ED 217 5574.

AUTHOR Cromwell, SueTITLE, Selectiop, Im emedtation, and Quality Control of a

Personnel4E1x4tation System.INSTITUTION Louisiana St e Dept. of Education, Baton Rouge.PUB DATE 20 Mar 82NOTE . 46p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Eailcational Research Asgociation (New York,My, Mard09-23, 1982).

,-- .

/.

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC Plus Postage..

DESCRIPTORS, Accountability; Check Lists; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Formative Evaluation; *Personnel -

Evaluaion; *ProfeSsional Personnel; *ProgramImplementation; School Districts; *School Personnel;State;Departments of Education; -State Legislation;*State School District Relationship; State

DOCUMENT. RESUME01.

EA 014,688

Standards'IDENTIFIERS *Louisiana

w

ABSTRACTAmong th'e six components of LouiPianes Shared

Acc6untability Law, passed in 1977 in.response to public demands foraccountability ir education, is the requirement that all certifiedand other profeSPiopal educational personnel in the state be assessed.and evaluated at least once every 3 years. Each of the state's 66local education'agencies was required to develop its own uniformpersonnel evaluation process that included the following elements:job descriptions, statements of individual goals and objectives.,,evaluations of performances in light of thope goals and objectives,and remediation prograts for those proving deficient. The law alsorequired the state education agency to ptkovide guidelines for localagencies' to use in developing their evaluation'processes and toreview local agency compliance. This docutent describes theguidelines and techniques used to review qompliance with them andpresents the formsused in the monitoring process. (Auhor/76D)

*************************k*******************************t*************Reproductions supplied by EDRS'are the best that can be made

fromkthe original document.**************************11***********************A****************1***

U.S. DEPARTMENT DE EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EOUCATIONALrRESOURCES INFORMATION

The

CENTER IERICI

The document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizahonoriginating ItMinor changes have been made to improve

reproduction quality .

Po lofs of stew or opinions stated in the docu

'own do not necesoorilY represent official NIE

positron or policy

'PERMISSION Tye 13/4PRODUCE THISMATERIAL HA'BEEN GRANTED BY

Sip (_00iviweit

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

SELECTION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND QUALITY CONTROL

OF A PERSONNEL EVALUATION SYSTEM

1,

by

- SUE A. CROMWELL, Ed.D.LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting

of the AmericabEducation ResearchAssociation, New York, March 20, 1982;

Session Title: ,A Study of the Effec

tiveness of the NTE for Selection ofTeachers and Appraisal of Teacher,

Performance

J. KELLY NIX, 'State SuperintendentLouisiana Department of Education

A101

I

4

This public document was published at a cost of $1.36 percopy by the Louisiana Department of Education tg disseminateinformation and to provide technical assistance to localschool, boards and the public under authority of 'LA R.S.17,:391.1-1Q. This material was printed in accordance withthe standards for printing by state agenciei establishedpursuant to 43:31.

A

3

Introduction

1

The decade of the 70's will be recorded in educational

history as the era of accountability. Legislators and-laymen

demanded that educators be 'more accountable for the practices4

/withinour public school systems. In his 19.70 Congressional , .

President Richard M. Nixon stated that-"school

ta=ators and school teachers alike are responsible -for their

performance, and it is in their interestaS well as the interest

of their pupils that they be held accountabld."

Thy attitude toward the educational' community was changing.

Reports revealed. many students were failing, reading levels were4

three grades_below the norms, and too few students were able to

perform simple arithmetic. Polls were conducted and publicized

that revealed a,lae9e percentage of parents thought teachers

were not performing Satisfactorily and schools were not °per-.

atine'effectively. The pubic demanded reforms in the

qducational comMunity. Business, and industry had instituted

A changes in management prOceduiesi so the'pubi±c believed changes

',were necessary in the schools. The demand was"made for schools

ik

tobe accountable.

The claim for accountability, was that no complex and

expensive equipment was necessary, merely the institution of

measurement and control_practices that had loten in operation for

-years in virtually every successful busineSs estaplishment.

Employment4?f.sbu busines principles to the inadequate. , ,

(...1'

,methods of the educational system to, produce effidiency and

..,

4t

4

effectiveness was propagated by the leaders of the accounta-.......-

bility movement,

Thus the stage was set for the many states to enact someea.

foam of accountability legislation. The laws ranged in content

fom definite and expliqit to brOad and vague in guidelines.

