federal mandates.
Consistently complies with local,
state, and federal mandates and
all contractual agreements in a
timely and complete manner.
COMMENTS:
…and
Presents local, state, and federal
mandates so that such mandates
are viewed as an opportunity for
improvement within the school.
Identifies opportunities for
improvement to develop
programs derived from the
mandates.
COMMENTS:
Revised October 2015 Page 3
Standard 3: Culture
The school leader fosters shared belief and a sense of community and cooperation.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient - 3 Exemplary - 5
Fails to satisfy the component as
defined.
Fails to develop a school wide
vision, mission, or strategic goals.
Fails to demonstrate the
involvement of staff and
stakeholders in a strategic
process that leads to the
development of the school’s
vision, mission, and goals
Percentage of effective teachers
(Proficient I or higher) returning
is less than 49%.
COMMENTS:
Develops school wide vision,
mission, and strategic goals
based on his/her own individual
beliefs regarding future needs of
student performance, with
limited evidence of stakeholder
involvement.
Percentage of effective teachers
(Proficient I or higher) returning
is between 50-69%.
COMMENTS:
Implements a process that
includes stakeholders for
developing a shared vision and
strategic goals for student
achievement that results in rigor
and relevance for students and
staff.
Maintains a focus on the vision
and strategic goals throughout the
school year.
Ensures that staff incorporates the
school’s vision, mission, and
strategic goals in their
instructional plans to assure that
students achieve expected
outcomes.
Percentage of effective teachers
(Proficient I or higher) returning
is between 70-89%.
COMMENTS:
…and
Designs, initiates, and
implements collaborative
processes to collect and analyze
data about the school’s progress
for the periodic review and
revision of the school’s vision,
mission and strategic goals.
Systematically ensures that the
school’s vision, mission, values,
beliefs and goals drive decisions
that positively influence the
culture of the school.
Percentage of effective teachers
(Proficient I or higher) returning
is 90% or greater.
COMMENTS:
Revised October 2015 Page 4
Standard 4: Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Awareness
The school leader is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient - 3 Exemplary - 5
Fails to satisfy the component as
defined.
Fails to monitor that the LEA’s
curricula are being implemented.
Fails to engage staff in curricula
planning and instruction.
COMMENTS:
In consistently monitors that the
LEA’s curricula are implemented
with fidelity throughout the
school.
Inconsistently engages staff in
curricula planning and
instruction.
COMMENTS:
Consistently ensures that the
LEA’s curricula are implemented
with fidelity throughout the
school.
Aligns curricula with assessments
and instructional material.
Engages staff in curricula
planning and instruction based
upon state and local assessments.
Creates opportunities to
collaboratively use
data/assessments to drive
instructional decisions and
practices.
COMMENTS:
…and
Engages staff to assess curricula
for strengths and weaknesses.
Reports data and
recommendations to curriculum
committee for refinement of the
LEA’s curricula.
Principals promote school-wide
efforts to establish, implement
and refines appropriate
expectations for curriculum,
instructional practices,
assessment and use of data on
student learning based on
scientific research and evidence-
based practices that result in
student academic achievement.
COMMENTS:
Revised October 2015 Page 5
Standard 5: Data Driven Decision Making
The school leader utilizes student data and a variety of data sources to make recommendations for improved instructional practices
and positively impacting student achievement.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient - 3 Exemplary - 5
Fails to satisfy the
component as defined.
Fails to demonstrate the
ability to analyze or use data
to drive effective decision-
making.
COMMENTS:
Infrequently uses data and
assessments to monitor
progress.
Exhibits the inability to
develop the capacity of staff
and other stakeholders to use
data for decision-making.
COMMENTS:
Collects, analyzes, monitors and
uses data systematically
regarding the school’s progress in
driving informed decision making
for the attainment of strategic
goals and objectives.
Develops the capacity of staff and
other stakeholders to use data for
decision making.
Ensures that a plan is in place that
supports to improve academic
achievement and developmental
outcomes for all students, and
provides for data-based progress
monitoring.
COMMENTS:
…and
Activates and sustains a school
wide system for monitoring and
evaluating progress toward
achieving school goals and
student outcomes.
