This document summarizes the principal evaluation process in Minnesota from professional growth planning through formative and summative evaluation. It outlines the following key steps: 1) Once a principal's professional growth plan is complete, formative and summative evaluation begins, with the principal focusing on executing the plan and the superintendent providing support and evaluating performance. 2) An evaluation tracking tool is used to record baseline scores, goals, observations, and outcomes to compile the data needed for the evaluation. 3) The superintendent uses the collected data to determine the principal's final summative rating of unsatisfactory to distinguished based on guidelines established by education organizations. 4) A final evaluation meeting is held between

1. www.principalsuccess.com

2. The MPAS Principal’s
Professional Growth System (PGS)
Phase III: Moving from Professional
Growth Planning to Formative and
Summative Evaluation

4. Once Professional Growth Planning
(PGP) is complete, Formative &
Summative Evaluation begins…
• The principal’s priority becomes successfully executing
the Plan (PGP).
• The superintendent’s priorities become:
1. Supporting the principal’s efforts
(formative evaluation).
2. Confirming the principal’s PGP (Plan)
performance (summative evaluation)
3. Determining the principal’s Final Baseline
Scores (in preparation for the next cycle)

5. The MPAS Planning and Tracking Tool
The Tracker…
You’ve used the Tracker to record your original
baseline scores and develop your Plan (PGP).
Now you’ll use the Tracker to capture the data
needed to complete the remainder of the annual
evaluation cycle – all in one clear, easy-to-use
document.

6. The Tracker & Compliance
Sec.22.Minnesota Statues 2010, section 123B.147, subdivision 3.
• The law requires “on-the-job observations.” The
Tracker’s Notable Observations column supports
that requirement.
• The law requires that 35% of the evaluation
incorporate “longitudinal data on student academic
growth.” The Tracker’s Result/Outcome, Goal Score,
and Final Baseline Score columns support that
requirement.
• The law requires “formative and summative
evaluation.” The Tracker’s Original Baseline Score,
Annual Evaluation Goals, Goal Weight, Goal, &
Notable Observations columns support that
requirement.

7. The Final Summative Evaluation
The principal’s final summative evaluation rating will be
captured in a single word: Unsatisfactory, Developing,
Proficient, Accomplished or Distinguished - as defined
by MASA, MESPA, MASSP & BOSA in The Evaluation of
Minnesota’s School Principals.
The superintendent uses all the data in the Summative
Evaluation Phase, the third and final section of the
Tracker, to determine which word best describes the
principal at the end of the annual review cycle.

8. The Final Summative Evaluation Rating:
Getting There…
• Step 1 - Complete the Goal Score column, and
analyze the Weighted Score column.
• Step 2 - Complete the Final Baseline Scores.
• Step 3 - Follow the Final Scoring Guidelines to
select the final rating designation that most
accurately applies.

9. The Summative Evaluation: Step 1, Complete Goal Score
Columns & Analyze the Final Weighted Score
• Based on the data in column K (Result / Outcome), the superintendent
uses columns L/M (Goal Score) to assign the descriptor that best reflects
the principal’s performance on each goal.
• When Goal Scores are entered, their corresponding Weighted Score* is
automatically calculated and displayed (column N).
• The final Weighted Goal Score (Column N) is the measure of the
principal’s performance on the Plan (PGP); thus, it is the most important
data point in determining the principal’s final summative evaluation
rating designation. In fact, in all but extraordinary circumstances
(examples to follow), the Weighted Goal Score IS the final summative
evaluation.
*The Weighted Score considers not only the goal score but the goal’s relative importance (see Goal Weight column).

10. The Summative Evaluation: Step 2
Assigning Final Baseline Scores
The superintendent assigns Final Baseline Scores for
each competency based on an analysis of:
• Goal Scores
• Original Baseline Scores
• Notable Observations
A Final Baseline Score composite score will automatically be calculated.

11. Helpful Scoring Hints: Baseline Scores
• Original Baseline Scores are not evaluations. They are
planning data – informed by the superintendent’s, the
principal’s, and (where included) the faculty’s assessment
of the principal’s readiness for the challenges embedded
in the State’s principal licensure competencies. Think of
Original Baseline Scores as the principal’s current state or
potential at the start of the evaluation process.
• Final Baseline Scores are the superintendent’s assessment
of the principal’s future state or Potential at the end of
one evaluation cycle and are intended to inform goal
setting phase of the next cycle.
The 5-point Original Baseline and Final Baseline scoring rubric was
developed by MASA, MASSP, MESPA, & BOSA.