Some required the assessment of students, some required the

evaluation of personnel, and some required analysaof cost-

effectiveness. Several of the laws established multiple'compo-

nents. Accountability was the focus for legislators, the

concern of educators, and the panacea-for the public.

Background

The message from the constituency clearly revealed the

need for reforms in the education community. In Louisiana,

the/administration-of the State Education Agency (SEA) chaged

in 1976 and cooperated with the State Legislature to enact more

than a-dozen-pieces of legislation which turned around the

direction of education in the state.

The:historical role of the SEA had been that of offering

technical assistance.to the local education agencies (LEA's)

The demand of the public sector that educational outcomes be

documented,,as well as the involvement of state government'in

educational management, required more and better planning and

accounting.' To satisfy the legislative mandates and to provide

assurance that Louisiana afforded quality educational experi-,

encep in its academic institutions, the SEA moved from a passive

to an active role.

2

4

k

Among thd enactments was the Accountability Law, Louisiana, ..

R.S. 17:391-.1-9, passed in the Regular Session, 1977. The law

established six components of accountability which included, the

requirement of. assessment and evaluation of all certified and

other professional personnel--at lest annually for probatiopary

o personnel and dt least once every three years for permanent-

status personnel. In passing this Act, the Legislature's intent

was to establish within each LEA a uniform system for the assess-

- ment and evaluation of the performance of all personnel in the

extension of their teaching duties.

The law required that job d criptions be ; veloped for

all personnel included in the evaluation process. The perfor-

mance responsibilities on the job description served as

individual goals, and the individual then established objectives

to att in the goals. Standard criteria were formulated to

assess the individual's performance, which included-bow well

the goals and objectives were achieved. For those persons not

perfoiming in a satisfactory manner, reme4dliation programs were

to be prescribed to remove such noted deficiencies. Thus, a

jOb description, individual goals and .objectives, evaluation,

and necessary remediation were the elements to be included inI

the process for personnel evaluation implemented within theo66 LEA's in Louisiana. 4,

The law also instructed the SEA to create a Task Force

comprised of representatives from the local agencies. The

'.Statewide Task ForCe served in an advisory capacity to develop

3

fr

1.

4

49

t.

r

guideline's which the LEA's used in the formulatibn of plans to.

comply with legislation. The guidelines. provided structure to

develpop' the written plan, yet extended flexibility to meet the

needs, resources,,and goals'of the local situation.

/The LEA's used the guidelines disseminated by the SEA and

established procedures.for the'evaluation process. The process

required the plan to be submitted annually to the SEA for review'

for a determination to be made as to its compliance or non-a

compliance with the legislative requirements-.

Program Description

Recognizing the need fOr'excellence in education and in

order'1

comply with Louisiana R.S. 17:391.1-9, the State of

Louisiana established a ProgrZin of.shared accountability in the

area of personnel evaluation (Figure 1). The system of personnel

evaluation, inclusive of data gathering instruments, was designed

by memebrs of the SEA personnel evaluations staff. -

The Law' was very thorough in establishing expected outcomes.

Specifically, the products of the personnel evaluation process *,

included:

1. .Job descriptions that listed performanceresponsibilities;

2. Coals and objectives that established andmeasured achievements;,

3. Written evaluations for all certified and otherprofessional personne ;

4. Identification of i ividual strength andweaknesses;

;. Prescribed emediation for those persons perfdrmingless than satisfactorily; and

6. Ample assistance to remove denoted deficiencies.

The Task Fort formulated guidelines which LEA's used to

institute programs deemed appropriate for ,addressing the

I

8

I

personnel who ultimately.deterriline the educational progi-amsin

the state becaffie involved in a 'process'designed to identify.and

retain the most competent* qualified persons. The procedures

fulfilled tha objectives of retaining competent, profes5ional4

employees, embraced sound educational principles, and ensured

the strengthening of the formal learning environment.

Quality Contol

The humanistic process of personnel evaluation was4

directed toward professional growth and development of all

certified 'and.other professional pers6nnel. Established

procedures required,the annual submission of/the LEA's written

plan to the SEA for review. to determine compliance or non-

compliance. A checklist was constructed to document.the status .

of the Written plan (Figure 2a-i).

