Dixie County School District School Based Administrators ...aplusweb.dixie.k12.fl.us/[email protected]/School Based Admin P… · Education is the key to successful living. Learning

EMCS 2014 All Rights Reserved.

The entire contents of the performance appraisal system and related materials are protected under the copyright provisions of federal law by Jerry P. Copeland, President and CEO of EMCS, Inc. This material, including written work and all forms, may not be reproduced, copied, transmitted, sold, or duplicated in any matter, including digitally or electronically, whatsoever. Even the perception of potential violations will be vigorously pursued.

Dixie County School District School Based Administrators

Performance Appraisal System 2014-2015

Educational Management Consultant Services, Inc.

Specializing in “Human Resource Development” P.O. Box 10020 Titusville, FL 32783

Phone 321-267-3972 Fax 321-267-4297 Email: [email protected]

©EMCS 2 Dixie County School District 2014-15

Table of Contents

The Appraisal System .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Standards and Strategic Impact to Policies ................................................................................................. 7

Core Concepts of Management ......................................................................................................................12

Florida Principal Leadership Standards ....................................................................................................20

EMCS, Inc. Principal Leadership Standards ..............................................................................................24

EMCS, Inc. Indicators of Effective Organizations ....................................................................................25

District Culture and Climate ...........................................................................................................................28

Student Growth and Achievement Measures ...........................................................................................47

Performance Assessment Procedures ........................................................................................................49

Bibliography ..........................................................................................................................................................86

Amended Research Bibliography .................................................................................................................91

Additional References for Principals ...........................................................................................................95

Component 1 – Mentoring Program

Component 2 – Employee Coaching

Component 3 – Performance Appraisal Forms – School Based Administrators

Observation and Data Collection/Analysis Form Observation and Data Collection/Analysis Summary Correlation of Standards Professional Development Program Professional Development Assistance Form

Component 4 – Dixie County School District Student Performance Indicators (SPI) Evaluation System


THE APPRAISAL SYSTEM School Based Administrators

The EMCS, Inc. - Jerry Copeland Model

Philosophy Florida Statute 1012.34 and 1012.335, The Student Success Act, requires the Superintendent in each school district to establish procedures for assessing the performance of all instructional, administrative and supervisory personnel. The Superintendent is also required to develop a mechanism for evaluating the effective use of assessment criteria and evaluation procedures by administrators who are assigned responsibility for evaluating the performance of school district personnel. The primary purpose of the redeveloped evaluation system is increasing student learning growth by improving the quality of instructional, administrative and supervisory service. In addition to the requirement of the Statutes, the Department of Education has developed and disseminated guidelines for developing performance appraisal systems. These systems must support and promote school improvement, focus on student growth and achievement, provide for parent input, and establish criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills of instructional personnel and school based administrators which will result in measurable student growth. The Dixie County Performance Appraisal System has been designed to enhance quality of the organization, ensure self-esteem, promote professional development and increase student achievement. It specifically focuses on the organizational purpose as well as the individual aspirations of instructional and school based staff.

Generally, the guidelines can be summarized as follows: Fairness, equity and legal soundness.

Allocation of time for supervisors to plan, coach and counsel individuals for higher levels of performance

Established procedures for the collection, retrieval and use of data to provide feedback to an individual, a team, and the system.

Data-based personnel decisions including rewarding and recognizing high performance through a variety of means.

Focus on student achievement and the specific conditions of the site in establishing expectations.

The negotiation of expectations, criteria, outcomes, and competencies based on the conditions of the work site.


Growth of the individual and the continuous improvement of the organization.

Annual assessment based on the experience and performance of the individual.

Two levels of appraisal

a. Documentation of generic competencies in the early stages of a position. b. Development in the later stages of the same position.

Orientation on the system and skill development in observing, mentoring, coaching and counseling for those impacted by the appraisal system.

Purpose The purpose of the Performance Appraisal System is to increase student learning growth by improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state, the district school superintendent shall establish procedures for evaluating the performance of duties and responsibilities of all instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel employed by the school district. The performance appraisal system has multiple dimensions. The first spans the length of a person’s career and is designed to provide growth and development and support increased performance. The results/outcome side is a systems approach to provide organizational growth. These outcomes are influenced by the employee interacting with the special conditions within a job that exists at a specific work site, which may be impacted by the individual developmental continuum of the employee. This assessment system has been designed based on the following: School Improvement Plans

Organization beliefs, mission and purpose;

Practices that are reflective of school research;

Local, specific job descriptions;

Measurable criteria with specifically identifiable source codes;

Practices and/or results that are compatible with human resources development models that focus both on the employee and the system purpose;

The concept that performance appraisal for an individual is finalized only after thorough planning sessions that include extensive appraisee input;

A design model that provides for quantity, quality, cost effectiveness and timelines and which may be performed within an appropriate span of control;


The concept that data should be collected from a variety of sources which may be identified;

Current research which provide best component practices for employee performance appraisal;

The situational context of the employee service.

Strategic Base Over the past several years, superintendents and School Board members, with varying degrees of success, have initiated strategic planning processes. This plan is intended to create a system of beliefs, an organizational purpose, a mission statement and a series of organizational parameters. For many, this work is in progress and with encouragement should be completed in the future. For purposes of example only, the consultant has included a belief statement, an organizational purpose and several organizational parameters that should be replaced when developed. The strategic plan will provide for the essence of numerous systems, one of which is performance appraisal. Beliefs of the Dixie County School District We believe that Education is the combined responsibility of students, parents, schools and

community.

Open and honest communication is essential.

Education must be a priority of society.

Education must be flexible and diverse.

Visionary leadership and sound management are essential.

Education should promote responsible citizenship and ethical behavior.

Involvement improves education.

Education should provide a safe, healthful, nurturing environment.

All individuals have dignity and self-worth.

All individuals can learn.


Education is the key to successful living.

Learning is a lifelong process.

Organizational Purpose To provide quality education opportunities which develop self-sufficient, productive individuals who will advance the value of self and society. Mission Statement

Our schools will provide a quality learning environment by providing opportunities

through educational planning and community partnerships that ensures student success.

Parameters The educational needs of our students take precedence.

We will always do a cost/benefit analysis before implementing new programs.

All individuals will be treated in a professional and dignified manner with no discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, political or religious beliefs, national or ethnic origin, or genetic information.

We will provide a healthy and safe environment.

We will always adhere to the professional code of ethics.


Standards and Strategic Impact to Policies

Enhancement of complex organizations requires an understanding of the total organization. The total organization includes all of the interrelationships among processes performed to carry out the mission. Two essential studies are required to identify system performance and best practices. One of these studies is a total review of the school board policies that influence and add value to the organizational leg of policy and governance. The second essential study is a comprehensive organizational and management review. The following graphics focus on policy and governance. The focus, however, is within a systems context. Perhaps, more clearly stated, policy review should not only look at the sum of its parts, but how policy causes each system and sub-system to interact with others.

