StateVersion of ISLLC Standards Referenced by StateYear of Law Passage / Rule ChangeOverview of Standards, if different from ISLLC StandardsUse of Standards in Evaluation of School Leaders, Preparation Programs, and/or Other PurposesLocation of Principal Supervisor Policy StandardsPresence of Principal Supervisor Job DescriptionPresence of Principal Supervisor StandardsReferencesYear of Adoption of Principal Supervisor Policy Standards
Alabama1996 versionAdopted July 2005Eight standards: Planning for Continuous Improvement; Teaching and Learning; Human Resources Development; Diversity, Community and Stakeholder Relationships; Technology; Management of the Learning Organization; and EthicsThe Alabama Standards are used to guide the curriculum for instructional leadership programs and serve as the basis for LEADAlabama, the state's formative evaluation system. LEADAlabama will be available to evaluate central office administrators, principals, assistant principals, and specialty area administrators.NoYes[1] State of Alabama. (2012). Curriculum of an instructional leadership program. Retrieved from http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/ed/290-3-3.pdf [2] Alabama Department of Education. (n.d.). Standards. Retrieved from http://alex.state.al.us/leadership/standards.html [3] Alabama Department of Education. (n.d.). Welcome to LEADAlabama. Retrieved from http://alex.state.al.us/leadership/leadalabama.html3.pdf
AlaskaThere is no mention of the ISLLC Standards with regard to the Standards for Alaska's Administrators, but some of the state's professional development programs draw from the 2008 ISLLC Standards.Amended 2/16/2013Ten standards: Educational Leadership; Instructional Guidance and Support; Curricular Implementation; Coordination of Student Services; Staff and Professional Development; Assessment and Evaluation; Communication and Diversity; Ethics; Societal Context; and Family EngagementDistrict evaluation systems for administrators must be based on the state's professional content and performance standards for administrators.N/ANoNo[1] State of Alaska. (n.d.). 4 AAC 04.220 Professional content and performance standards. Retrieved from http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folioproxy.asp?url=http://wwwjnu01.le...{@1}?firsthit [2] State of Alaska. (n.d.). Employee evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folioproxy.asp?url=http://wwwjnu01.le...{t6405}? N/A
Arizona2008 versionAmended 12/5/2011Same as ISLLC standardsArizona's Principal Evaluation Process, which includes the 2008 ISLLC Standards, was piloted in the 2012-13 school year. This model framework will be used by local education agencies to meet statutory requirements. The Standards are also used in state-approved administrative preparation programs.Administrative Rule: RS-2-602 Professional Teacher and Administrator StandardsNoYes[1] Arizona Department of Education. (2013). Principal evaluation process. Retrieved from http://www.azed.gov/teacherprincipal-evaluation/model-instruments-best-p... [2] State of Arizona. See "R7-2-603. Professional Administrative Standards" in "Article 6 Certification. Retrieved from http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_07/7-02.htm#Article_6 [3] Arizona Department of Education. (2015). Principal evaluation process: An Arizona model for measuring educator effectiveness. http://www.azed.gov/teacherprincipal-evaluation/files/2014/07/principal-... 1978
Arkansas2008 versionAdopted February 2009; Last revised 1/22/2013Same as ISLLC standardsArkansas has used the 2008 ISLLC Standards to develop standards and competencies for building-level and curriculum/program administrators (the Leader Excellence and Development System or LEADS). In 2013-14, all districts piloted the principal evaluation system. The 2008 ISLLC Standards also guide educational leadership preparation programs and professional development programs.NoYesArkansas Department of Education. (2014). Beginning administrator program. Retrieved from http://www.arkansased.org/divisions/human-resources-educator-effective+I...
California2008 versionAs of April 2013, California had completed a field review of the draft California Administrator Performance Expectations. This draft revises the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (2004), which were adapted from the 1996 ISLLC Standards.Six categories: Visionary Leadership; Instructional Leadership; School Improvement Leadership; Professional Learning and Growth Leadership; Systems Leadership; and Community LeadershipOnce adopted, the California Administrator Performance Expectations will be used in developing candidate competencies for the Administrative Services Credential Program Standards and will serve as the basis for the Administrator Performance Assessment.Professional Services Committee. (2013). 3A information/action. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/agendas/2013-04/2013-04-3A.pdf
ColoradoN/AEffective 2/15/2012Seven standards: Strategic Leadership; Instructional Leadership; School Cultural and Equity Leadership; Human Resources Leadership; Managerial Leadership; External Development Leadership; and Leadership around Measures of Student LearningThe Colorado State Model Evaluation System for Principals uses the seven Principal Quality Standards. All state districts and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services were required to implement an evaluation system aligned with the Principal Quality Standards by July 2013.N/ANoNo[1] Colorado Department of Education. (2011). Administration of a statewide system to evaluate the effectiveness of licensed personnel employed by school districts and boards of cooperative services. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/educatoreffecti... [2] Colorado Department of Education. (2015). State model evaluation systems for principals. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/educatoreffectiveness/smes-principal [3] Colorado Department of Education. (2014). Senate Bill 10-191. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/educatoreffectiveness/overviewofsb191N/A
Connecticut2008 versionAdopted 6/27/2012Same as ISLLC standardsDistrict evaluation systems must align with the School Leadership Standards; and Connecticut's state model, the System for Educator Evaluation and Development (SEED), uses the Standards as the basis for the observation rubric and stakeholder feedback survey used in administrator evaluations. In addition, the state revised the Connecticut Administrator Test to reflect the Standards and is developing tools to further incorporate the Standards in program evaluation.NoYes[1] Connecticut Department of Education. (2013) Administrator evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.connecticutseed.org/?page_id=445 [2] Connecticut Department of Education. (n.d.). Connecticut school leadership standards. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2641&Q=333900 [3] Connecticut State Board of Education. (2012). Adopted PEAC guidelines for educator evaluations. Retrieved from http://www.connecticutseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Adopted_PEAC_G... Initially adopted in 1999, last amended in 2012.