The implementation of the personnel evaluation system also

required the SEA to collect summary data from the LEA'S and, to

compile the data into a Legislative Report presented annually

to the JointLegislative Committee on +cation. The 1978-794

Report indicated less than 5 percent of the certified population6

was evaluated as less than satisfactory. The consensus of

committee members in 1980_was,that findi4ONdid-not represent a

true reflection of personnel performance. Concern was created

among Legislators which resulted in the enactment of 'Louisiana

R.S. 17.:391.10 (Act 605 of the) 1980 session). The mandate.

required .the SEA to monitor periodically -all programs of educa-.

04: \ ,

tiapal accountability established pursuant to the proVq:sions.of

6

7

14

I

Or*

.1`

personnel who ultimatelydeternline the educational progi-amskin

the state becaffie involved in a 'process'designed to identify'and

retain the most competent qualified persons. The procedures

fulfilled thQ objectives of retaining competent, profes'sionald

employees, embraced sound educational principles; and ensured

the strengthening of the formal learning environment.

Quality Control

The humanistic process of personnel evaluation was4

directed toward professional growth and development of all

certified .and.other professional perso6nnel. Established

procedures required,the annual submission of/the LEA(4

s written

plan to the SEA for review. to determine compliance or non-

compliance. A checklist was constructed to document the status

of the Written plan (Figure 2a-i).

The implementation of the personnel evaluation system also

required the SEA to collect summary data from the LEA's and, to

compile the data into a Legislative Report presented annually

to the JOintLegislative Committee on B4pcation. The 1978-794

, 44

Report indicated less than 5 percent of the certified population

was evaluated as less than satisfactory. The consensus of

committee members in 1980_was that findiroi\did -not represent a

true refl,ection of personnel performance. ,Concern was created

among Legislators which resulted in the en'hctment of ,Louisiana

R.S. 17.:391.10 (Act 605 of the) 1980 session) . The mandate.. , .

/required .the SEA to monitor ppiodically.all programs of educa-

o -. .,, <..

,,.tiapal a9countability established -pursuant to.

Vie prov'isions.of

7

1-u

LE :A

tiDATE RECEIVED

DATE RIWIEWED

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONLEA PERSONNEL EVALUATION PROGRAA

COMPREHENSIVE COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST.

REVISED PLANS, 1981-82

IN'TVANCE

FIRST,

systussios

CONTACT PiRSON

-

SECOND4**-----"'

SDE OFFICIAL

REVISIONS REQUESTED

SECTION'

NUMBER

-,

.

SECTION TITLE .

SECTION RATINQ

. COMMENTS

.-

(S U

1.0

______,___mr

2.0

A ,--,J

Philosophy, .

.

( 1

,

,. s

.--

'Definition of Perlonnel Evaluation\*.

.

.

e

3.0 Glossary of Terminology '

.,

'.

..

.

,

..,,

Assistanco Level .-

Job Description 0.

Objective .

,

.

.. -

,

Observation .

2'.*.

..

. . .

.

5'

.10O

P 1 04

_SECTION,NUMBER SECTION TITLE

SECTION RATING

COMMENTS,S , U

itTriennially

.

. (Min.=12) .

..

. .

'

.

4.0 LEA Goalsigloject4ves_ 0

t

,

a.

.

5.0. Committee Involvement

6.0. Evaluation Process.. .

. .

,

.

.

.

.

/

.

.

.

.

P

6.1. Evaluattle/EvaluatorRegister

..,..

6.2 Program Instruments Registerf

,k).

..

. .

6.3.1 .

Goals/Objectives Development Process

".6.4. Process Narrative

A. Observation Procedures

1. Who will conduct?.1

...,..,......

.

., a

/-)2

.

d

... .

I..

2. How often? (minimumoneobservation prior toevaluation)

.

1

.

A.

'a.

.

.

,

.

CP

.

0

3. Advanced notification ,

el:

.

d

S.

"st

a .

a

..

.

SECTIONNUMBER

4SECTION TITLE ..

SECTION RATING

COMMENTS,,,g U

%

r

4. . Required length of timeo

4

5. ,Standard form(s).

P

.

.

-,.

..

6. Procedures for post- .

observation conference0

.

7. Procedures for filing copiesof forms

.

%

«

--I

.

i

, pow

8. Assistance initiated . ,4

a

i

It

B. EValuation Procedures '

Annual Evaluation 0-3 years inposition

Triennial Evaluation 4+ years inposition .

1. More than one evaluator .

(consensus of overall rating)

.

.

- ,

-

--1....

A

S-

,

.

,

.