It’s vital in the review of policies to examine the alignment of the policy in relation to what the school district wants to accomplish. Each policy should be examined to analyze the contribution to mission accomplishment. The strategic impact of policies is identified in the following graphic.

2010 2015 2020

2020

2015

StudentGrowth

The Organizational PurposeValues, Beliefs, Mission, LeadershipAction Initiatives

Systems DesignRules, Roles, Relationships, Organizational Alignment, Decision Matrix

Service Delivery Programs, Services, Accountability, Inter-Agency Interaction

Strategic Impact of Policies

In addition to the strategic impact of policies, a comprehensive study examines the strategic application of school board rules. The following graphic focuses on the mission or constancy of purpose and various examples of entities from policy-governance and leadership-management that must interact harmonically to maintain an organizational focus.


2010 2015 2020

2020

2015

StudentGrowth

Constancy of Purpose

Strategic Applicationof Board Rules

Service Definition

Decision Matrix

Operating Procedures

Stakeholder Service Delivery

Administrative Code

Stakeholder Interests

School Board Rules

Law

Policies likewise have an impact on the school district alignment of major systems. The

connecting points between policy-governance and leadership-management should form systems within an organizational growth path. The following three graphics depict this connectivity.

Student Growth2020

2015

2010 2015 2020

School District Systems Alignment


StudentGrowth2020

2015

2010 2015 2020

Systems Design

Rules

Roles

Relationships

Organizational Alignment

Decision Matrix

Student Growth2020

2015

2010 2015 2020

Systems

Systems

Systems

Systems

Systems

Systems Connectivity


When the connecting points between policy-governance and leadership-management connect at a point outside a system, the lack of connectivity may shift the organizational growth path away from the focus and create a crisis point having a profound impact on the entire school district. Policies and systems alignment must be strategic to ensure and promote institutional growth. The following graphic depicts this misalignment.

2015

2010

2005 2010 2015

Rules

Roles

Relationships

Crisis Point

System Design

StudentGrowth

Organizational Alignment

Decision Matrix

The final two graphics demonstrate an organization in alignment with the constancy of purpose.


Governance

Leadership and Management

Strategic Alignment

Employees

2010

2005

2001 2005 2010

Employees Employees

Student Growth

Constancy of Purpose

Acquisition &

Use of Resources

Student Growth

Organizational Growth

Path

A SYSTEM IN ALIGNMENT BALANCE

Policy &

Governance

Research&

DevelopmentLeadership

& Management

Required Operational & Organizational Functions Foundation


Core Concepts of Management Prerequisites of Management Manager must internalize at a core value level the various components of the “do

right” rule

Manager must have the systemic knowledge or access to the knowledge for all functions and tasks to be managed

Manager must possess the skill to disaggregate the minute components of each task to be managed.

Manager must be able to identify human talent at a level of component skills so as to match talent with performance tasks.

Manager must understand not only management but also leadership and know when they are doing which.

Manager must understand the definition of institutional politics.

The Functions of Management Planning - setting organizational goals and objectives and selecting the BEST course of action. Organizing – developing an organizational structure and allocating human resources to ensure the accomplishment of objectives. Staffing - manning the organization structure through proper and effective selection, appraisal and development of personnel to fill the roles assigned to the organization. Directing - The entrusting of responsibility and authority to others and creating accountability for results. Controlling - ensuring that the plan is followed and measuring (evaluating) progress and success according to the criteria developed in the plan.”

“If you are not ahead of change then you are already behind.”

- Drucker



What is planning? Planning is the first responsibility of the manager. Those who fail to plan, plan to fail. Planning is the process of answering three questions:

– Where are we? – Where should we be? – How do we get there?

Comprehensive planning is “planning which incorporates all levels/functions of the organization” Key Elements of the Planning Function Forecast Set Objectives Develop Strategies Program

Budget Set Procedures Develop Polices

Key Elements of a Task People Time Money

Responsibility - The work assigned to a position. Authority - The sum of the powers and rights assigned to a position. Accountability - The obligation to perform responsibility and exercise authority in terms of established performance standards. Decision Matrix - A defined decision making structure which recognizes the various management levels and functions such as:

Constancy of purpose Executive Service – systems design, integration and oversight Ministerial – (middle management) systems implementation Program design and supervision Service Delivery


The Five Minds of a Manager The Reflective Mind-Set Managing Self The Analytic Mind-Set Managing Organizations The Worldly Mind-Set Managing Context The Collaborative Mind Set Managing Relationships The Action Mind-Set Managing Change

Regarding Management

Knowledge is the Sine Qua Non (Latin)

Literal English translation WITHOUT, WHICH, NOT

What is Leadership Management is not leadership, the distinction is not just semantics, and the implications are increasingly important in the new economy. Leadership is “… influencing people to work towards a desired end.” Protocols of Leadership (Adapted from Rudolph W. Giuliani) First Things First Prepare Relentlessly Everyone’s Accountable, All of the Time Surround Yourself with Great People Reflect, Then Decide Underpromise and Overdeliver Develop and Communicate Strong Beliefs Be Your Own Person Loyalty: The Vital Virtue Interpersonal Sensitivity Stand up to Bullies Study. Read. Learn Independently Organize Around a Purpose Bribe Only Those Who Will Stay Bribed


Eight Keys to Leadership Greatness Maintain Absolute Integrity: Its got to be 100% Know Your Stuff: And Prove You Do Declare Your Vision: Most Organizations do not have one Show Uncommon Commitment Expect Positive Results: Turn Disadvantages into Advantages Take Care of Your People Put Duty before Self Stand Out in Front

Hallmarks of Leadership Insight Positive, Strong Interpersonal

Skills

Self-Growth Flexibility Communication

The Development of Educational Leaders

Goal: An integrated leadership development system that servesequally well to provide a continuum of leadership experiencesfrom the beginning administrator to the senior executive.

*False divisions of ways of thinking. Studying isolated things. Atomistic thinking. Arbitrary selection.

Fragmented Science

Content and Process*

Knowledge and Practice

Desire

for

Efficacy

Integrated

Development of Leaders

Side

Effects


Leadership Establishing Direction – developing a vision of the future, often the distant future and strategies for producing the changes needed to achieve that vision.

Aligning People – communicating the direction by words and deeds to all those whose cooperation may be needed so as to influence the creation of teams and coalitions that understand the vision and strategies, and accept their validity implementation.

Motivating the Work Force – energizing people to overcome major political, bureaucratic, and resource barriers to change by satisfying very basic, but often unfilled, human needs for recognition, praise, achievement.