Delaware2008 versionAmended 11/01/2009Same as ISLLC standardsThe Delaware Performance Appraisal System II (DPAS II) uses the Delaware Administrator Standards as the framework for administrator evaluation. These Standards also serve as the foundation for the preparation of school leaders.NoNo. Delaware is working on the creation of a district leader's rubric that is inclusive of the work of principal supervisors.[1] Delaware Department of Education. (2012). DPAS II revised guide for administrators. Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.de.us/csa/dpasii/admin/DPASIIAdminSect1.pdf [2] State of Delaware. (2014). 1509 Delaware administrator standards. Retrieved from http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/1500/1590.shtml
District of Columbia2008 versionAdopted in 2013Same as ISLLC standardsAs a Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation partner, the District of Columbia uses the Educational Leadership Constituent Council Standards for leadership preparation programs. These Standards are aligned with the 2008 ISLLC Standards. In addition, the School Leaders Licensure Assessment, which is also aligned with the 2008 ISLLC Standards, is a general requirement for administrator licensure in the District of Columbia, with possible exceptions for out-of-state candidates.N/ANoNo[1] Thompson, C., Feres, O., & Graham, A. District of Columbia office of the state superintendent of education (phone interview, Oct. 1, 2013). [2] National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2011). Educational leadership program standards: 2011 ELLC building level. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zRZI73R0nOQ%3D&tabid=676N/A
FloridaFlorida referenced the 1996 version in the creation of its 2005 Standards, but there is no mention of the ISLLC Standards in the state's most recent revisions in 2011.Amended 12/20/2011Ten standards: Student Learning Results; Student Learning as a Priority; Instructional Plan Implementation; Faculty Development; Learning Environment; Decision Making; Leadership Development; School Management; Communication; and Professional and Ethical BehaviorThe Florida Principal Leadership Standards form the foundation for school leader personnel evaluations and professional development systems, school leadership preparation programs, and educator certification requirements.N/ANoNoState of Florida. (2011). 6A-5.080 Florida principal leadership standards. Retrieved from https://www.flrules.org/gateway/notice_Files.asp?ID=10760324N/A
Georgia2008 versionFull implementation of the Leader Keys Effectiveness System began in 2012-13.Eight standards: Instructional Leadership; School Climate; Planning and Assessment; Organizational Management; Human Resources Management; Teacher/Staff Evaluation; Professionalism; and Communication and Community RelationsGeorgia's Leader Keys Effectiveness System includes the eight Leader Assessment on Performance Standards (LAPS), which account for 30 percent of the overall Leader Effectiveness Measure. The other evaluation components include student growth measures (50 percent) and achievement gap reduction (20 percent).N/ANoNoGeorgia Department of Education. (2013). Leader keys effectiveness system. Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/School-Improvement/Teacher-and-Leader-Effectiveness...N/A
Hawaii2008 versionApproved 4/17/2012Six domains: Student Education Growth; Professional Growth and Learning; School Planning and Progress; School Culture; Professional Qualities and Instructional Leadership; and Stakeholder Support and EngagementHawaii's Comprehensive Evaluation System for School Administrators rates principals based on student outcomes (50 percent) and principal leadership practice (50 percent). The latter component is adapted from the 2008 ISLLC Standards.[1] Hawaii Department of Education. (n.d.). Comprehensive evaluation system for school administrators. Retrieved from http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/EducatorEffective... [2] Hawaii Department of Education. (2013). ESEA flexibility: Request for window 3. Retrieved from http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/StriveHIIndexReports/Hawa...