A

/

2. How often? 1.

3. Predetermined conditions

,

.6

_ .

1"

.

«4. How evaluatee is inforMed of

criteria of expectedperfexmance

.

. 4,

7 f t

(4A.

- / '

--.,COMMENTS

.

.

sg6 ion

NUMBER

a

SECTION'TITLE

SECTION RATING

S U

..>_,

,

.

I ,

4. -Required length of time

.

V

S. Standard form(s)

\. 6. Procedures for post-

observation conference1

1k. -

7. Procedures for filing copiesof forms '

. ..

it.: -.-

. t

. I

8. Assistance initiated.

B. Evaluation Procedures

..Annual Evaluation 0-3 years inposition

Triennial Evaluation 4-t- years inposition

1. More thanone evaluator(concensus of overall rating)

'

.

i

.

i

.4

.4

2. Now often? .

Y.

t

*.

3.

\Predetermined conditions

4.

4. Now evaluatee is informed ofcriteria of expectedperformance

)

.,

a

G

. 1,

SECTIONNUMBER SECTION TITLE

SECTION RATINGc

COMMENTS_

'

, a

'

.

n

A.;

--k.,L______L______

S' U

t

N

.

5. Fort(s) utilizedi

5

I ..

. -

' - ,

,

.

..2

6. Procedures for post-evaluation conference

o .

.

4

'

-

7. Procedures for filing copiesof/forms

8. Assistance initiated e.,

..

.

.0.:. _

C. Due Process

1. Copy of results w/in 15 days'

. ..

,

2. Post-evaluation conference

. 3. Individual's own writtenevaluation (self-evaluation)

e0 .

4

.

4. Written response to evaluation

5c Informed in writing of non-satisfactory performance

.--

.

S6. Proof, by documentatipn, of

items inaccurate, invalid, ormigrepresented in evaluation

'

.

.

CV

SECTIONNUMBER

..-

. . . .

.

SECTION TITLE.

SECTION RATING

COMMENTS.S U

.

e-- ,

.

.7. Ample ass4st ce to improve

:..T .#

,

.,.

8. Request that ev uation beconducted by an ther source

,, ,

.

9. Confiderhiality of results4>

10. C?ievance procedure followsProper line of authority

.

D.. Criteria for Overall Rating-..

erE. Other

\ ,

'6.5. Professional Assistance Programs

A. Philosophy -' I

B. Types of,Progams.,

I.

C. Provisions for Multi-opportunityo

/e

D. Individual(s) ReAponsible forDesigning Schedule

4r

1

.

.

E. Action to Address Non-improvement*.

.

0 Or.

-4R

SECTION '

NUMBERI

SECTION TITLE

SECTION RATING

COMMENTS

.

S U

..0

,

,

.

6.6.-

i

Job DesccOtion1

A. Categories

%

1 Administration .

.

fr'

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2. Inst'uctional '.

I / ...

y

3. Support services

0 1

..,

-

B. Contents of Job Descriptions

1. Position title.

I ,,.

4t

s ..

0

2. Position qualifications

..A .

. lig

r '---4.....

.

,

3. Reports to S

/.

.

.

. p

a

.

4. Supervises

V,

5. Performance responsibilities

.

..

6. Signature and 'date lines - , i a

.

..

,

. .. . ,

s,

. 1.

0 r)

4

-#

lor

00N(3.1

00-4

V

SECTION te---"'TlNG'.

SECTIONNUMBER

.SECTION TITLE S U

'A

--

.

t4

6.7. Process Instruments (Coincides with6.2.)

A. Coals /Objectives SpecificationForm "A

e

.

A

_ _

.

. B. Observation Form(s) .

.

C. Personnel EvaluationForm(s)

.

1. Standard criteria,..

.

, r. .

.

2. Specific performance

.

.

3. Disclaimer clause.

,

4. Evaluacor's/evaluatea's .

signature and date.

ro

D. Professional Assistance Schedule. .

1. Space for evaluates and 11 1

evaluator names and posit ons

.

1

1

,

..

2. Space for level of assistance.

k34 Space for performance(s)T assigned assistance

.

'SECTIONNUMBER SECTION TILE

SECTION RATING -

. COMMENTSS U

.

__ ....

4. Space for description ofassistance

tV. Space for date of assistance .

6. Space for time-plot relative tothe completion of assistance .

7. Space for follow-up comments

1

7.0. Statement of Assurance At

.A.- Superintendent's Signature

B. School Board President's Signature 1,

,..".i".

