Survey Results

MAPASummary of

February 2010 Survey

Feedback through Surveys

A second MAPA survey was administered in February 2010 to DoDEA assistant principals, principals, assistant superintendents, and superintendents

•Approximately six months into implementation•244244 respondents -- 65%65% response rate

Survey… What you said!

We asked…We asked… You said…You said…

Clarity of levels of performance within the

rubric

Overwhelming majority indicated that the rubric is

clearConfidence in selecting or determining evidence to support each objective

A substantial number of respondents were

confidentNumber of objectives obtainable each rating

cycle

Slightly more than half felt they could meet all or

almost all

We asked…We asked… You said…You said…Do you have responsibilities not covered by the rubrics?

The majority of respondents indicated “no”

Duties perceived as not covered by MAPA: •Non-academic duties such as lunch, bus, or playground duty; discipline issues; extra-curricular activities; or time spent with parents. Refer to Objective 4.2 •Special Education issues such as IEP and Case Study Meetings were also mentioned. Refer to 1.3 and 4.2 Facilities and safety concerns Refer to 2.3•Supervision of staff Refer to 2.3

Survey… What you said!

We asked…We asked… You said…You said…

Clarity of purpose and process for the ILP

Respondents overall felt very clear or clear

Development of the ILP Majority reported that they designed their own ILP,

some reported a collaborative process, but

10% reported that their ILP was directed

Survey… What you said!

We asked…We asked… You said…You said…

Number of revisions required of the ILP

The majority indicated their ILP was approved with one or no revision

Reasons for revising the ILP:Clarification of goals, more specificity, more data-driven, more focus on instructional leadership, more measurable

Measures of success for youILP

•TerraNova•DRA•Student progress•Anecdotal data

Survey… What you said!

We asked…We asked… You said…You said…Need for training on the ILP

Slightly over 1/3 indicated a strong or very strong need

Procedural issues that have arisen since the implementation of MAPA:•Timing •Lack of professional development associated with implementation•Efficient methods to gather and document evidence; time to do so•Lack of guidance and mentoring

Survey… What you said!

We asked…We asked… You said…You said…What do you like

mostabout the MAPA?

•ILP•Rubrics•Focused on instructional leadership• Goals & objectives are specific• Comprehensive• Rigor

Survey… What you said!

We asked…We asked… You said…You said…

What do you like least about the MAPA?

•Cumbersome•Time consuming•Excludes many routine activities•Concern regarding the ability to reach “Exemplary”

Survey… What you said!

Next Steps

MAPA Task Group • Answering the call for further professional

development

• Responding to the need to complete an entire cycle before collecting more data via a survey

Next Steps

KaizenKaizenSeptember- October, 2010 – administer surveysurvey after cycle has ended

Analyze results, strengths, and deficienciesSeptember– October 2010 - evaluateevaluate E-MAPA (automated, paperless

application pilot) Determine improvements needed Complete and test changes Determine capability for DoDEA-wide implementation Implement throughout DoDEA

Next Steps

KaizenKaizenSeptember– October 2010 –

administer surveysurvey after cycle has ended

September– October 2010 -- evaluateevaluate E-MAPA