Idaho2008 versionStandards recommended in 2012 and adopted in 2013. Fourteen standards: School Culture; Communication; Advocacy; Shared Leadership; Priority Management; Transparency; Leadership Renewal; Accountability; Innovation; Instructional Vision; High Expectations; Continuous Improvement of Instruction; Evaluation; and Recruitment and RetentionIdaho has identified state minimum standards for principal evaluation based on the ISLLC standards. In addition, administrators are required to obtain proof of proficiency in conducting teacher evaluations using the state's adopted model.N/ANoNoIdaho Department of Education. (2013). Idaho standards for effective principals. Retrieved from http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/teacherEval/principals.htmN/A
Illinois2008 version (principal evaluation); 1996 version (administrative certification)Last updated January 2012The draft standards intended for evaluations differ from the ISLLC Standards and include the following six performance areas: Living a Mission and Vision Focused on Results; Leading and Managing Systems Change; Improving Teaching and Learning; Building and Maintaining Collaborative Relationships; Leading with Integrity and Professionalism; and Creating and Sustaining a Culture of High Expectations.In 2012-13, all Illinois districts were required to align principal and assistant principal evaluations with the Illinois Professional Standards for School Leaders or other research-based district standards. The principal practice portion of the evaluation must compose at least 50 percent of the overall principal evaluation. The state also uses the Illinois Professional School Leader Standards as the basis for administrative certification; these standards are adapted from the 1996 ISLLC Standards.[1] Illinois State Board of Education. (2011). Performance evaluation advisory council: State model for principal evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.state.il.us/PEAC/word/peac_prin_eval_model.pdf [2] Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. (2014). Section 29.100 Illinois professional school leader standards. Springfield, IL: State of Illinois. Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023000290001000R.html
Indiana2008 versionPrincipal Effectiveness Rubric last updated in August 2012; Assistant Principal Effectiveness Rubric drafted in January 2013; Indiana Content Standards for Educators published in December 2010The following six standards apply to both building-level and district-level school leaders: Human Capital Management; Instructional Leadership; Personal Behavior; Building Relationships; Culture of Achievement; Organizational, Operational, and Resource Management.The Indiana Content Standards for Educators provide a basis for professional preparation, growth, and accountability. RISE, Indiana's evaluation and development system, provides a Principal Effectiveness Rubric and a draft Assistant Principal Effectiveness Rubric that include specific indicators for each competency listed in the Indiana School Leader--Building Level Educator Standards. [1] Indiana Department of Education. (2010). Indiana content standards for educators: School leader--building level. Retrieved from http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/educator-effectiveness/school-... [2] RISE Indiana. (2012). Principal effectiveness rubric. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.riseindiana.org/sites/default/files/files/RISE%202011-08-03%2... [3] RISE Indiana. (2013). Assistant principal effectiveness rubric (DRAFT). Retrieved from http://www.riseindiana.org/sites/default/files/files/RISE_Assistant_Prin...
Iowa1996 version4/10/08Same as ISLLC standardsIowa districts must implement an administrator evaluation system that is based on the Iowa Standards for School Leaders. These Standards also form the basis of mentoring and induction programs and professional development programs designed to support administrators.Chapter 284A Administrator Quality ProgramYes[1] Iowa Department of Education. (n.d.). ISSL & administrator evaluation. http://educateiowa.gov/index.php?view=article&id=1447 [2] State of Iowa. 281-83.8 in Chapter 83. Retrieved from http://search.legis.state.ia.us/nxt/gateway.dll/ar/iac/2810___education%...$force=7628
Kansas2008 versionKansas is in the process of revising its leadership standards, which should be approved by the State Board of Education in spring 2014.The categories used for the state's evaluation constructs, though aligned, differ slightly from the ISLLC Standards. Building leaders are evaluated according to four constructs: Setting Direction, Developing the Learner, Developing Staff, and Making the Organization Work. District leaders are also evaluated according to four constructs: Setting Direction and Making the Organization Work; Supporting Learner Growth and Development; Developing Staff; and Engaging Stakeholders and External Influencers.The state's guidelines for evaluation systems indicate that district systems must be supported by research that is varied and comprehensive, including resources such as the ISLLC Standards. The state evaluation model, the Kansas Educator Evaluation Protocol, uses constructs that are aligned with the ISLLC Standards. In addition, coursework and field experiences in leadership preparation programs must be based on the Building Leadership and District Leadership Standards for Kansas Educators.N/ANoYes[1] Kansas State Department of Education. (2013). Kansas educator evaluation protocol. http://www.ksde.org/Portals/44/Documents/KEEP%20Handbook%208%20May%2030%... [2] Hsu, S. Education program consultant, teacher licensure and accreditation, Kansas Department of Education (phone interview, September 24, 2013).N/A
KentuckyThe administrative certification requirements and the principal evaluation performance standards use and reference, respectively, the 2008 ISLLC Standards. The Dispositions, Dimensions, and Functions for School Leaders are also aligned to the 2008 ISLLC Standards.The Dispositions, Dimensions, and Functions for School Leaders were adopted on 5/19/2008. The administrative certification requirements for principals and superintendents were last amended on 3/4/2011 and 11/19/2012, respectively. The performance standards used in the principal evaluation system were adopted in 2012.The state's principal evaluation performance standards differ slightly from the ISLLC Standards and use the following seven standards: Instructional Leadership; School Climate; Human Resources Management; Organizational Management; Communication and Community Relations; Professionalism; and Student Growth.Kentucky is in the process of piloting the Principal Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PPGES), which uses performance standards that are aligned with the 2008 ISLLC Standards. The 2008 ISLLC Standards are also used in administrative certification for superintendents and principals.YesYes[1] Kentucky Department of Education. (2014). PPGES--Principal professional growth and effectiveness system. Retrieved from http://education.ky.gov/teachers/PGES/prinpges/Pages/default.aspx [2] State of Kentucky. (2015). Title 16 education professional standards board. Retrieved from http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/TITLE016.HTM [3] Kentucky Department of Education. (2013). Kentucky principal professional growth and effectiveness system pilot handbook 2013-14. Retrieved from http://education.ky.gov/teachers/HQT/Documents/KY%20Pilot%20Principal%20... [4] Stull, K. Strategy lead, PPGES, Kentucky Department of Education (phone interview, September 25, 2013). [5] Brown, R. Executive director, Kentucky Professional Standards Board (e-mail correspondence, September 26, 2013).