F...4

s

.

..

.

4

A

RECORD OF CONTACTS44.

4, \/DATE,. .METHOD OF CONTACT CONTACT PERSON SDE OFFICIAL

.

COMMENTS ,,''''

.

a

..

.

4

45,.

.....--. _

#

r

.

# .

i

,

. .

.

.

V

A

.

i

Y

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

,

...,......

(-,

l'a

.

,

....

.

.

. .

.

.

.

ti

I

oaf*

W./

. .

R.S. 17:391.1-9. In accordance with ]administrative

Procedures Act, the SEA developed guidelines. to audit the

- programs formulated and submitted by the LEA's to the SEA.

The overall intent of the monitoring process was to

determine:-13

1: Whether such programs as.formulated by LEA' forthe assessment of personngl performance have beenimplemented;

2. To what extent they have been implemented;, and,'"3.. Whether such programs comply with the provisions

of ,shared accountability legislation.

The compliance auditing was designed to observe on a three-year

cycle the process of personnl evaluation implemented within the

LEA's.:

Tne guidelines, constructed and approved by the Statewide

Task Force on Personnel Assessment, included the following:

\

1. Introduction2. Rationale3. /Definition of Monitoring4. Purpose5. Timelines6. Glossary of Terms7. SEA Goals and Objectives for Monitoring LEA

Personnel Evaluation Programs8. Approach9. Procedures for Monitoring Personnel Evaluation

Programs10. Instrutents11. Legislative'_ Report

,'12. LEA Monitoring Schedule13. Revisions'

The procedures coordinated the efforts of the SEA in

4

attesting to compliance with the efforts of the LEA in formu-

lating a' written plan to comply with legislation. An SEA team

conducted on-Site visits in the spring of 1981 to pilot the

monitoring process. Interview d'hecklists (Figures 3, 4, 5) were

18

3

Figure-3

INTERVIEW CHECKLIST (LEA CONTACT PERSON)

PARISH

1.

DATE,

Do all employees hive a copy of the plan? Inservice?

'YES NO

HavJ,EP41s.,4PO. OlgCtives,heen achieved?

Are all personnel listed as evaluatees under,6.1.?

14. Are observer's same as'evaluators?

5. Are evaluators same as in 661.?

6. Are all instruments utilized the same as in 6.2.?

7. Have goals and objectives been estal4ished?

8. Are goals and objectives appropriately filed?

9. Are observers same as in 6.4. A?

10. Are copies of observations properly filed?

11. Has any assistance been initiated?

a12. Do evaluations occur as scheduled?

13. Are evaluations properly filed?

14. Are current signatures on job descriptions?

15. Does LEA inform personnel of criterie for overall rating?

16. Are pvaluatees ififormed of expected perforMance/conditions?

19

PARISH

POSITION

Figure 4

INTERVIEW CHECKLIST (EVALUATOR)

LOCATION

DATE

YESt

1. Have you given4proper notification of criteria o expectedperformance?

. Have predetermined conditions been met.?

3. Have 'goals and objectives been established according toplan?

4. Are your proc6dures for observing according to plan?

5. Has any other'person observed?

6. Ar/ numbr of observations on schedule?

1. Are post-observation procedures according to plan?.8. Is assistance procedure according to plan?

9. Is evaluation procedure according to plan?

10. Have overall rating procedur)6 been implemented?

11. Are post-evaluation conferences according to plan?

12. Have evaluations been conducted as frequently as requtredby the plan?

13. Check records on file:

Signed/dated job description

Obkervation forms

Assistance schedules

20

Goals and objectives

Evaluation forms

,)vLi

DATES:

%.

Figure .5

INTERVIEW CHECKLIST (LEA CONTACT PERSON)

SUBMISSION OF PERSONNEL EVALUATION PLAN

COMPLIANCE OF PERSONNEL EVALUATION PLAN

SUMBISSION OF PERSONNEL EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT

SIGNATURE

1

(SDE Team Membey)

4

21

DATE

p

' 1

-

gr

*40

developed and completed on-site and recordS were viewed as--

well. Areas to be checked were:

1. Dissemination of a complete pesonnel evaluationplan;.

2. Achievement of LEA objectives;3. Verification of listing of eVeluators/observers

-

in Subsection 6.1.; '1

4. Comparison of evaluator/observer signatures oninstruments;

5. Verification that instruments listed in S.S.,6.2.are the same as those submitted in S.S. 6.7.;,

6. Verification that all certified and other profes-sional personnel are included in the evaluationprocess;

7. Verification of goals and objectives as beingestablished'by evaluatees; ,

8. li,termination that stated procedures for developinggoals and objectives have been imp Demented;

9. Determination that stated observation procedureshave been implemented;

10. Determination that stated evaluation procedureshave been implemented;

11. `verification of evaluated's knowledge of criteriafor overall rating;

)12. Verification of dissemination'of job descriptions;

and13. Verification of necessary professional assistance

schedules.