COMMENTS:
Revised October 2015 Page 6
Standard 6: Management The school leaders coordinate the effort of personnel to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources
efficiently and effectively.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient - 3 Exemplary - 5
Fails to satisfy the
component as defined.
Fails to systematically allocate
human and financial resources
that support the vision,
mission, and strategic goals of
the school.
COMMENTS:
Utilizes systems for
allocating human and
financial resources that are
not transparent.
COMMENTS:
Designs transparent systems to
equitably manage human,
financial, and other resources.
Ensures the strategic allocations
and equitable use of all resources
to meet instructional goals and
support teacher needs.
COMMENTS:
…and
Integrates school, LEA, and
community resources efficiently
and effectively into school
operations.
Uses data and feedback to assess
the success of funding and
program decisions.
COMMENTS:
Revised October 2015 Page 7
Standard 7: Monitor and Evaluate Instructional Delivery The school leader improves instructional practices through the purposeful observation and evaluation staff.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient - 3 Exemplary - 5
Fails to satisfy the
component as defined.
Fails to monitor the
effectiveness of
professional staff in the
domains of:
• Leadership • Classroom Environment • Instruction • Professional
Responsibilities
Teacher effectiveness score at
the beginning of the year as
compared at the end of the year
illustrates a difference of less
than 10%.
COMMENTS:
Inconsistently monitors the
effectiveness of and timely
feedback to professional staff
in the domains of:
• Leadership • Classroom Environment • Instruction • Professional
Responsibilities Lacks participation in
ongoing professional
development activities to
better monitor and coach the
use of effective instructional
and assessment practices.
Teacher effectiveness score at
the beginning of the year as
compared at the end of the
year illustrates a difference
between 10% to 24%.
COMMENTS:
Consistently monitors the
effectiveness of and timely
feedback to professional staff in
the domains of:
Leadership • Classroom Environment. • Instruction • Professional Responsibilities
Participates in professional
development activities,
including calibrating to better
monitor and coach the use of
effective instructional and
assessment practices.
Teacher effectiveness score at
the beginning of the year as
compared at the end of the year
illustrates a difference between
25% to 74%.
COMMENTS:
…and
Collaboratively works with staff
members to:
Identify professional
development needs based
on observation data
Plans short and long-term
professional activities to
identify needs based on
data
Monitor performance
following professional
development to ensure
application of lessons
learned.
Teacher effectiveness score at
the beginning of the year as
compared at the end of the year
illustrates a difference of 75% or
greater.
COMMENTS:
Revised October 2015 Page 8
Standard 8: Professionalism The school leader maintains appropriate and respectful behavior with all stakeholders.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient - 3 Exemplary - 5
Fails to satisfy the
component as defined.
Fails to display honesty in
interactions with students,
staff, and stakeholders. Fails to recognize student
needs and contributes to school
practices that result in some
students being ill served.
COMMENTS:
Interacts honestly with
students, staff, and
stakeholders, but attempts to
serve students are
inconsistent.
COMMENTS:
Articulates and demonstrates a
professional code of ethics.
Displays high standards of
honesty, integrity, and
confidentiality in interactions
with students, staff, and
stakeholders.
Actively serves students to ensure
that all students receive a fair
opportunity to succeed.
COMMENTS:
…and
Holds the highest standards of
honesty, integrity, and
confidentiality.
Proactively serves students,
seeking out resources when
needed.
Makes a concerted effort to
challenge negative attitudes or
practices to ensure that all
students, particularly those
traditionally underserved, are
honored in the school.
COMMENTS:
Revised October 2015 Page 9
Standard 9: Recognition The school leader fosters an environment that positively recognizes individuals.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient - 3 Exemplary - 5
Fails to satisfy the
component as defined.
Fails to utilize lessons
from accomplishments
and failures to positively
impact the culture and
performance of the
school.
COMMENTS:
Inconsistently utilizes
lessons from
accomplishments and
failures to positively
impact the culture and
performance of the school.
COMMENTS:
Recognizes individuals and
collective contributions in a
systematic manner toward
attainment of strategic goals.
Utilizes failure as an opportunity
to improve school culture and
student performance.
COMMENTS:
…and
Utilizes recognition, reward, and
advancement as a way to promote
the accomplishments of the
school.