Louisiana2008 versionAmended March 2011Same as ISLLC standardsState code indicates that administrator evaluations must use the Performance Expectations and Indicators for Educational Leaders or other state-approved standards. Legislation: R.S. 17 and R.S.17:6(A)(10) Administrative Rule: Bulletin 125NoYesState of Louisiana. (2013). CSLVII Bulletin 130 - Regulations for the evaluation and assessment of school personnel. Retrieved from http://doa.louisiana.gov/osr/lac/28v147/28v147.doc
MaineN/ALegislative proposals concerning teacher and principal evaluation systems were published in March 2012Specific standards are not mentioned.Districts are slated to develop teacher and principal evaluation systems in 2013-14, with full implementation slated for 2015-16. These systems must be standards-based and evaluate multiple measures, including student growth and achievement. However, there is no mention of a specific set of standards that must be used.Maine Department of Education. (n.d.). Putting students first. http://www.maine.gov/doe/first/index.html
MarylandThe Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework references the 1996 version. It is likely that the state referenced the 2008 ISLLC Standards when developing the State Principal Evaluation Model.The Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework was adopted in February 2005. The most recent Teacher and Principal Evaluation Guidebook, revised September 2012, indicates the current use of this Framework.The Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework includes eight outcomes: School Vision; School Culture; Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments; Instructional Practices; Appropriate Assessments; Technology and Multiple Sources of Data, Professional Development, and Engagement of Community Stakeholders. Locally developed evaluation systems may also include other local priorities.As of September 2012, the state's drafted regulation indicates that evaluation systems may be developed locally but must meet the state's performance evaluation criteria, including principal evaluation measures that align with the Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework. The Model State Performance Evaluation Criteria align with the Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework and also include additional ISLLC Standards. In addition, the School Leaders Licensure Assessment, required for principal certification, is aligned with the 2008 ISLLC Standards[1] Maryland Department of Education. (2012). Teacher and principal evaluation guidebook. Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/E479C243-AF58-4BD0-B4E... [2] Maryland Department of Education. (n.d.). School leaders licensure assessment. Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/divisions/certification/certif...
Massachusetts2008 versionThe Standards and Indicators of Effective Administrative Leadership last amended in 6/28/2011. The Professional Standards and Indicators for Administrative Leadership last updated May 2012.Four standards shared by the state's two sets of leadership standards: Instructional Leadership; Management and Operations; Family and Community Engagement; and Professional CultureThe state's Professional Standards for Administrative Leadership (used by preparation programs) and the Standards for Effective Administrative Leadership Practice (used in evaluation systems) are identical. However, they contain different sets of indicators that reflect the different purposes of these standards.Administrative rule: Regulations, 603 CMR 7.00NoYesMassachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013). Educator leadership development. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/edleadership/standards.html2011
MichiganThe 1996 version was adapted for administrator preparation programs, but the 2008 version was likely used in developing an educator effectiveness framework.
Administrator preparation standards last updated February 2005. The state is in the process of developing its administrator evaluation framework.Eight standards: Vision, School Culture, Management and Operations, Family and Community Engagement, Integrity and Fairness, Societal Context, Use of Technology, Application of Knowledge and ResearchIn 2011-2012, all Michigan districts implemented teacher and administrator evaluation systems. The educator evaluation legislation states that districts must use "multiple rating categories that take into account data on student growth as a significant factor." The legislation does not specify the use of specific standards for evaluating administrators, but the evaluation must be based at least in part on proficiency in evaluating teachers, progress on school improvement, attendance rates, and stakeholder feedback.[1] Keesler, V. & Howe, C. (2012). Understanding educator evaluations in Michigan. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Educator_Effectiveness_Ratings_Pol... [2] Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness. (2013). Building an improvement-focused system of educator evaluation in Michigan: Final recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.mcede.org/system/resources/BAhbBlsHOgZmSSI7MjAxMy8wNy8yMy8yMS...
Minnesota2008 versionThe draft principal evaluation model was published on 1/21/2012.Five performance measures: Vision and Mission; Instructional Leadership; Managing Human Resources for Instruction and Professional Growth; Professionalism, Collaboration, and Communication; Strategic Resource Management and AccountabilityIn 2013-14, Minnesota piloted the state model for principal evaluation in 17 districts. District principal evaluations must have a student outcomes component that accounts for 35 percent of the overall rating, but the weighted percentages for the other two components (supervisor evaluation and stakeholder feedback) may be determined locally.N/ANoNo[1] Minnesota Department of Education. (2013). Principal evaluation example model. Retrieved from http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/EdExc/EducEval/PrincEval/index.html [2] Minnesota Department of Education. (n.d.). Minnesota components 3-part overview. Retrieved from http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName...N/A
Mississippi2008 versionApproved June 2012Same as ISLLC standards.The Mississippi Principal Evaluation System is grounded in the Mississippi Standards for School Leaders, which were adapted from the ISLLC Standards.NoMississippi has guidelines that were approved by the Mississippi State Board of Education in June 2012.Mississippi Department of Education. (2013). Mississippi principal evaluation system: 2013 process manual. Retrieved from http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/docs/federal-programs/mpes-process-manual-final...