Produces change, often to a dramatic degree, and has the potential of producing extremely useful change (e.g., new products that customers want, new approaches to labor relations that help make a institution more competitive).

Management Operational and Budgeting – establishing detailed steps and timetables for achieving needed results, and then allocating the resources necessary to make that happen.

Organizing and Staffing – establishing some structure for accomplishing plan requirements, staffing that structure with individuals, delegating responsibility and authority for carrying out the plan, providing policies and procedures to help guide people, and creating methods or systems to monitor implementation.

Controlling and Problem Solving - monitoring results vs. plan in some detail, identifying deviations, and then planning and organizing to solve these problems.

Produces a degree of predictability and order, and has the potential of consistently producing the short-term results expected by various stakeholders (e.g., for customers, always being on time; for stockholders, being on budget).


Essential Components of Effective Leadership A vision of what the organization can and should be, a vision that values all of the

individuals and groups with a stake in the successes of the organization.

Development of a set of strategies that will move the organization toward achieving the vision.

Cooperation and teamwork from a network of people, a coalition, in fact, powerful enough to achieve those shared goals and strategies.

A highly motivated group of key people in that network who are committed to making the vision a reality.

The task of the leader is not so much to link together parts of the system as it is to bond people together by developing a shared

covenant and common culture.

- Thomas Sergiovanni

Basic Leadership Skills

Learning from Experience Communication Listening Assertiveness Providing Constructive Feedback Guidelines for Effective Stress

Management Building Technical Competence

Building Effective Relationships with Superiors

Building Effective Relationships with Peers

Setting Goals Punishment Conducting Meetings

Advanced Leadership Skills

Delegating Managing Conflict Negotiation Problem Solving Improving Creativity Diagnosing Performance Problems

in Individuals, Groups, and Organizations

Team Building for Work Teams The Building Blocks of Team

Building Team Building at the Top Development Planning Credibility Coaching Empowerment


Core Characteristics of the Leader The leader has a sense of self. The leader has a profound knowledge base. The leader has a sense of organization. The leader has a sense of community. The leader creates a sense of urgency. The leader creates a powerful guiding coalition. The leader creates a picture of the future. The leader creates a culture of communicating in word and deed. The leader sets direction. The leader aligns people. The leader motivates people. The leader persuades people. The leader knows what good policy is and makes it clear to others. The leader seeks information. The leader understands the political context of leadership. The leader understands the culture of administrative succession. The leader understands the cognitive processes of leadership. The leader creates the heart and soul for the organization. The leader has a core set of beliefs and values. The leader develops leaders. The leader gets results.

Leadership Model


Florida Principal Leadership Standards

Purpose and Structure of the Standards

Purpose: The Standards are set forth in rule as Florida’s core expectations for effective school administrators. The Standards are based on contemporary research on multi-dimensional school leadership, and represent skill sets and knowledge bases needed in effective schools. The Standards form the foundation for school leader personnel evaluations and professional development systems, school leadership preparation programs, and educator certification requirements. Structure: There are ten Standards grouped into categories, which can be considered domains of effective leadership. Each Standard has a title and includes, as necessary, descriptors that further clarify or define the Standard, so that the Standards may be developed further into leadership curricula and proficiency assessments in fulfillment of their purposes.

Domain 1: Student Achievement: Standard 1: Student Learning Results. Effective school leaders achieve results on the school’s student learning goals. a. The school’s learning goals are based on the state’s adopted student academic

standards and the district’s adopted curricula; and b. Student learning results are evidenced by the student performance and growth on

statewide assessments; district-determined assessments that are implemented by the district under Section 1008.22, F.S.; international assessments; and other indicators of student success adopted by the district and state.

Standard 2: Student Learning as a Priority. Effective school leaders demonstrate that student learning is their top priority through leadership actions that build and support a learning organization focused on student success. The leader: a. Enables faculty and staff to work as a system focused on student learning; b. Maintains a school climate that supports student engagement in learning; c. Generates high expectations for learning growth by all students; and d. Engages faculty and staff in efforts to close learning performance gaps among student

subgroups within the school.


Domain 2: Instructional Leadership: Standard 3: Instructional Plan Implementation. Effective school leaders work collaboratively to develop and implement an instructional framework that aligns curriculum with state standards, effective instructional practices, student learning needs and assessments. The leader: a. Implements the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices as described in Rule 6A-

5.065, F.A.C. through a common language of instruction; b. Engages in data analysis for instructional planning and improvement; c. Communicates the relationships among academic standards, effective instruction, and

student performance; d. Implements the district’s adopted curricula and state’s adopted academic standards in a

manner that is rigorous and culturally relevant to the students and school; and e. Ensures the appropriate use of high quality formative and interim assessments aligned

with the adopted standards and curricula. Standard 4: Faculty Development. Effective school leaders recruit, retain and develop an effective and diverse faculty and staff. The leader: a. Generates a focus on student and professional learning in the school that is clearly

linked to the system-wide strategic objectives and the school improvement plan; b. Evaluates, monitors, and provides timely feedback to faculty on the effectiveness of

instruction; c. Employs a faculty with the instructional proficiencies needed for the school population

served; d. Identifies faculty instructional proficiency needs, including standards-based content,

research-based pedagogy, data analysis for instructional planning and improvement, and the use of instructional technology;

e. Implements professional learning that enables faculty to deliver culturally relevant and differentiated instruction; and

f. Provides resources and time and engages faculty in effective individual and collaborative professional learning throughout the school year.

Standard 5: Learning Environment. Effective school leaders structure and monitor a school learning environment that improves learning for all of Florida’s diverse student population. The leader: a. Maintains a safe, respectful and inclusive student-centered learning environment that is

focused on equitable opportunities for learning and building a foundation for a fulfilling life in a democratic society and global economy;

b. Recognizes and uses diversity as an asset in the development and implementation of procedures and practices that motivate all students and improve student learning;

c. Promotes school and classroom practices that validate and value similarities and differences among students;

d. Provides recurring monitoring and feedback on the quality of the learning environment;


e. Initiates and supports continuous improvement processes focused on the students’ opportunities for success and well-being.

f. Engages faculty in recognizing and understanding cultural and developmental issues related to student learning by identifying and addressing strategies to minimize and/or eliminate achievement gaps.