The law specifies actions resulting from the monitoring.

If, in conducting the monitoring, the SEA determines that a

school system .has failed to implement properly its program of

personnel, evaluation, the LEA is notified (Figure 6a-i) of such

failure andjhall correct such failure within 60 calendar days

-after receiving notification. rf failure is not corrected with-

in the prescribed60 calendar days, the Superintendent of

Education shall notify the State Board of Elementary and Secondary

Education (BESE) of such continued failure and shall iecommend

to the BEpE whatever sanctions against d6ch school system are

deemed appropriate. The BESE shall act upon such recommen-f

-*22

-4-

Figure 6a 14

PERSONNEL EVALUATION MONITORING DATA GATHERING REPORTLOUISIANA DEPATMENT OF EDUCATION

J. KELLY NIX, STATE SUPERINTENDENT

CI

23

1,4

Figure 6b

PERSONNEL EVALUATION MONITORING DATA GATHERING REPORTLOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF,EDUCATION'J. KELLY NIX, STATE SUPERINTENDENT

NAMLN..RF, LEA

DATE OF VISIT

SUPERINTENDENT

CONTACT PERSON

SDE TEAM

CATEGORIES OF PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED:

SUPERINTENDENT

ASST. SUPERINTENDENT

DIRECTORS

SUPERVISORS

CONSULTAKTS

MANAGERS

PRINCIPALS

ASST. PRINCIPALS

SITES VISITED

CLASSROOM TEACHERS

PSYCHOLOGICAL STAFF

SPEECH THERAPISTS

SOCIAL WORKERS

GUIDANCE COUNSELORS

LIBRARIANS ,

AUDIO VISUAL STAFF

OTHER, PERSONNEL

Figure 6c

1. Louisiana R.S. 17:391.1-10

Have completed copies of the personnel evaluatioi plan

been provided to all employees? YES NO

Method if dissemination

COMMENT:

S. 4.0. LEA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES4

2. Have the stated objectives been implemented according to

schedule? YES NO

4 ,

Have the completed objectives advanced the system toward

4

the corresponding goal? YES NO

3. Have the LEA objectives been achieved? YES NO

4. Are copies of evidence on file? YES NO

Location 6f files:

COMMENT/BVIDENCE:

S.E. 6.1. EVAi.UATEE /EVAZUATOR REGISTER

Are all certified and other professional personnel lisfed

as evaluatees finder S.S. 6.1.? YES- NO

COMMENT: a

;0

25

\,1

Figure 6d

6. Are the observers the designated evaluators according to

S.S. 6.1.?

COMMENT:

YES NO

7. Are the evaluators the same as the designated personnel

listed under S.S. 6.1.? YES NO

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

S.S. 6.2. PROGRAM INSTRUMENT REGISTER

8. Are the process instruments being utilized the same as,

those listed in S.S. 6.2.? YES NO

Are all process instruments listed in S.S. 6.2. being

utilized in the process? YES NO

CO201ENT/EVIDENCE:

6.3. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

9. Did the evaluators adhere to stated procedures for

establishing goals and objectives?. YES NO

COMMENT:

10. Have evaluatees completed goals and objectives

specification forms? YES NO

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

S's

26 r33

Figure t'e

11.' Did evaluatees meet specified timelines for establishing

goals and objectives? YES NO

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

12. Are the established goals and objectives for the

evaluatees appropriately filed?

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

S.S. 6.4.A OBSERVATIft PROCEDURES FOR ALL PERSONNEL

YES NO

13. Are the actual observers those persons as specified

under S.S. 6.4.A? YES NO

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

A

14. Have the required number of observations been conducted? YES NO

COMMENT /EVIDENCE:

15. If the required number of observations have not been

conducted, ls'the observation process on schedule? YES NO

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:w.