Missouri2008 versionAdopted in June 2011Five standards: Vision, Mission, and Goals; Teaching and Learning; Management of Organizational Systems; Collaboration with Families and Community; and Ethics and IntegrityThe Professional Continuum of the Missouri Leader indicates that the performance expectations for potential leaders enrolled in preparation programs should align with the Model Leader Standards. The state also uses the Leader Standards as the basis for evaluating principals' and superintendents' professional practices.Senate Bill 291NoYes[1] Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2011). Missouri model teacher and leader standards: A resource for state dialogue. Retrieved from http://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/Original-Document-girl.pdf [2] Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013). Principal evaluation. Retrieved from http://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/00-PrinEvaluation-CompleteDoc.pdf [3] Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013). Superintendent evaluation. Retrieved from http://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/00-SuptEvaluation-CompleteDoc.pdf2011
Montana2008 version2015Four domains (in state evaluation model): Vision and Goals; Culture of Learning; Management; and Professional ResponsibilitiesIn accordance with the Montana Board of Public Education, Montana has drafted a state model for the evaluation of school leaders, which draws on ISLLC Standards. Districts may adopt or adapt the state model or develop their own evaluation system that meets statutory requirements. State regulations do not require the use of ISLLC Standards specifically.Administrative Rule: Administrative Rules of Montana Title 10 Chapter 58NoYes[1] Montana Office of Public Instruction. (2013). Montana educator performance appraisal system. Helena, MT: Author. Retrieved from http://opi.mt.gov/pdf/Accred/Ch55/13PrincipalGuide_EPAS.pdf [2] State of Montana. (2013). 10.55.701. Board of Trustees. Retrieved from http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?RN=10.55.7012015
Nebraska2008 versionApproved 11/9/2011Eight standards: Vision for Learning, Continuous School Improvement, Instructional Leadership, Culture for Learning, Systems Management, Staff Leadership, Developing Relationships, and Professional Ethics and AdvocacyIn February 2012, the Nebraska State Board of Education charged the State Department of Education with developing teacher and principal evaluation models based on the Nebraska Teacher and Principal Performance Framework for voluntary use by local districts. The state piloted this project in select districts in 2013-14.N/ANoNebraska's Model Principal Evaluation System is currently being field tested. It is expected that the tenets of the system would inform work of principal supervisors. The model is still under development and has not been formally adopted by the Board.[1] Nebraska Department of Education. (2012). Developing model teacher and principal evaluations: Orientation to the project. Retrieved from http://www.education.ne.gov/ci/October24DesignPilotComitteePowerPoint.ppt [2] Nebraska Department of Education. (2013). Nebraska teacher/principal model evaluation systems update. Retrieved from http://www.education.ne.gov/ci/Documents/T_P_Update_Admin_Days_Presentat...N/A
Nevada2008 versionA draft of the state's evaluation process for administrators was published in June 2013.Administrator Instructional Leadership Standards (four standards): Focus on Learning; Culture of Continuous Improvement; Productive Relationships; and Structures; Administrator Professional Responsibilities Standards (four standards): Manages Human Capital; Self-Reflection and Professional Growth; Professional Obligations; and Family and Community Engagement.The Nevada Educator Performance Framework uses domains that are strongly influenced by existing administrator leadership standards, including the ISLLC Standards. The state also indicates that it intends to align performance evaluations with preparation and licensure.N/ANoNoNevada Teachers and Leaders Council. (2013). Nevada educator performance framework: Evaluation process for administrators (draft). Carson City, NV: Nevada Department of Education.N/A
New Hampshire2008 versionA Principal Evaluation Task Force report, which included performance rubrics, was published in April 2012.Eight standards: Educational Leadership; School Culture and Instructional Programs; School Management; School and Community; Integrity and Ethics; Social and Cultural Contexts; Local District Goals; and Student GrowthIn addition to referencing the ISLLC Standards in the state's drafted performance evaluation rubrics, the draft educator effectiveness model recommends that all leader preparation programs meet ISLLC Standards. N/ANoNoNew Hampshire Department of Education. (2013). The New Hampshire model educator support and evaluation system. Retrieved from http://www.education.nh.gov/teaching/documents/phase2report-draft.pdfN/A
New Jersey1996 version2004Same as ISLLC standardsThe Professional Standards for School Leaders form the basis of certification, preservice education and induction, and professional development. In March 2011, the New Jersey Educator Effectiveness Task Force recommended that the state adopt the 2008 ISLLC Standards as the foundation for principal evaluations.6A:9-12.3 of the Administrative CodeNoYes[1] New Jersey Department of Education. (2004). New Jersey professional standards for teacher and school leaders. Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/education/profdev/profstand/ [2] New Jersey Department of Education. (2011). Interim report: New Jersey educator effectiveness task force. Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/education/educators/effectiveness.pdf 2004
New MexicoN/ARelevant code last updated on 7/01/2008Five domains: Instructional Leadership, Communication, Professional Development, Operations Management, and Scope of Responsibility in Secondary SchoolsThe state has developed a Highly Objective Uniform Statewide Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) system for principals and assistant principals that uses the Principal Leadership Competencies and Indicators. New Mexico Department of Education. (2010). Handbook for highly objective uniform statewide standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) for principals and assistant principals in the state of New Mexico. Retrieved from http://teachnm.org/uploads/docs/housse_handbook.pdf
New York2008 versionRelevant regulations last revised June 2013Same as ISLLC standardsDistrict evaluation systems must evaluate principal practices based in part on the 2008 ISLLC Standards. This practice component may be worth from 31 percent H29to 60 percent of the principal's overall evaluation.[1] New York State Education Department. (2013). Guidance on New York State's annual professional performance review for teachers and principals. Retrieved from http://www.engageny.org/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/appr-fi... [2] New York State Education Department. (2013). Commissioner King releases NYC teacher and principal evaluation plan. Retrieved from http://www.nysed.gov/news/2015/commissioner-king-releases-nyc-teacher-an...