COMMENTS:
Revised October 2015 Page 10
Standard 10: Relationship The school leader develops an awareness of the personal aspects of all stakeholders.
Unsatisfactory Progressing - 1 Proficient - 3 Exemplary - 5
Fails to satisfy the
component as defined.
Fails to design structures and
processes, which result in a
lack of parent and community
engagement, support, and
ownership for the school.
COMMENTS:
Efforts for community outreach
do not result in meaningful
support for teaching and
learning.
Unilaterally designs
structures and processes
that result in limited
involvement of parents
and other stakeholders.
COMMENTS:
Creates systems and engages
parents/guardians and all
community stakeholders in a
shared responsibility for student
and school success reflecting the
community’s vision of the school.
Collaboratively works to
establish a culture that
encourages and welcomes
families and community
members.
Creates a collaborative work
environment predicated upon
cooperation among and between
students, staff, and community.
COMMENTS:
…and
Proactively develops
relationships with
parents/guardians and the
community so as to develop good
will and garner fiscal, intellectual
and human resources that support
specific aspects of the school’s
goals.
COMMENTS:
Revised October 2015 Page 11
The following documents were used as reference in the development of the Administrator Evaluation System:
Colorado Department of Education. (July, 2013). Rubric for Evaluating Colorado’s Principals and Assistant Principals.
Denver, Colorado
Pittsburgh Public Schools. (2009). Administrator Performance Standard Rubric Revised 09-10. Pittsburgh, PA.
Tennessee Department of Education. (September 2011). Tennessee’s Principal Evaluation System. Nashville, TN
Originally Adopted August 2011 Revised October 2015
Section 4: Written Summative Form
Revised October 2015 Page 1
Principal and Assistant Principal Performance Evaluation
Name: ________________________ Evaluator: _________________ Date: _________
Position: _______________________ Location: ________________________
See evaluation rubric for more detailed descriptions of performance areas.
I. Communication Points 0 1 3 5
Establishes strong lines of communication with
stakeholders. Rating U Prog Prof E
TOTAL
Comments:
II. Compliance Points 0 1 3 5
Adheres to local, state, and federal policies,
procedures and regulations.
Rating U Prog Prof E
TOTAL
Comments:
Revised October 2015 Page 2
III. Culture Points 0 1 3 5
Fosters shared belief and a sense of community and
cooperation. Rating U Prog Prof E
TOTAL
Comments:
IV. Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Awareness Points 0 1 3 5
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices. Rating U Prog Prof E
TOTAL
Comments:
V. Data Driven Decision Making Points 0 1 3 5
Utilizes student data and a variety of data sources to
make recommendations for improving instructional
practices and positively impacting student
achievement.
Rating U Prog Prof E
TOTAL
Comments:
Revised October 2015 Page 3
VI. Management Points 0 1 3 5
Coordinates the efforts of personnel to accomplish
desired goals and objectives using available resources
efficiently and effectively. Rating U Prog Prof E
TOTAL
Comments:
VII. Monitor and Evaluate Instructional Delivery Points 0 1 3 5
Improves instructional practices through the
purposeful observation and evaluation of staff. Rating U Prog Prof E
TOTAL
Comments:
VIII. Professionalism Points 0 1 3 5
Maintains appropriate and respectful behavior with
all stakeholders. Rating U Prog Prof E
TOTAL
Comments:
Revised October 2015 Page 4
IX. Recognition Points 0 1 3 5
Fosters an environment that positively recognizes
individuals. Rating U Prog Prof E
TOTAL
Comments:
X. Relationship Points 0 1 3 5
Develops an awareness of the personal aspects of
stakeholders. Rating U Prog Prof E
TOTAL
Comments:
With the exception of the conditions outlined below, total the points for each rating of Standards I-X.
An administrator with an unsatisfactory rating in two or more standards will receive an annual
evaluation rating of “Progressing I.”
An administrator with an unsatisfactory rating in one standard will receive an annual evaluation rating of
“Progressing I” if that administrator’s student achievement data totals less than 23 points.
An administrator with an unsatisfactory rating in one standard will receive an annual evaluation rating of
“Proficient I” if that administrator’s student achievement data totals 23 points or above.
