1. Provides for both growth and accountability, and the strengthening of the relationship between the Director and senior staff. The written report will affirm specific accomplishments and will identify growth areas. Some growth goals will address areas of weakness while others will identify areas where greater emphasis is required due to changes in the environment.
2. Recognizes that the Director is the Chief Executive Officer. The Director is held accountable for work performed primarily by other senior administrators, e.g., fiscal management and thus the Director must hold SLT members accountable for delegated responsibilities.
3. Emphasizes the need for and requires the use of evidence for evaluation purposes. Evaluations are most helpful when the evaluator provides concrete evidence of strengths and/or weaknesses.
4. Is aligned with and based upon the SLT member's roles and responsibilities.
5. Is linked to the Division's goals.
6. Sets out standards of performance. The quality indicators set out initial standards. When growth goals are identified, additional standards will need to be set to provide clarity of expectations and a means of assessing performance.
7. Is also a performance-based assessment system. Such an evaluation focuses on improvement over time. The second and subsequent evaluations take into consideration the previous evaluation, and an assessment of success in addressing identified growth areas.
8. Uses multiple data sources.
9. Ensures feedback is provided at least annually.

1. It is the responsibility of the SLT member to at least annually provide evidence that role expectations and quality indicators have been met during the evaluation period. An evidence portfolio must be provided to the evaluator(s) at least one week in advance of the scheduled evaluation meeting. The evaluator(s) will review with the SLT member the evidence presented and will determine whether, or to what extent, the quality indicators have been achieved.
2. The evaluator(s) may provide assessments of evidence gained through direct observations or alternate sources.
3. Accountability reports prepared during the year shall form part of the evidence considered by the evaluator(s). All accountability reports shall be provided in the prescribed format and in accordance with the required timelines. Any identified deficiencies in accountability reports shall be remediated in a timely manner to the satisfaction of the administrator's supervisor.
4. An external facilitator may be utilized in the evaluation process.
5. If the Director is not the immediate supervisor, the Director and immediate supervisor may both be present at the evaluation meeting.
6. During the evaluation workshop, a written evaluation report will be facilitated which will document:

• the evaluation process,
• evaluation context,
• assessments relative to each of the criteria,
• an examination of progress made relative to any growth goals or redirections identified in the previous year's evaluation,
• identification of any growth goals if deemed appropriate, and;
• a conclusions section followed by appropriate signatures and dates.
  

1. The criteria will be those defined in the administrative procedure plus any growth goals provided in previous written evaluation report(s). Such growth goals may be areas requiring remediation or actions which must be taken to address trends, issues, or external realities such as an increased emphasis on capital construction due to an increased number of approvals.
   
    

Reference:       Section 109 Education Act

April 8, 2015

Revised May 3, 2017