Domain 3: Organizational Leadership

Standard 6: Decision Making. Effective school leaders employ and monitor a decision-making process that is based on vision, mission and improvement priorities using facts and data. The leader: a. Gives priority attention to decisions that impact the quality of student learning and

teacher proficiency; b. Uses critical thinking and problem solving techniques to define problems and identify

solutions; c. Evaluates decisions for effectiveness, equity, intended and actual outcome; implements

follow-up actions; and revises as needed; d. Empowers others and distributes leadership when appropriate; and e. Uses effective technology integration to enhance decision making and efficiency

throughout the school. Standard 7: Leadership Development. Effective school leaders actively cultivate, support, and develop other leaders within the organization. The leader: a. Identifies and cultivates potential and emerging leaders; b. Provides evidence of delegation and trust in subordinate leaders; c. Plans for succession management in key positions; d. Promotes teacher–leadership functions focused on instructional proficiency and

student learning; and e. Develops sustainable and supportive relationships between school leaders, parents,

community, higher education and business leaders. Standard 8: School Management. Effective school leaders manage the organization, operations, and facilities in ways that maximize the use of resources to promote a safe, efficient, legal, and effective learning environment. The leader: a. Organizes time, tasks and projects effectively with clear objectives and coherent plans; b. Establishes appropriate deadlines for him/herself and the entire organization; c. Manages schedules, delegates, and allocates resources to promote collegial efforts in

school improvement and faculty development; and d. Is fiscally responsible and maximizes the impact of fiscal resources on instructional

priorities.


Standard 9: Communication. Effective school leaders practice two-way communications and use appropriate oral, written, and electronic communication and collaboration skills to accomplish school and system goals by building and maintaining relationships with students, faculty, parents, and community. The leader: a. Actively listens to and learns from students, staff, parents, and community

stakeholders; b. Recognizes individuals for effective performance; c. Communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents,

and community; d. Maintains high visibility at school and in the community and regularly engages

stakeholders in the work of the school; e. Creates opportunities within the school to engage students, faculty, parents, and

community stakeholders in constructive conversations about important school issues. f. Utilizes appropriate technologies for communication and collaboration; and g. Ensures faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements,

academic standards, and all other local state and federal administrative requirements and decisions.

Domain 4: Professional and Ethical Behavior:

Standard 10: Professional and Ethical Behaviors. Effective school leaders demonstrate personal and professional behaviors consistent with quality practices in education and as a community leader. The leader: a. Adheres to the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the

Education Profession in Florida, pursuant to Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, F.A.C. b. Demonstrates resiliency by staying focused on the school vision and reacting

constructively to the barriers to success that include disagreement and dissent with leadership;

c. Demonstrates a commitment to the success of all students, identifying barriers and their impact on the well-being of the school, families, and local community;

d. Engages in professional learning that improves professional practice in alignment with the needs of the school system; and

e. Demonstrates willingness to admit error and learn from it; f. Demonstrates explicit improvement in specific performance areas based on previous

evaluations and formative feedback.


EMCS, Inc. Principal Leadership Standards

In addition to the Florida Principal Leadership Standards, EMCS has developed ten

Standards with concomitant indicators that apply to leaders including principals and assistant principals.

1. Research and Development - High performing leaders understand the role of research and development in institutional operations, enhancement and renewal and skillfully design this element to continuously replenish the data base on which decisions are made.

2. Quality Institutional Standards - High performing leaders establish quality institutional standards and set high expectations for themselves, the workforce, and the organization itself.

3. Leadership and Management - High performing leaders clearly delineate between practices of leadership and practices of management and perform the mutual roles in such a way as to be effective and understood in the work environment.

4. Clear Definition of Functions and Services - High performing leaders have clearly defined the functions and services of the organization and skillfully perform the fundamental role of directing the work of the employees.

5. Leadership Styles - High performing leaders engage various leadership styles, employing reflective, analytic, systemic, collaborative and action mindsets as needs and circumstances dictate.

6. Culture, Character, and Climate - High performing leaders understand concepts of organizational development and guide their organizations to create the culture, define the character, and assess the climate of their organization.

7. Organizational Growth and Change - High performing leaders guide their institutions to promote organizational growth and to skillfully manage change.

8. Comprehensive Planning - High performing leaders develop and formalize a comprehensive planning and scheduling component which guides the institutional work force.

9. Systems Leadership - High performing leaders practice systems leadership by developing highly productive organizations through the creative integration of all operating systems.

10. Profound Knowledge - High performing leaders have acquired a level and depth of profound knowledge so as to effectively guide organizational rules, roles and relationships to high quality fruition.


EMCS, Inc. Indicators of Effective Organizations

In view of the correlation of systems and institutional science, the following

standards of institutional effectiveness are indicated or have evolved out of EMCS, Inc. participation over an extended period of time and of more than 150 organizational and management reviews of public schools. These districts being located throughout the south eastern United States. These studies were conducted directly by EMCS, Inc. or by participation by EMCS, Inc. staff on the study teams developed and guided by the Florida Association of District School Superintendents (FADSS). Other studies were directed by partnership of the two agencies.

Elements of Effective Organizations 1. Effective organizations have a comprehensive program for research and development.

2. Effective organizations have leaders who understand and apply core concepts of leadership.

3. Effective organizations have leaders who understand the varied duties in management and leadership and keep a balance in carrying out practices in management and leadership.

4. Effective organizations have established institutional quality standards.

5. Effective organizations have beliefs, a vision, mission, and purposes that are in synchrony.

6. Effective organizations have a common information base connected to institutional purpose.

7. Effective organizations have refined craft knowledge and leaders and employees use this knowledge to skillfully perform their roles.

8. Effective organizations have institutional designs around the central purpose of the organization.

9. Effective organizations have a well-defined organizational character, a well-developed organizational culture and a healthy organizational climate.

10. Effective organizations skillfully manage systemic and institutional change.

11. Effective organizations have institutional preparedness and are proactive for the future.

12. Effective organizations practice informed predictability based on a solid knowledge base and the practice of reflective thinking.


13. Effective organizations have fully functioning human resources management and development systems.

14. Effective organizations have well-defined, active systems of teaching and learning.

15. Effective organizations have evaluation systems signaling continuous progress.

16. Effective organizations have well defined and managed systems of proprietary interests.

17. Effective organizations have clearly defined institutional functions and practices.

18. Effective organizations have decision-making systems characterized by strategic thinking and planning.

19. Effective organizations have fiscal soundness, characterized by application of best practices in use of resources.

20. Effective organizations have organizational alignments that embrace leadership and management accountability.

21. Effective organizations have an environment for institutional politics controlled by the artful practice of interpersonal and intrapersonal interaction within the organizational context.

22. Effective organizations have systems where personnel are empowered, enabled, and assisted.

23. Effective organizations are places where there is purposeful abandonment of nonproductive practices.

24. Effective organizations are places where organizational growth and cultural change are promoted through risk-taking which results from reflective and intuitive thinking.

25. Effective organizations are places where organizational awareness and sensitivity are promoted through matching skills and talents to tasks leading to development of institutional purpose.

26. Effective organizations have leadership structures that see beyond the present and maintain a progressive edge.

27. Effective organizations conduct cost/benefit analyses before implementing new programs.

28. Effective organizations allow sufficient time for programs to reach maturity in accordance with program design before implementing change.