Revised October 2015 Page 5
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemplary
< 8 8-15 16-22 23-30 31-37 38-45 46-50
Summative comments:
Administrator: ________________________________ Date: __________
Evaluator: ________________________________ Date: __________
Supervisor of Evaluator: ____________________________ Date: __________
Criteria Total
Communication /5
Compliance /5
Culture /5
Curriculum, Instruction, and Awareness /5
Data Driven Decision Making /5
Management /5
Monitor and Evaluate Instructional Delivery /5
Professionalism /5
Recognition /5
Relationship /5
GRAND TOTAL
Originally Adopted August 2011 Revised October 2015
Section 5: Evaluation Metric Form
Revised October 2015 Page 1
PRINCIPAL EVALUATION NAME:
Accountability Year: SCHOOL:
Poss.
Pts. Metric Rating/ Result Points
50 Performance Rubric
50 Performance Subtotal
Poss.
Pts. Metric Rating/ Result Points
School Performance Framework
State Assessments / ACT
District Assessments
National Assessments
ACCESS Growth
District Performance Framework
50 Achievement Subtotal
100 TOTAL POINTS
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 8 8 - 15 16 - 22 23 - 30 31 - 37 38 - 45 46 - 50
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 8 8 - 15 16 - 22 23 - 34 35 - 43 44 - 50
Prof III this year and
Prof III in 2 of 4
previous years
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Prof III/Exemp.* Exemp.
< 16 16 – 31 32 – 45 46 – 65 66 – 81 82 – 89 90 – 93
*March Stu Ach Rating
94 - 100
Performance
Achievement
Annual Evaluation Rating
Performance
Rating
Achievement Rating
Revised October 2015 Page 2
ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL EVALUATION NAME:
Accountability Year: SCHOOL:
Poss.
Pts. Metric Rating/ Result Points
50 Performance Rubric
50 Performance Subtotal
Poss.
Pts. Metric Rating/ Result Points
School Performance Framework
State Assessments / ACT
District Assessments
National Assessments
ACCESS Growth
District Performance Framework
50 Achievement Subtotal
100 TOTAL POINTS
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 8 8 - 15 16 - 22 23 - 30 31 - 37 38 - 45 46 - 50
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 8 8 - 15 16 - 22 23 - 34 35 - 43 44 - 50
Prof III this year and
Prof III in 2 of 4
previous years
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Prof III/Exemp.* Exemp.
< 16 16 – 31 32 – 45 46 – 65 66 – 81 82 – 89 90 – 93
*March Stu Ach Rating
94 - 100
Performance
Achievement
Annual Evaluation Rating
Performance
Rating
Achievement Rating
Originally Adopted August 2011 Revised October 2015
Section 6: Compensation Form
Revised October 2015 Page 1
PRINCIPAL COMPENSATION NAME: Accountability Years:
SCHOOL:
Compensation Year:
* If an administrator’s average evaluation rating score falls below their effectiveness level for two consecutive years, the
administrator will be moved to the next lower level (reference Principal and AP Evaluation Handbook). If an
administrator’s average evaluation rating score has increased more than one level above their effectiveness level, the
administrator will be moved only one level higher.
-OR-
Principal Signature: _____________________________________________ Date_____________
Supervisor Signature: ____________________________________________Date_____________
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 16 16 - 31 32 - 45 46 - 65 66 - 81 82 - 93 94 – 100
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 16 16 - 31 32 - 45 46 - 65 66 - 81 82 - 93 94 – 100
70,000 75,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000
Additional Compensation
Size Level (EMH) Admin/Principal Exp. (4+)
0R Principal Exp. (4+)
Principal Exp. w/Dist.
(4+)
Total
Additional
Admin/Principal Exp. (4+)
Principal Exp. (4+)
$3,000 $5,000
Size Addition
1 – 400 $1,000
401 – 650 $3,000
651 – 900 $6,000
901 + $9,000
Level (EMH) Addition
Elem. $2,000
Middle $5,000
High $10,000 Principal Exp. w/ Dist. (4+)
$5,000
Overall Effectiveness Level (salary)*:
Additional Compensation: $
2015-16 Compensation Year Salary: *
Effectiveness Level:
Revised October 2015 Page 2
NEW PRINCIPAL COMPENSATION NAME: Accountability Years:
SCHOOL:
Compensation Year:
* If an administrator’s average evaluation rating score falls below their effectiveness level for two consecutive years, the
administrator will be moved to the next lower level (reference Principal and AP Evaluation Handbook). If an
administrator’s average evaluation rating score has increased more than one level above their effectiveness level, the
administrator will be moved only one level higher.