North Carolina2008 versionStandards for School Executives last approved in July 2011; Standards for Superintendents approved in September 2007Eight standards (for school executives): Strategic Leadership; Instructional Leadership; Cultural Leadership; Human Resource Leadership; Managerial Leadership; External Development Leadership; Micropolitical Leadership; and Academic Achievement LeadershipIn 2010-11, North Carolina began implementing standards-based evaluation systems for superintendents, central office administrators and staff, principals (mandatory), and assistant principals (mandatory). In addition, the Standards for School Executives are also used to inform preparation programs, professional development, and mentoring for school executives.In regulationYesYes[1] Public Schools of North Carolina. (n.d.). Evaluation instruments and processes. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/effectiveness-model/ncees/instruments/ [2] Public Schools of North Carolina. (2013). North Carolina standards for school executives. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/effectiveness-model/ncees/standards/...2010
North Dakota2008 versionThe principal evaluation guidelines were last updated on 9/5/2012Same as ISLLC standards.The State Superintendent adopted the ISLLC Standards as the operative standards upon which the statewide principal performance evaluation system is to be based. These Standards thus constitute the minimum criteria for locally developed evaluation systems. In 2013-14, early-adopter pilot sites will adopt or develop models aligned with the state's guidelines.North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. (2012). North Dakota principal evaluation guidelines. Bismarck, ND: Author. Retrieved from http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/ESEA/North%20Dakota%20Principal%20Evaluation%...
OhioThe Ohio Department of Education referenced the 1996 version in developing Standards for Principals and the 2008 version in developing Standards for Superintendents.Ohio Standards for Principals were approved in October 2005. Ohio Standards for Superintendents were published in November 2008. Five standards (for principals): Continuous Improvement; Instruction; School Operations, Resources, and Learning Environment; Collaboration; and Parents and Community EngagementThe state's model Ohio Principal Evaluation System is aligned with both the Ohio Standards and the ISLLC Standards. The Ohio Standards for Principals also guide principal preparation programs. A voluntary evaluation system for superintendents addresses the Ohio Standards for Superintendents.YesYes[1] Ohio Department of Education. (2013). Ohio principal evaluation system. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluat... [2] University System of Ohio. (n.d.). Ohio educator licensure programs: Standards and requirements chart. Retrieved from https://www.ohiohighered.org/education-programs/standards-requirements#PA [3] Ohio Department of Education. (n.d.). Superintendent evaluations. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohi... 2008
OklahomaN/AThe State Board approved the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness System on 12/15/2011.According to statute, the principal practice component of district evaluation systems must include at least the following six domains: Organizational and School Management, Instructional Leadership, Professional Growth and Responsibility, Interpersonal Skills, Leadership Skills, and Stakeholder Perceptions.The Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Commission has approved three leader frameworks for use in evaluation systems (McREL, Reeves', and Marzano). Although the state's documents do not specifically mention the ISLLC Standards, each of the approved frameworks is aligned with the ISLLC Standards.[1] Oklahoma Department of Education. (2015). TLE qualitative components. Retrieved from http://ok.gov/sde/tle-qualitative-components [2] Kendall, J., Alpert, A. M., & Jones, C. (2012). A Comparison of McREL's principal evaluation components and the ISLLC standards. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/products-and-services/featured-products-and-service... [3] Florida Department of Education. FPLS, ISLLC, NLNS crosswalk to Reeves' leadership performance matrix. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7566/urlt/0075315-fplscw.pdf [4] Marzano Center & Learning Sciences International. (2012). Marzano school leader evaluation model alignment to [ISLLC]. West Palm Beach, FL: Marzano Center. Retrieved from http://www.marzanocenter.com/files/Marzano_Leader_Evaluation_Model_Align...
Oregon2008 versionRelevant Administrative Rule went into effect 8/1/2012Same as ISLLC standards.The Oregon Educational Leadership Standards guide administrative preparation, licensure, and job performance. Districts also use the Oregon Educational Leadership Standards to evaluate administrator effectiveness.[1] Oregon Department of Education. (n.d.). Standards for professional practice. Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3768 [2] State of Oregon. (2012). Educational leadership--Administrator standards. Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/educatoreffectiveness/oar-1725...