29. Effective organizations have institutional integrity.


30. Effective organizations have a pervasive atmosphere of high expectations.

31. Effective organizations make effective use of technology at all levels.

32. Effective organizations have comprehensive programs for institutional security.

33. Effective organizations have established effective programs for mentoring and institutional coaching.

34. Effective organizations practice vertical and horizontal teaming.

35. Effective organizations have visibility and accessibility.

36. Effective organizations implement labor contracts skillfully.

37. Effective organizations practice formalized institutional planning.

38. Effective organizations are places where systems functions are realized through defined and harmonic interactions of the workforce as rules and roles change through evolving institutional dynamics.

39. Effective organizations are places where there is power equalization through organized alignment commensurate with distributed institutional responsibility.

40. Effective organizations are places where leadership and institutional courage are evident with reference to the body politic.

41. Effective organizations are places where persons have the personal courage to plan and act consistent with the system’s culture and operations.

42. Effective organizations are learning organizations where every leader is a learner.

43. Effective organizations are places where the art and practice of reflection are evident and effective.

44. Effective organizations are places where leaders are high performing, healthy role models.

45. Effective organizations have complete data banks of institutional knowledge with specific role assignments for institutional memory responsibilities.

46. Effective organizations are places where persons walk-the-walk and behave with optimism, honesty and consideration for others.

47. Effective organizations are institutions that believe in themselves and have the competence and confidence to practice their functions fully and effectively.


District Culture and Climate

To understand why and how an organization behaves as it does, one must have a knowledge of its culture and the climate within it. Culture is the totality of the beliefs, values, behavior patterns, institutions, and products common throughout a community or organization developed over time through the social interaction of its members. Public education in America has a culture different from that of the automobile manufacturing industry. For example, a plant manager will behave differently than a school principal because the beliefs, values and products are different. While both roles may require similar management skills, they must be applied and directed toward different combinations of resources and end products. Climate is the combination of physical and social conditions within an organization which describe the perceptions people have of “what it is like to work here.” The climate strongly influences how people perform their tasks, interact with each other and their individual and collective commitment in working toward the goals of the organization. While each member contributes to the climate, it is the leaders of the organization who have the major influence and responsibility in developing a climate in which there is a collective commitment to achieving the goals of the organization and in which people believe “it is great to work here.” Public school districts are part of the same culture, but it is their individual climates which is one of the most distinguishing characteristics among them. Although human and fiscal resources play a role, the degree of commitment of people to achieving the organization’s goals is the major reason some districts are more successful than others. A healthy climate begets strong commitment which, in turn, begets success. For a number of years the Florida Association of District School Superintendents (FADSS) and Educational Management Consultant Services, Inc. (EMCS) has provided a service to school districts of conducting reviews of the organizational alignment and management practices. An important component of these reviews is the assessment of the climate of the district. This assessment is made by employees who complete a ninety-item instrument by which ten different climate dimensions are measured. The respondent rates each dimension on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being high. Each of these dimensions is described below. The responses are tabulated and are supplemented by personal interviews with the respondents. From the results, a description of the district’s climate is developed and used in making recommendations concerning various management practices, roles and relationships. To demonstrate variations in climate, we selected ten districts in which these climate assessments have been reported in the Organization and Management Reviews conducted by FADSS. These districts vary in size, community characteristics, geographic location, and fiscal resources. A number has been substituted for the district name to avoid comparison and conclusions being drawn without benefit of complete data and appropriate analysis.


The reader and other researchers should be aware that while the survey instrument has not been normed, it has been field validated and used successfully for more than thrity (30) years in ninety (90) or more school districts. A score of 6.0 or lower on the positive dimensions is viewed as undesirable in an organization that aspires to be high performing. This instrument is used as a measure of the organizational health of the agency being served, not as a comparison to the numerous other districts who have participated in a similar study process. The validation of the instrument results is treated in each study as an independent component. All survey participants are interviewed, one to one, as part of the on-site visit. Any variation to the survey results is analyzed as a team effort and, when necessary, adjustments are made. Accordingly, this instrument and process is viewed as a valid descriptor of a district’s organizational climate. The data is sorted as a district aggregate; administrative and nonadministrative; district level versus school based; by gender, and by experience categories 1–3 years, 4–10 years, over 10 years. For the purpose served in this study, we have chosen to use only the district aggregate for illustration. The reader should remain aware, however, that significant variations in perception occur between gender groups, district and school level groups and with emphasis— the experience categories. As you examine the data, district by district, allow your analysis to process the various potential combinations of survey dimensions which, when examined together, may or may not support the concepts of organizational values and culture, vision and purpose, collaboration, risk taking, empowerment, nonthreatening, developmental, climate, systems thinking, quality enhancement, management of change and the list continues. Following each table we have included several significant characteristics of the district and the current status of the performance appraisal system. We think that you will find the parallel remarkable. Following is a description of the climate dimensions, and a series of tables which summarize the results of the survey for each district.


Climate Dimensions + Commitment Shows how much employees may be concerned about and

committed to their jobs. + Esprit Shows how much support employees give each other toward the

achievement of the goals of the organization and the satisfaction of employee needs.

+ Consideration Indicates the level of support from management and the level of

encouragement given to employees to be supportive to each other. + Autonomy Shows the level of encouragement from management to employees

to be self-sufficient. + Thrust Indicates the degree of emphasis on efficiency and planning. - Production Emphasis Shows the degree of pressure related to work production and time

management. + Communication Indicates how explicitly rules and policies are communicated and

implemented. - Control Shows the influence of rules and regulations by management to

keep employees under control. + Innovation Indicates amount of change, variety and emphasis on new

approaches. + Environment Indicates the extent to which the work area is perceived as pleasant.

+ = Positive Climate Variable (High scores desired)

- = Negative Climate Variable (Low scores desired)

A high score in a negative climate variable may indicate an area for concern.

Conversely, a low score in a positive climate variable may indicate an area for concern.