-OR-
Principal Signature _____________________________________________ Date_____________
Supervisor Signature ____________________________________________Date_____________
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 16 16 - 31 32 - 45 46 - 65 66 - 81 82 - 93 94 – 100
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 16 16 - 31 32 - 45 46 - 65 66 - 81 82 - 93 94 – 100
70,000 75,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000
Additional Compensation
Size Level (EMH) Admin/Principal Exp. (4+)
0R Principal Exp. (4+)
Principal Exp. w/Dist.
(4+)
Total
Additional
Size Addition
1 – 400 $1,000
401 – 650 $3,000
651 – 900 $6,000
901 + $9,000
Level (EMH) Addition
Elem. $2,000
Middle $5,000
High $10,000
Admin/Principal Exp. (4+)
Principal Exp. (4+)
$3,000 $5,000
Principal Exp. w/ Dist. (4+)
$5,000
Overall Effectiveness Level (salary)*:
Additional Compensation: $
2015-16 Compensation Year Salary: *
Annual Evaluation Rating:
Revised October 2015 Page 3
ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL COMPENSATION NAME: Accountability Years:
SCHOOL:
Compensation Year:
* If an administrator’s average evaluation rating score falls below their effectiveness level for two consecutive years,
the administrator will be moved to the next lower level (reference Principal and AP Evaluation Handbook). If an
administrator’s average evaluation rating score has increased more than one level above their effectiveness level, the
administrator will be moved only one level higher.
Assistant Principal Signature: _____________________________________ Date_____________
Supervisor Signature: ____________________________________________Date_____________
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 16 16 - 31 32 - 45 46 - 65 66 - 81 82 - 93 94 – 100
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 16 16 - 31 32 - 45 46 - 65 66 - 81 82 - 93 94 – 100
58,000 62,000 66,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000
Additional Compensation
Size Level (EMH) AP or Admin Experience
(3+)
AP or Admin Exp.
w/Dist. (3+)
Total
Additional
Level (EMH) Addition
Elem. $2,000
Middle $4,000
High $8,000
Size Addition
1 – 400 $1,000
401 – 650 $2,000
651 – 900 $4,000
901 + $6,000
AP/Admin Exp. (3+)
AP/Admin Exp. w/Dist.
(3+)
1 Year $1,000 2 Years $2,000 3 Years $3,000
$3,000
Overall Effectiveness Level (salary)*:
Additional Compensation: $
2015-16 Compensation Year Salary:
Effectiveness Level:
Revised October 2015 Page 4
NEW ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL COMPENSATION NAME:
Accountability Years:
SCHOOL:
Compensation Year:
* If an administrator’s average evaluation rating score falls below their effectiveness level for two consecutive years,
the administrator will be moved to the next lower level (reference Principal and AP Evaluation Handbook). If an
administrator’s average evaluation rating score has increased more than one level above their effectiveness level, the
administrator will be moved only one level higher.
Assistant Principal Signature: _____________________________________ Date_____________
Supervisor Signature: ____________________________________________Date_____________
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 16 16 - 31 32 - 45 46 - 65 66 - 81 82 - 93 94 – 100
Prog I Prog II Prog III Prof I Prof II Prof III Exemp.
< 16 16 - 31 32 - 45 46 - 65 66 - 81 82 - 93 94 – 100
58,000 62,000 66,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000
Additional Compensation
Size Level (EMH) AP or Admin Experience
(3+)
AP or Admin Exp.
w/Dist. (3+)
Total
Additional
Size Addition
1 – 400 $1,000
401 – 650 $2,000
651 – 900 $4,000
901 + $6,000
Level (EMH) Addition
Elem. $2,000
Middle $4,000
High $8,000
AP/Admin Exp. (3+)
AP/Admin Exp. w/Dist.
(3+)
1 Year $1,000 2 Years $2,000 3 Years $3,000
$3,000
Overall Effectiveness Level (salary)*:
Additional Compensation: $
2015-16 Compensation Year Salary:
Annual Evaluation Rating: