Description

Offering a solution for superintendents in the Quad Cities and surrounding areas to support principal growth and development.

The quality of a school system simply cannot exceed the quality of its teachers and as school leaders we have no greater opportunity to impact teacher development than through the evaluation process.

Why is this solution needed?

In our review, often superintendents around the Quad Cities and surrounding areas lack the time, expertise, and impartiality to review every word of every teacher evaluation and provide actionable suggestions for improvement to all evaluators.  Yet this is what matters most – quality teachers getting quality coaching tips from quality evaluators all the time!

Helping principals help teachers become the best they can be is what makes the difference for students.  Superintendents help principals who help teachers.  This solution offers the superintendent a service they need.

How is the work completed?

• • Every word of every evaluation is read by a Performance Learning consultant and examined holistically and with driving questions in mind
  • Actionable suggestions for improvement are decided upon based on research and experience

What does the final product look like?

• • A 20+ page document will be provided as the final evaluation analysis including:  research, commendations, findings, themes, suggestions for improvement, and next steps for the evaluator AND superintendent.
  • A one page Executive Summary will be provided with a bulleted version of the key takeaways and answers to research based questions.  An example of a key finding is provided below:

“The narrative provided by the Evaluation Audit did not always seem to be reflected in the rating given.  I reference back to 11 of 15 teachers evaluated having suggestions provided for a needed increase in open-ended questioning, but only 3 people receiving Needs Improvement  ratings.  Additionally, in one narrative summary the evaluator states that they clearly did not oversee proficient practice, but the plans they observed indicated such practice so that was the rating awarded.  This rating, based on the narrative only, seems to be mismatched with the component descriptor.” Dr. PJ Caposey