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)