PennsylvaniaThe 1996 version was consulted during the development of the Pennsylvania Leadership Standards. The 2008 version is referenced in the research base of the state's evaluation system.Regulations regarding the use of the Pennsylvania Leadership Standards are effective as of 1/1/2008. The draft standards to be used for principal evaluation were published in July 2012.Three core standards: Organizational Vision, Standards-based Reform, and Data-Driven Decision Making; Six corollary standards: Teaching and Learning Culture, Resource Management, Collaboration and Communication, Professional Integrity, Advocacy, and Professional Growth.Principal and superintendent preparation programs must address the Pennsylvania Leadership Standards. In addition, administrators' continuing professional education must include the Standards, and the state's draft Principal Evaluation Rubric is aligned with the Standards.NoYes[1] Pennsylvania Department of Education. (n.d.). Superintendent and principal program guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=506715&mode=2 [2] Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2015). Continuing professional education for school and system leaders program. Retrieved from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pa_inspired_lea... [3] Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2015). Educator effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/educator_effect... [4] Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2012). Principal evaluation rubric--draft. Retrieved from http://static.pdesas.org/content/documents/Principal_Rubric.pdfAct 82 (2012)
Rhode Island2008 versionAdopted in December 2008Same as ISLLC standardsThe Rhode Island Standards for Educational Leadership guide leader preparation, mentoring and coaching of new leaders, and continuous professional development. In addition, administrator evaluations must build upon these Standards.In regulationNoYes[1] Rhode Island Department of Education. (2008). Standards for educational leadership in Rhode Island. Retrieved from http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Teachers-and-Administ... [2] Rhode Island Department of Education. (n.d.). Educator evaluation system standards. Retrieved from http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/inside-ride/Laws-Regu...2008
South Carolina2008 version2011Nine standards: Vision, Instructional Leadership, Effective Management, Climate, School-Community Relations, Ethical Behavior, Interpersonal Skills, Staff Development, Principal's Professional Development.The Performance Standards and Criteria for Principal Evaluation serve as the basis for assisting, developing, and evaluating all principals in the state. Evaluation results should guide principals' professional development, compensation, promotion, retention, and removal.N/ANoSouth Carolina State Board of Education. (2011). R 43-165.1. Program for assisting, developing, and evaluating principal performance (PADEPP). Retrieved from http://ed.sc.gov/agency/stateboard/documents/165-1.pdfN/A
South Dakota2008 version2014Six standards: Vision and Goals; Instructional Leadership; School Operations and Resources; School, Student, and Staff Safety; School and Community Relationships; Ethical and Cultural Leadership.In 2013-14, the state piloted the principal effectiveness project, which uses the Framework for Effective Principals to measure principal performance. In addition, the state's higher education committee is currently redesigning principal preparation programs to align with the Framework's domains and performance components.N/ANoNo[1] South Dakota Department of Education. (2013). Principal effectiveness pilot project. Retrieved from http://doe.sd.gov/oatq/pep.aspx [2] South Dakota Department of Education. (2013). South Dakota principal effectiveness handbook: Draft state model for principal evaluation. Retrieved from http://doe.sd.gov/oatq/pep.aspxN/A
Tennessee2008 version2013Seven standards: Continuous Improvement; Culture for Teaching and Learning; Instructional Leadership and Assessment; Professional Growth; Management of the School; Ethics; and DiversityThe Tennessee Instructional Leadership Standards are used to align selection, preparation, licensure, evaluation, and professional development for administrators. N/ANoTennessee State Board of Education. (2011). Tennessee learning centered leadership policy. Nashville, TN: Author. Retrieved from http://tn.gov/sbe/Policies/5.101%20Learning%20Centered%20Leadership.pdfN/A
TexasN/A2014Seven standards (currently under revision, all prefaced with "Learner-Centered"): Values and Ethics of Leadership; Leadership and Campus Culture; Human Resources Leadership and Management; Communications and Community Relations; Organizational Leadership and Management; Curriculum Planning and Development; and Instructional Leadership and ManagementIn accordance with state legislation and code, the Texas Education Agency is currently revising the system for appraising and providing professional development to principals and linking that system with certification and preparation standards.Administrative Rule _242.15NoYesTexas Education Agency. (2015). Principal standards and appraisal. http://tea.texas.gov/index2.aspx?id=257698174881999
Utah2008 versionAdopted August 2011Same as ISLLC standardsThe Utah Educational Leadership Standards serve as the basis for educator development (including alignment with preparation programs, licensure expectations, hiring, and mentoring of teachers and school administrators), as well as the foundation of the state's evaluation system.NoNoUtah State Office of Education. (2011). R277-530. Utah effective teaching and educational leadership standards. Retrieved from http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/educatoreffectiveness/Standards/R277530...