12. More Helpful Hints
• If one or more of the 7 competencies does not
have a goal assigned, assume the Final Baseline
Score is identical to the Original Baseline Score –
unless there is evidence cited in the Notable
Observations column to suggest otherwise.
• DO NOT AVERAGE Weighted Goal Scores and
Original Baseline Scores to determine Final
Baseline Scores. The objectives of the two data
sources are incompatible; thus, averaging not
only is mathematically inaccurate, it also unfairly
penalizes high achieving principals.

13. Why Not Average..?
Example
During Phase I (pre-assessment), all agree that the principal is beginning the year
at the Distinguished (5) level in Instructional Leadership (Competency 2).
During Phase II (planning), a school level reading goal (Competency 2) is set at 86.
During Phase III (summative evaluation), the reading score result comes in at 86.
That equates to Goal Met (3).
Averaging Distinguished (5) and Goal Met (3) yields 4 (Accomplished). So…a
principal who met her goal has her rating reduced. How can that be?
In the MPAS system, it not only can’t be, it doesn’t happen. In fact, in the MPAS
system, the only way ratings can go is “UP” when goals are met.
The Way to think about it is that you can average 5 + 3, but you can’t average
Goal Met and Distinguished..!
The two scales are neither compatible nor equivalent.

14. If Averaging Doesn’t Work, How Should the Summative Evaluator
Think About the Relationship between Goal Performance
and Final Baseline Scores and Ratings?
MPAS Scoring Guidelines
for Decisions about Final Baseline Scores & Ratings
Principal’s
Goal
Success
Score
1
Goal
Significantly
Missed
2
Goal Missed
3
Goal
Attained
4
Goal
Exceeded
5
Goal
Significantly
Exceeded
Impact on
Final
Baseline
Score /
Final
Rating
Minimum
Reduction 1,
Maximum 2
Maximum
Reduction 1
Maximum
Increase 1
Maximum
Increase 1
Minimum
Increase 1,
Maximum 2

15. MPAS Scoring Guidelines:
Three FINAL BASELINE SCORE Examples for Competency 2,
Instructional Leadership
Original
Baseline
Score
Goal Score Notable
Observations
MPAS
Guideline
Final
Baseline
Score
Developing Goal Met Teacher Evaluation
goal progress
satisfactory but
needs to be goal
again next cycle.
NC or +1 Proficient
(+1)
Proficient Goal
Significantly
Exceeded
Increased visibility
in school
community noticed
by / appreciated by
all.
+1 or +2 Accomplished
(+1)
Accomplished Goal Missed Near Miss on
reading; repeat
next cycle to
confirm / validate
NC or -1 Accomplished
(NC)

16. The Summative Evaluation: Step 3
Assigning the Final Rating
The superintendent assigns the Final Rating
based on an analysis of:
• Original Baseline Score average & rating
• Final Weighted Goal Score
• Final Baseline Score average
• Notable Observations

17. Step 3: Helpful Hints
• MPAS Guidelines apply.
• Averaging Isn’t appropriate.
• Ultimately, it’s the superintendent’s judgment
• When selecting the most accurate one-word
descriptor is a very close call, remember that
the weighted goal score is the most important
data point.

18. Phase III: Three Examples
Original
Baseline
Average
Final
Baseline
Average
Weighted
Goal
Score
MPAS
Guideline
Tie
Breakers
Final
Rating
2.1
Developing
3.9
Accomplished
4.7 +1 or +2
Levels
Exceptional
Goal
Performance
Accomplished
+2 Levels
3.3
Proficient
3.5
Proficient
3.06 NC or +1 Solid but not
exceptional
Goal
Performance
Proficient
NC in level
4.2
Accomplished
4.7
Accomplished
4.05 NC or +1 Goal
Performance
rates increase
in level
Distinguished
+1 Level

19. When the Summative Evaluation is
complete, the superintendent and
principal meet for their final review.
Good luck, and if you have questions, visit
the Members’ Services page at
principalsuccess.com,
or contact MPAS at
info@principalsuccess.com.