District Characteristics Elected Superintendent Medium to small student membership Rural but emerging community Steady growth of new residents seeking

stronger and stable community with traditional values Setting is near major urban area Previous superintendent-retired after

several terms-considered strong and visionary

Performance Appraisal System Characteristics

Approved as meeting FCEM and DOE guidelines Contains some innovative practices Used as required Limited impact on organizational growth Job descriptions meet contemporary

standards

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Environment

Innovation

Control

Communication

Production Emphasis

Thrust

Autonomy

Consideration

Esprit

Commitment

District 1 Aggregate ChartN=16


District Characteristics Elected superintendent Small but traditionally stable student

population Remote community-residents make a

deliberate choice to live there and like it as it is Local economy unstable Several superintendents over last 20

years Historically strong School Board,

occasionally at odds with superintendent No strategic plan


Previously approved as meeting former FCEM and DOE guidelines Not yet updated to meet new guidelines No principal evaluations conducted in

four or more years Members of district staff not evaluated in

more than 20 years Job descriptions - non current No linkage between institutional and

individual goals

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Environment

Innovation

Control

Communication

Production Emphasis

Thrust

Autonomy

Consideration

Esprit

Commitment



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Environment

Innovation

Control

Communication

Production Emphasis

Thrust

Autonomy

Consideration

Esprit

Commitment


Districts Characteristics

Elected superintendent Medium to large student population Growing student population

(+1500/year) Dramatic community changes due to

growth Historically strong School Board

previously at strong odds with the superintendent and at times the mainstream community Serious financial issues with emphasis on

facilities Several superintendents over last 20

years. Political process alive and flourishing Strategic plan - formative steps


Developmental work well underway to meet new guidelines Current plans have full FCEM and DOE

approval Job description development above

average Process completed annually as required Span of control a major issue Survival more important than

development Climate is threatening and non

developmental Limited organizational context

connectivity


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Environment

Innovation

Control

Communication

Production Emphasis

Thrust

Autonomy

Consideration

Esprit

Commitment


Districts Characteristics

Appointed Superintendent Medium to large student population High student growth impact Tourism and supporting service

industries having major community impact Several superintendent changes over last

20 years Strong School Board characterized by two

recent management studies as micro managing the district High profile school district struggling

internally with numerous alignment issues Several downsizing efforts


Current revised systems have full FCEM and DOE approval Visionary staff development leadership

producing an overall enviable service program Employees feel threatened and

characterize trust at an all time low Job description development (prior to

study) - outdated High individual growth from staff

development efforts but no organizational context connectivity from Performance Appraisal System due to state of climate


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Environment

Innovation

Control

Communication

Production Emphasis

Thrust

Autonomy

Consideration

Esprit

Commitment


District Characteristics Elected superintendent Emerging suburban community Severe financial issues from over-staffing

and other practices No strategic plan Medium size student population with

significant growth combined with shifting of membership within the district Three superintendents over the last 20

years Strong School Board and Superintendent

with general mutual respect of the appropriate roles Moderate political climate


Current revised plans have full FCEM and DOE approval Job descriptions (prior to study) outdated Completed annually with some individual

growth indicated Limited organizational context

connectivity due to lack of strategic emphasis


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Environment

Innovation

Control

Communication

Production Emphasis

Thrust

Autonomy

Consideration

Esprit

Commitment


District Characteristics Elected Superintendent Medium size district in student

population Slow but steady population increase with

some inter district shifts in student membership High profile district with years of a state

wide following-high student performance and system expectations Two superintendents over last 20 years Change of superintendent and School

Board resulted in a dysfunctional relationship with profound impact on organizational context and numerous related issues No current strategic plan


At the time of the study the appraisal

systems had full FCEM and DOE approval Comprehensive system which met with

district wide acceptance Completed annually as required Employees could not articulate a direct

relationship between their individual developmental needs and those perceived necessary for the organization Job descriptions outdated


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Environment

Innovation

Control

Communication

Production Emphasis

Thrust

Autonomy

Consideration

Esprit

Commitment


District Characteristics Medium size district-soon to be larger

due to the massive growth in student membership Heavy tourism impact - dramatic

changes in community and infrastructure Elected Superintendent-recently

changed to appointed Several Superintendents over the past

20 years School Board over past 20 years

changed several times, at times at odds within itself and on occasion, volatile relationship with Superintendent Progressive forward thinking staff


Current revised plans have full FCEM and DOE approval Comprehensive plan utilized annually Training and development connected to

compensation for support personnel Job description development, current

and exemplary With more strategic connectivity can

become an outstanding system of appraisal Individual goals and long term system

needs relationship, evident but not complete


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Environment

Innovation

Control

Communication

Production Emphasis

Thrust

Autonomy

Consideration

Esprit

Commitment


District Characteristics Elected superintendent One superintendent past 20 years Strong supporting School Board Highly visible visionary leadership

available throughout the system Comprehensive planning system

incorporating a long term quality enhancement program, which is followed Medium to large district in student

membership Student population growth highly

significant for several years and projected to continue


Newly developed to be more compatible with quality enhancement services Goal oriented connecting individual

growth and district needs Visionary system which shows great

promise Current systems have full FCEM and DOE

approval District long term needs determination

evident but needing enhancement Supporting training components under

development


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Environment

Innovation

Control

Communication

Production Emphasis

Thrust

Autonomy

Consideration

Esprit

Commitment


District Characteristics Elected superintendent Medium to small district in student

membership Rural slow growth community which

citizens generally describe as living with traditional family values combined with the strong expression of interest for the district to remain that way Two superintendents over the past 20

years Strong supportive School Board No strategic plan Developing financial issues with emphasis

in facilities


Revised and comprehensive appraisal systems with full state approval Heavy emphasis in due-process issues of

Performance Appraisals Strong training and supporting

components Annually utilized and appropriately filed No long term district leadership needs

determination Job descriptions outdated Limited or no connectivity between

district organizational context and individual developmental needs and aspirations


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Environment

Innovation

Control

Communication

Production Emphasis

Thrust

Autonomy

Consideration

Esprit

Commitment


District Characteristics Elected superintendent Large and growing school district Many diverse community segments from

agriculture, heavy industry, tourism, to small and suburban Several superintendents over past 20

years Strong and generally supportive School

Board Recent changes in leadership combined

with reductions and downsizing have created uncertainty for employees and a threatening climate Strategic plan is in transition


Previous system considered as premier in the State with emphasis on the performance appraisal component Current systems have full FCEM and DOE

approval Job descriptions outdated Annually utilized and filed appropriately HRMD system not currently a district

focal point due to organizational changes and the leadership style of the outgoing administration Annually utilized and appropriately filed District leadership needs determination

not evident Limited connectivity between

organizational context and individual goals and aspirations

©EMCS 41 Dixie County School District

This instrument has been revised over time. The new Organizational Climate Surveys have been developed based on research (Miles, Halpen, Copeland, Hulse, Rogers) that identify factors or Domains found to contribute to a healthy organizational climate. Survey items are presented in a Likert-type format where the respondent strongly agrees, agrees, disagrees, strongly disagrees or has no opinion to a specific statement. Each Domain contains 6 to 10 statements that are associated with a specific concept area. Survey responses are assigned a numeric value, and aggregated for each Domain. The following Domain areas have been identified for these Organizational Climate instruments: Goal Focus – degree that goals of the organization are clearly defined and accepted; goals are established that are achievable with existing resources; the degree that goals are congruent with the demands of the environment.

Communication – the degree that communication within the system is distortion-free in all directions: vertically, horizontally and across boundaries; degree that the organization has information needed to function effectively.