Vermont2008 versionAdopted fall 2011Same as ISLLC standardsThe Core Leadership Standards serve as the foundation for preparation, licensure, and professional learning. The Vermont Principal Evaluation Standards use the ISLLC Standards as a foundation, along with the VAL-ED and NAESP frameworks. State Board Rule 2000 Education Quality StandardsNoYes[1] Vermont Agency of Education. (2013). A vision for teaching, leading, and learning. Retrieved from http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-Licensing_Vision_for_Teaching... [2] Vermont Task Force on Teacher and Leader Effectiveness. (2012). Vermont guidelines for teacher & leader effectiveness. Barre, VT: Vermont Department of Education. Retrieved from http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-Guidelines_for_Teacher_and_Le... 2014
Virginia2008 versionGuidelines for principals were approved 2/23/2012 and went into effect 7/1/2013. Guidelines for superintendents were approved 9/27/2012 and went into effect as of 7/1/2014.Seven standards (for principals): Instructional Leadership; School Climate; Human Resources Management; Organizational Management; Communication and Community Relations; Professionalism; and Student Academic ProgressThe Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Principals and Superintendents are used in the evaluation and support of those administrators, respectively. Regulations governing administrator preparation programs outline a slightly different set of competencies.Legislation: Code of Virginia 22.1-253.13.5 (B)NoYes[1] Virginia Department of Education. (2012). 2012 board of education principal performance standards and evaluation criteria. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/performance_evaluation/principal/in... [2] Virginia State Board of Education. (2011). Regulations governing the review and approval of education programs in Virginia. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/regulations/regs_approval_education...2014
Washington2008 versionThe new principal and program administrator benchmarks are effective as of 8/31/2013 (residency level) and 11/1/2013 (professional and career levels). The new superintendent benchmarks are effective as of 11/1/2013.Same as ISLLC standardsThe Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction has approved two leadership frameworks for use in principal evaluation systems (Association of Washington School Principals and Marzano). Both of these frameworks align with the ISLLC Standards. In addition, new standards-based benchmarks for principals, program administrators, and superintendents build upon the ISLLC Standards.Legislation: RCW 28A.410.200 Administrative rule: WAC 181-78A-270NoYeswa.org/the-model/framework-and-rubrics/ [2] Association of Washington School Principals. (2012). AWSP leadership framework. Olympia, WA: Author. Retrieved from http://ourschoolscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/AWSP_Leadershi... [3] Marzano Center & Learning Sciences International. (2012). Marzano school leader evaluation model alignment to [ISLLC]. West Palm Beach, FL: Marzano Center. Retrieved from http://www.marzanocenter.com/files/Marzano_Leader_Evaluation_Model_Align... [4] Washington Professional Educator Standards Board. (n.d.). Program approval standards: Principal/program administrator and superintendent benchmarks. http://program.pesb.wa.gov/review/standards2000
West Virginia2008 versionProfessional standards for superintendents and principals are effective as of 7/1/2010.Nine standards (for principals): Interpersonal and Collaborative Skills; Clear and Focused Learning Mission; Rigorous Curriculum, Engaging Instruction, and Balanced Assessment; Positive Learning Climate and Cohesive Culture; Professional Growth and Retention of Quality Staff; Support System for Student Success; Operations to Promote Learning; Family and Community Connections; and Continuous ImprovementThe Standards of Professional Practice for West Virginia Superintendents and Principals guide policy and program development in the areas of leadership recruitment, selection, preparation, licensure, induction, professional development, and evaluation.Legislation: W. Va. Code _18-2-5NoYesWest Virginia State Board of Education. (n.d.). Series 165. Standards of professional practice for West Virginia superintendents, principals, and teacher leaders. Retrieved from http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/p5800.pdf2010
WisconsinThe state's principal effectiveness framework aligns with the 2008 version of the ISLLC Standards. However, the Educator Standards referenced the 1996 version.Administrator Standards went into effect 5/1/2000. The principal evaluation process was last updated in Summer 2013.Same as ISLLC standardsThe Wisconsin Educator Standards for Administrators guide administrator preparation programs and licensure. The state's framework for principal effectiveness aligns with the 2008 ISLLC Standards and the Wisconsin Educator Standards for Administrators. [1] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.). Administrator standards. Retrieved from http://tepdl.dpi.wi.gov/resources/administrator-standards [2] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.). Principal practice evaluation. Retrieved from http://ee.dpi.wi.gov/principal/principal-practice-evaluation
Wyoming2008 version2009Seven standards (draft): Focus on Student Achievement and Growth; Instructional and Assessment Leadership; Developing and Supporting a Learning Organization; Vision, Mission, and Culture; Efficient and Effective Management; Ethics and Professionalism; and Communication and Community EngagementLocally developed personnel evaluation systems must meet statutory requirements as defined in Chapter 29. In 2010-11, many districts selected the ISLLC Standards or the McREL framework as the basis for their evaluation instrument. The state is currently developing an evaluation and accountability system for teachers and school district leaders. [1] Wyoming Department of Education. Certified personnel evaluation system - Chapter 29. Retrieved from http://edu.wyoming.gov/programs/certifiedpersonnelevaluationsytem.aspx [2] Illian, C. (2011). Certified Personnel Evaluation Systems. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Department of Education. Retrieved from http://edu.wyoming.gov/sf-docs/2011-summer-camp/Certified_Personnel_Eval... [3] Wyoming Legislature. Advisory committee to the select committee on statewide education accountability. Retrieved from http://legisweb.state.wy.us/LegislatorSummary/advisoryschool.aspx