• 
• CLASS
• JOBS
• AUTO
• HOMES

New evaluation system being used to analyze performance of principals

Photo

JANESVILLE — My principal is better than your principal.

No, that’s not what those numbers mean.

The scores that accompany this article are intended to tell principals within the Janesville School District how they need to improve. The numbers also help the principals’ bosses monitor their progress.

“It’s not that somebody is the best; somebody’s the worst. But it tells us a story; it gives us a picture of their school and what’s happening at their school,” said Superintendent Karen Schulte.

The scores are one facet of the district’s ongoing Journey to Excellence process, which aims for major improvements in education.

Among the Journey’s precepts is transparency, so Schulte shared the results of the 2009-10 evaluations with the Gazette.

“This last year was really our first year to really do it, and we’re going to learn from the results and then apply it to this year’s LEMs,” Schulte said.

An LEM is a Leadership Evaluation Manager. Call it a report card.

The idea is not to punish anyone. It’s a way for principals and their superiors to focus on the most important things they need to do, said Schulte and Steve Sperry, director of human and administrative resources.

Schulte and Sperry discussed the LEM process in an interview last week. Here’s how LEMs work:

The school board sets annual goals for improvement, and every administrator in the district then sets personal goals based on the board’s direction. At the top of the list is improving test scores. Truancy is another biggie.

The satisfaction of parents and staff, as measured by surveys, is also part of the principals’ grade.

Measurement is key. Each goal is given a weight, depending on how important the principals and their bosses think that goal is. Test-score improvement, for instance, is weighted heavily.

At the end of each school year, each principal’s accomplishment on each goal is reduced to a number, on a scale of 1 to 5, something like a grade-point average.

You’ll notice Jefferson School Principal Kurt Krueger, for instance, has the lowest overall score, a 2.2. That doesn’t mean Krueger is a bad principal, Schulte said.

For starters, Krueger was a new principal last fall, Schulte said.

Secondly, the tests that contribute a large part of Krueger’s final score were taken in November.

“He hardly was there before the testing occurred,” Schulte said. “I think he’s a great guy and has great potential.

“He does need to get his (state) scores up, … and Kurt knows how to do that. He’s a master at looking at scores,” Schulte said.

Schulte noted Krueger had great success in reducing truancy, but that goal counted for only 10 percent of his score. Test scores counted for 50 percent.

Schulte said it might be that Krueger’s LEM put too much emphasis on the tests.

The process is still being fine-tuned, she said, and the LEM is just one way she evaluates principals; it’s not meant to take their full measure.

Adams School Principal Kitty Grant has a fairly high LEM score, a 3.8, but that doesn’t mean she can’t improve, Schulte said.

“She has math scores that are really concerning to me,” Schulte said. “… They have to be addressed.”

Schulte said she wants to set goals high enough to stretch the principals, but each school is different.

Consider Harrison, the elementary school with the fewest children living in poverty, and Wilson School, where nearly all students live below the poverty line.

“The rating is going to be different for a Wilson than it would be for a Harrison or a Monroe because it’s going to be harder for (Principal) Becky Bicha at Wilson, maybe, to raise her math scores 5 percent,” Schulte said.

“We still have high expectations at Wilson, but where we’re setting the bar for a year’s amount of time is different because the kids aren’t starting out in that same place, for one thing. We already know the Harrison kids tend to be in the 90s (scoring range) and the Wilson kids do not …

“So we’re setting the bar high for Wilson, but for Wilson kids, what ‘high’ means for them might be different than for a Harrison,” Schulte said.

Over time, every student should test high enough to be rated “proficient” on the state tests, because that’s the goal the state has set, Schulte said.

“Some people think there’s too much focus on tests,” Schulte said. “But those are our marching orders (from the state and the federal No Child Left Behind law).”

The LEMs are not part of a merit-pay process; that’s not written into the principals’ contracts, Sperry said.

But principals are held accountable. If they’re falling down on any of their goals, they meet with their superiors.

“We’re bringing them in and saying, ‘What else is there that we can help you with? Is there additional support you feel you need?’” Sperry said.

Principals with deficiencies must write a plan for change and present it to Schulte and her department heads, who all have a chance to offer assistance.

It’s a collegial, put-our-heads-together process, Sperry said.

Principals and administrators have new goals for the year just started. Test scores remain paramount.

One new wrinkle is a school-board goal of reducing energy usage by 5 percent.

All principals will have that goal on their plates and in their LEMs, Schulte said.

One principal won’t get pay hike

One Janesville principal did not get a scheduled pay increase this year because of performance issues.

Superintendent Karen Schulte said she would not reveal which principal it was because this is a personnel issue.

The action was related to goals measured on the principal’s Leadership Evaluation Manager, or LEM, but also other problems, Schulte said.

Leadership was an issue, said Steve Sperry, director of human and administrative services.

A provision in all principals’ contracts allows the administration to freeze the employee on the salary schedule, stopping him or her from receiving an increase that would have been automatic, for reaching a longevity milestone.

“We didn’t think it would be the right thing for that principal to move on the salary schedule,” Sperry said. “And that person was willing to work with us on making some changes.”

The principal will be reviewed later this year and could be given the raise starting later in the year if Schulte and Sperry see improvement.

The teachers’ contract also allows this action, although Schulte said it’s a rare occurrence, perhaps one or two every two years.

Sperry said that typically, the employee’s superiors have worked with the employee to get improvement for some time before such an action is taken, so it’s generally not a surprise to the employee when this action is taken.

“Our intent is not to get people from getting raises,” Schulte said. “We want to grow leaders. We want people to improve their practice.”