Tuesday, March 23, 2010

After Petrilli, Fayette Changes its Principal Evaluation System

Peggy Petrilli’s unsuccessful suit against Fayette County Superintendent Stu Silberman, last summer, unearthed a surprising fact. In the school district, principals rarely — if ever — got marked down on their evaluations. A Herald-Leader editorial complained that, “the district must do a better job of evaluating employees. ... employees who aren’t accurately graded can’t really be expected to improve.”

I fussed about it in the Herald-Leader as well, saying that if leadership is not challenged through the evaluation system, the motivation to do better disappears. I suggested that existing state regulations were sufficient to fix the problem - they just needed to be followed. I never followed up on the district's response until last week when I learned that the district did respond.

This from FCPS's Mike Kennedy by way of Lisa Deffendall:

Beginning with the 2010 – 2011 school year, we will be using a 1 to 5 scale to rate principals and other administrators, instead of the older “meets” – “does not meet” criteria. Note however, that the standards and performance indicators have not changed, but revised versions are expected beginning with the 2011 – 2012 school year. The new scale detailed below;

o 1 - Does not Meet – Corrective Action Plan and Assistance Team required (written documentation of evidence indicating corrective action plan and/or staff assistance required)
o 2 - Growth or Improvement needed - Revise growth plan and consider other additional formative support structures such as a coach, mentor, etc.
o 3 - Satisfactory - Update growth plan and continue receiving formative feedback from supervisors, self reflection etc.
o 4 - Effective – demonstrated leader in area of responsibility, evidence of continuous professional growth, documented improvement in work quality /quantity/productivity/performance
o 5 – Exemplary - model leader, proficient in all areas, etc. (written documentation of evidence of exemplary performance required)

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I applaud you for speaking up, Richard Day.

There is nothing so worthwhile as an idea whose time has come.

Had the evaluation process worked, the district would not be in the hot water it is in now.

How many more hugs and warm fuzzies are the people willing to put up with? Mr. Silberman is a fraud and the whole evaluation process was too. The timing of teh new evaluation instrument is suspicious at best.

More litigation, more impassioned defense of Stu, more teacher apathy, but "It's about kids," right?

Anonymous said...

Peggy....

We are watching, hoping, praying you win your appeal....

Anonymous said...

Justice for you, Peggy. I see your vindication on the horizon, and with your vindication the fall from grace of Stu Silberman.....