Optimal Power Equalization – distribution of influence is relatively equitable across the organization. Inter-group struggles are kept to a minimum.

Morale – degree that individuals feel a sense of well being, satisfaction and accomplishment; support is given to individuals to achieve the goals of the organization.

Innovation/Adaptation – degree of change, variety and emphasis on new approaches; ability of the organization to invent new procedures to accomplish goals.

Autonomy – degree of independence to make effective decisions; degree of self-sufficient behavior in daily functions.

Managing Productive Systems – process and methodology of decision making; level of productivity and control; establishment of accountability systems.

Commitment – degree of concern and commitment to organization; sense of identity.

Safety/Environment – degree of satisfaction with working conditions; establishment of an orderly, safe and secure learning environment.

Achievement – degree of emphasis on student achievement.

For demonstration purposes only, we have chosen to include a fairly recent climate survey from a southeastern United States school district. Due to the nature of these climate results it is highly unlikely that a new system of any type will be implemented successfully until several climate domains are addressed and corrected. This is particularly true with regard to employee performance appraisal systems that are connected to performance pay. The numbers of survey participants have been altered to prevent the identification of this school system. It would not be appropriate to draw conclusions from this survey without the benefit of the entire organizational management study.


N = 140

(Scale range from 0 – 100; areas below 30 should receive focus)

DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR

SURVEY RESULTS

Domain Average Rating

Goal Focus 62.1 Average Communication 46.7 Average Optimal Power Equalization 30.6 Below Average Morale 26.7 Below Average Innovation/Adaptation 44.7 Average Autonomy 45.4 Average Managing Productive Systems 55.6 Average Commitment 63.4 Average Safety/Environment 67.8 Above Average

62.1

46.7

30.6

26.7

44.7

45.4

55.6

63.4

67.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Goal Focus

Communication

Optimal Power Equalization

Morale

Innovation/Adaptation

Autonomy

Managing Productive Systems

Commitment

Safety/Environment

District Administrators


N = 268


SCHOOL BASED ADMINISTRATORS

SURVEY RESULTS

Domain Average Rating Goal Focus 59.5 Average Communication 51.1 Average Optimal Power Equalization 38.6 Below Average Morale 28.4 Below Average Innovation/Adaptation 38.9 Below Average Autonomy 55.0 Average Managing Productive Systems 57.9 Average Commitment 53.7 Average Safety/Environment 63.9 Average Achievement 60.1 Average

59.5

51.1

38.6

28.4

38.9

55

57.9

53.7

63.9

60.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Goal Focus

Communication


Morale


Autonomy


Commitment

Safety/Environment

Achievement

School Based Administrators


N = 69


SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

SURVEY RESULTS

Domain Average Rating Goal Focus 59.5 Average Communication 52.0 Average Optimal Power Equalization 39.3 Below Average Morale 20.0 At-Risk Innovation/Adaptation 39.7 Below Average Autonomy 58.8 Average Managing Productive Systems 57.5 Average Commitment 56.4 Average Safety/Environment 72.5 Above Average Achievement 64.8 Average

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Goal Focus

Communication


Morale


Autonomy


Commitment

Safety/Environment

Achievement

Senior High School Administrators


N = 58


MIDDLE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS SURVEY RESULTS

Domain Average Rating Goal Focus 60.2 Average Communication 49.9 Average Optimal Power Equalization 41.4 Average Morale 33.5 Below Average Innovation/Adaptation 45.7 Average Autonomy 50.8 Average Managing Productive Systems 58.5 Average Commitment 52.0 Average Safety/Environment 60.7 Average Achievement 63.0 Average

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Goal Focus

Communication


Morale


Autonomy


Commitment

Safety/Environment

Achievement

Middle School Administrators


N = 103


ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS SURVEY RESULTS

Domain Average Rating Goal Focus 60.5 Average Communication 53.2 Average Optimal Power Equalization 43.7 Average Morale 34.8 Below Average Innovation/Adaptation 50.0 Average Autonomy 57.2 Average Managing Productive Systems 61.0 Average Commitment 56.4 Average Safety/Environment 64.7 Average Achievement 64.9 Average

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Goal Focus

Communication


Morale


Autonomy


Commitment

Safety/Environment

Achievement

Elementary School Administrators


Student Growth and Achievement Measures

All school based administrators will be included in the evaluation system using the student learning growth measure as 50% of their evaluation. See Component 4 – Dixie County Schools Student Performance Indicators (SPI) Evaluation System. These scores in percentages from school-wide results and when combined with a specific program area will be implemented and phased in pursuant to the new legislation titled the Student Success Act. Performance Pay Structure Grandfathered School Based Administrators Performance Pay - A district school board must base a portion of each employee's compensation upon performance demonstrated under s. 1012.34, F.S. Advanced Degrees - A district school board may not use advanced degrees in setting a salary schedule for personnel hired on or after July 1, 2011, unless the advanced degree is held in the individual's area of certification and is only a salary supplement. Performance Pay School Based Administrators The base salary for personnel who opt into the performance salary schedule shall be the salary paid in the prior year, including adjustments only. Beginning July 1, 2014, personnel new to the district, returning to the district after a break in service without an authorized leave of absence, or appointed for the first time to a position in the district in the capacity of school based administrator shall be placed on the performance salary schedule. The annual salary adjustment under the performance salary schedule for an employee rated as highly effective must be greater than the highest annual salary adjustment available to an employee of the same classification through any other salary schedule adopted by the district. The annual salary adjustment under the performance salary schedule for an employee rated as effective must be equal to at least 50 percent and no more than 75 percent of the annual adjustment provided for a highly effective employee of the same classification. The performance salary schedule shall not provide an annual salary adjustment for an employee who receives a rating other than highly effective or effective for the year.


Advanced Degrees - A district school board may not use advanced degrees in setting a salary schedule for school based personnel hired on or after July 1, 2011, unless the advanced degree is held in the individual's area of certification and is only a salary supplement.


Performance Assessment Procedures This section is intended to provide a brief description of the appraisal system and supporting procedures that involve a series of major steps.

1. Orientation/Training All appropriate personnel, including the School Board, shall be fully informed of the Performance Assessment System procedures. The orientation will be provided upon appointment of staff or whenever a change or modification is made to the system. Inservice training will be provided in the following areas of personnel performance appraisal: Knowledge and understanding of the district evaluation system.

The relationship between performance appraisal and the priorities of the school and district.

Legal requirements such as due process rights, policies, rules, laws, negotiated agreements, and case law.

Techniques to orient personnel about appraisal criteria and procedures, the district’s educational plan, and related objectives.

Observation skills necessary for identifying specific behaviors.

Use of appropriate data collection tools.

Data analysis skills.

Written documentation.

Conferencing, coaching and feedback skills.

Performance growth and development process, appraisal of progress, and follow-up.

