CCG - Evaluation of Administrators
Re-adopted: 5/27/15, 9/28/17, 12/13/17
Evaluation of Administrators
The superintendent will implement and supervise an evaluation system for administrative personnel. The purpose of administrator evaluations is to assist an administrator with developing and strengthening his/her professional abilities, to improve the instructional program and management of the school system, and for supervisors to make recommendations regarding their employment and/or salary status.
A formal evaluation will be conducted at least once each year. The evaluation shall be conducted according to the following guidelines:
1. Evaluative criteria for each position will be in written form and made available to the administrator;
2. Evaluations will be made by the superintendent and/or a qualified, licensed designee;
3. Evaluations will be in writing and discussed with the administrator by the person who conducts the evaluation; and
4. The administrator being evaluated will have the right to attach a memorandum to the written evaluation, and have the right of appeal through established grievance procedures, if applicable.
An administrator’s evaluation shall use the following educational leadership-administrator standards adopted by the State Board of Education.
1. Visionary leadership;
2. Instructional improvement;
3. Effective management;
4. Inclusive practice;
5. Ethical leadership; and
6. Socio-Political context.
Administrator evaluations shall be based on the core administrator standards adopted by the Oregon State Board of Education. The standards shall be customized based on collaborative efforts with the administrators and any exclusive bargaining representative of the administration.
Local evaluation and support systems established by the district for administrators must be designed to meet or exceed the requirements defined in the Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems, including:
1. Four performance level ratings of effectiveness;
2. Consideration of multiple measures of administrator practice and responsibility which may include, but are not limited to:
a. Classroom-based assessments including observations, lesson plans and assignments;
b. Portfolios of evidence;
c. Supervisor reports; and
d. Self-reflections and assessments.
3. Consideration of evidence of student academic growth and learning based on multiple measures of student progress including performance data of students, schools and districts that is both formative and summative. Evidence may also include other indicators of student success;
4. A summative evaluation method for considering multiple measures of professional practice, professional responsibilities, and student learning and growth to determine the administrator’s professional growth path;
5. Customized by the district, which may include individualized weighting and application of the standards.
An evaluation using the administrator standards must attempt to:
1. Strengthen the knowledge, skills, disposition and administrative practices of administrator;
2. Refine the support, assistance and professional growth opportunities offered to an administrator, based on the individual needs of the administrator and the needs of the students, the school and the district;
3. Allow the administrator to establish a set of administrative practices and student learning objectives that are based on the individual circumstances of the administrator, including other assignments of the administrator;
4. Establish a formative growth process for each administrator that supports professional learning and collaboration with other administrators;
5. Use evaluation methods and professional development, support and other activities that are based on curricular standards and are targeted to the needs of the administrator; and
6. Address ways to help all educators strengthen their culturally responsive practices.
Evaluation and support systems established by the district must evaluate administrators on a regular cycle. The superintendent shall regularly report to the Board on the implementation of the evaluation and support systems and educator effectiveness.
 These standards are aligned with the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and the Educational Leadership Constituents Council (ELCC) standards for Education Leadership.
Hanson v. Culver School District No. 5 (FDAB 1975).