27

4 0

I

16. Does LEA ad6

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

Figure 6f

pre-established length of time? YES NO

17. Ii a podt-observation conference part of the process? YES NO

COMMENT:.

18. Is the required post-observation conference conducted? YES NO

CO 'T/EVIDENCE:

9

19. Is the post-observation7

ference conducted within

416established time period?

COMMENT/EVIbENCE:

20. Are copies of observations properly filed?

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:4

21. Does. LEA initiate necessary assistance following an

observation?

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

YES NO

YES NO

YES ts110

284.

1 No

e

S.S. 6.4.B EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR ALL PERSONNEL

22. Does the LEA comply with the established procedure for

the assignment of an overall rating?9

YES NO

. COMMENT:

Are evaluatees informed of procedures used?

COIOIENT/EVIDENCE:

YES NO

23. Does the LEA process establish specific periods for

conducting evaluations? YES NO

COMMENT:

Do evaluations occur as scheduled?

COMMENT /EVIDENCE:`

YES NO

24. Are there predetermined conditions established vy the LEA? YES NO

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

25. Rave the evaluatees been properly informeckof the

_criteria of expected performance?

Method of informing evaluates:

29

YES NO

6

fo

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

Figure 6ha

26. Is a post-evaluation conference conducted? YES NO

Is due process practiced? YES NO

Is established time period followed? YES NO

Is evaluatee afforded an opportunity for self-evaluation? YES NO

Is there documentation of performance ?. YES NO

Is there written notification of unsatisfactory

performance? 'YES NO

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

27. Are copies of the evaluation properly filed?

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

YES NO

, 28. Are.evaluatees provided a written copy of evaluation

results within fifteen working days? YES NO

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

S.S. 6.5. ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

29. Have necessary assistance schedules been completed?

.COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

30

i3

YES NO

30. Are assistance schedules completed by the proper

authority?

COMENT/EVIDENCE:

S.S.,041110 jpg DESCRIPTIONS

31. 'Do LEA records reflect current signatures for receipt of

'job descriptions?

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

32. (Act 621) ./ti

Was, the LEA personel evaluation plan for the current

year submitted by the designated date?

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

33. Was the LEA personnel evaluation plan determined by the

SDE to be in compliance prior to the'beginning of the

YES NO

4

YES NO

YES NO*-

$

current school year? YES NQt

COMMENT/EVIDENCE:

34. Was the personnel evaluation summary report for de

pre ding schOol year submitted by the desipiated date? YES! NOrt

C /EVIDENCE:

4 31

4,1

11,

dation(s) within 60 calen'dar.days after its receipt. Those

LEA's that are reported to the BESE shall be monitored at least

annually,until such failure is corrected.

The 1981 pilot program tested the process of monitoring.

Six LEA's were chosen on the basis of demographic variables.

The, on-site auditing recorded those areas where discrepancies

between the written plan and the actual practice did exist. The

process also attested to those areas where the written plan and

the:actual practice were in accord. The results indicated that

the completed interview checklists and the viewing of records

did assure that persohnel evaluation systems within the LEA's

were implemented and to what degree thay had been implemented.

SummA-r..y...//

The disatisfaction with edUcational practices expressed

by segments of society caused concern amonvLodisiana leaders.'

Segments from the governmental agencies, educational institu-

tions, and the public sector were in agreement that changes in

the direction of the public schools were necessary. The Shared

Accountability Law, Louisiana R.S. 17:391.1-9, was enacted in

the Regular Session of the 197 Louisiana Legislature. One of

the six components of the mandate was the establishement of a

unif9rm system for the assessment and evaluation of certified

and other professional personnel in the state's public school

system. N.

The annual suthmary datal reported to the Joint Legisl4ive

Committke on Education in 1980 caused concern among the

32

I.

IP

!7,

legjslators that the personnel evaluation system, as implemented,

did'wit assure quality control. The 1980 Regular Session of the

Louisiana Legislature amended R.S. 17:391.1-9 to include

Section 10 which required the SEA to monitor_periodcally all

accountability programs. The mechanism to provide sun assurance

has been piloted and is in the first year of implementation.

The success of a school is dependent on how well teachers

teach. Administrators must make sure instruction i of the

highest quality. Mapagement must plan and be accountable.

Louisiana, with comprehensive legislation, is a leader in being

responsive to its citizens. The positive, purposeful, profes-

sional personnel evaluation system is one response.

33