Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MPS proposes summative principal evaluation to complement state formative process; three‑year rollout planned
Summary
District academic leaders proposed adding an annual summative component to the principal evaluation process to measure performance against district key performance indicators (KPIs). The proposal weights instructional impact most heavily and is designed as a three‑year rollout with evidence portfolios and end‑of‑year conferences.
Montgomery Public Schools leaders presented a plan Sept. 9 to add a summative evaluation component for principals that complements the Alabama State Department of Education’s formative leadership model. The proposal was presented by executive directors Tori Enfinger and Jacqueline Campbell from the Office of Academics and Accountability.
The district said the change is intended to strengthen leadership development and accountability while preserving the existing formative, coaching‑based process. Enfinger and Campbell framed the proposed summative evaluation as evidence‑based, cumulative and aligned to the district’s Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
Key features of the proposal: - Five performance domains aligned to KPIs: Leadership effectiveness (25% weight), Instructional impact (30%), School culture (15%), Stakeholder engagement (15%) and Operational efficiency (15%). The presentation emphasized instructional impact as the largest weighted factor. - Performance scale: four levels — Level 4 (highly effective), Level 3 (meets expectations), Level 2 (improvement necessary) and Level 1 (does not meet expectations). The stated district goal is for principals to perform at least at the “meets expectations” level. - Evidence and timing: principals would compile an evidence portfolio throughout the year (including formative feedback, walkthroughs and student outcome data) and receive an end‑of‑year summative rating based on weighted domain scores. The district described use of site‑visit walkthrough forms, self‑assessments and supervisor ratings as part of the evidence base. - Implementation timeline: full implementation would span three academic years (2024–25 as baseline, then 2025–26 and 2026–27). The proposal also described modified timelines for principals who have shorter contract windows and advised how renewal‑year evaluations would be handled when state summative data are not yet available.
The presenters told trustees the intent is not to add unnecessary work but to provide accountability for duties principals are already expected to carry out: “everything that's listed here is no different than what they are expected to do now,” they said, adding the summative piece will make that work part of an evaluative record.
Board discussion included questions about implementation timelines, how the summative ratings would affect contract‑renewal decisions and how the district would support principals needing improvement. Trustees emphasized that formative coaching and improvement supports should remain central while fair assessment data are collected.
Provenance: the proposal and rubric overview were presented during the work session; the board received materials that included a condensed rubric, an expanded performance indicator set, and an implementation timeline with professional‑learning links and state requirements for the formative model.