Adult and career stages of development.


2. Planning Session This system has been designed as a developmental and growth process. A critical ingredient is that the system remains nonthreatening and employee participatory. Each employee will participate with his/her supervisor in a performance assessment planning session to plan the annual sequence of activities for performance appraisal for that position. Consistent with Florida Statues, the immediate supervisor at the district level or the school principal will conduct the employee’s evaluation. During the session, the objectives and essential functions focus for both personal and organizational development will be established or reviewed. Documents that will influence the discussion may include The District mission The School Improvement Plan Quality Enhancement Services

Plan Work site situational context School district and school site

goals

Employees’ career goals and long term development plan

Job descriptions which reflect the duties required of the position

Competencies as appropriate Procedures for effective evaluation Assessment forms

Two evaluations are required each year for instructional personnel in years one, two and three. Only one is required for school based administrators. The supervisor will schedule interim performance evaluation(s), two per year for the first three (3) years. The number of additional evaluation(s) may depend on several factors including The nature of job context focus areas; Previous performance experiences of the employees; The employee’s need and desire for constructive feedback through the mentoring

and coaching components.

3. Interim Reviews

The supervisor will conduct interim performance review(s). The schedule of progress in relation to performance expectations will be discussed. Positive achievements and goals accomplished will be recognized and documented. Specific deficiencies, if any, will be noted and a professional development assistance program established as necessary.


4. Rating Scale Definitions The district expects its employees to provide competent and professional work that should improve over time. The employee and supervisor should discuss the level of performance that is expected for each dimension in the planning session. In determining the expected performance levels, the requirements of the position and the employee experience are to be considered. Highly Effective Indicates performance that consistently meets an extremely high quality standard. This service exceeds the typical standard of normal level service and is held in high regard by supervision and colleagues. Specific comments and examples of high quality work must be included in the assessment Effective Indicates performance that consistently meets a high quality standard. This is professional level service that meets the district expectations and is consistent with the experience level of the employee. Needs Improvement Indicates performance that requires additional attention to ensure an acceptable level of proficiency. Further, this performance is not consistently characteristic of the requirements for the position and experience of the employee. If this category is used, there must be written support regarding how performance is to be improved. Unsatisfactory Indicates performance that does not meet the minimum requirements of the position and the level of performance commensurate with the experience of the employee. If this category is used, there must be written support regarding how performance is to be improved. The rating of Unsatisfactory indicates performance that is not acceptable for continued employment provided that level of service continues. An employee receiving this rating should be notified that future performance assessments will be conducted according to the Department of Education Professional Practices Services Section NEAT procedures. Continued performance at this level should result in notice of termination when the rights of due process and just cause are evident. School districts should remain particularly sensitive to the appeal rights of employees identified in 1012.34, F.S.


SCHOOL BASED ADMINISTRATOR OBSERVATION AND DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS RUBRIC

Domain 1: Institutional Growth and Development

Indicator Rubric Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Effective Highly Effective Indicates performance that does not meet the minimum requirements of the position and the level of performance commensurate with the experience of the employee. If this category is used, there must be written support regarding how performance is to be improved. The rating of Unsatisfactory indicates performance that is not acceptable for continued employment provided that level of service continues. An employee receiving this rating should be notified that future performance assessments may be conducted according to the Department of Education Professional Practices Services Section NEAT procedures. Continued performance at this level should result in notice of termination when the rights of due process and just cause are evident. School districts should remain particularly sensitive to the appeal rights of employees identified in 1012.34, F.S.

Indicates performance that requires additional attention to ensure an acceptable level of proficiency. Further, this performance is not consistently characteristic of the requirements for the position and experience of the employee. If this category is used, there must be written support regarding how performance is to be improved.

Indicates performance that consistently meets a high quality standard. This is professional level service that meets the district expectations and is consistent with the experience level of the employee. The employee has an understanding of the field of institutional science and applies these principles to the indicators below.

Indicates performance that consistently meets an extremely high quality standard. This service exceeds the typical standard of normal level service and is held in high regard by supervision and colleagues. The employee has a distinguished understanding of the field of institutional science and successfully applies these principles to the indicators below. Specific comments and examples of high quality work must be included in the assessment.


Domain 1: Institutional Growth and Development Domain Indicators

Policy Governance 1. The degree to which School Board rules are understood and applied in daily operations. 2. The degree to which State Board of Education rules are understood and applied in daily operations. 3. The degree to which Florida Statutes governing public education are understood and applied. 4. The degree to which the provisions of the labor contracts are understood and consistently applied. 5. The degree to which the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act is understood and consistently applied to covered employees. 6. The degree to which current Federal and State case law impacting public education is understood and applied in daily operations. 7. The degree to which the code of federal regulations governing grants and other federal fiscal resources are understood and consistently applied. 8. The degree to which provisions governing risk management and unemployment compensation are understood and consistently applied. 9. The degree to which the Florida educational accountability system is understood and consistently applied. 10. The degree to which internal administrative procedures and policies are understood and consistently applied. Leadership/Management 11. The degree to which expectations are prioritized and acted on following the premise of first things first. 12. The degree to which the leader plans and prepares relentlessly. 13. The degree to which the premise that everyone is accountable all of the time is communicated and applied. 14. The degree to which staffing decisions are considered strategic and based on talent pool needs such that the leader is always surrounded with great

people. 15. The degree to which the art and science of reflection is practiced prior to making a decision. 16. The degree to which challenging goals are set with the expectation that achievement will exceed the anticipated results. 17. The degree to which the leader knows precisely what they believe as well as why they believe it and can articulate the same into a precise,

consistent message. 18. The degree to which the leader walks the walk of the leadership message. 19. The degree to which loyalty “a vital virtue” is practiced toward the school, the school district, public education in general, and to each staff member. 20. The degree to which the traits of interpersonal sensitivity are consistently applied. 21. The degree to which the leader demonstrates the capacity of continuous learning based on contemporary literature. 22. The degree to which a common purpose is communicated and followed to the end that such becomes commonplace within the school.


Domain 1: Institutional Growth and Development Domain Rubric

Unsatisfactory X 0 = Needs Improvement X .91 = Effective X 1.82 = Highly Effective X 2.27 =

Domain Raw Score

Domain Raw Score Unsatisfactory

0 - 9 Needs Improvement

10 - 29 Effective

30 - 44 Highly Effective

45 - 50

Summative Scale Value


Domain 2: Applied Systems Science Indicator Rubric

Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Effective Highly Effective Indicates performance that does not meet the minimum requirements of the position and the level of performance commensurate with the experience of the employee. If this category is used, there must be written support regarding how performance is to be improved. The rating of Unsatisfactory indicates performance that is not acceptable for continued employment provided that level of service continues. An employee receiving this rating should be notified that future performance assessments may be conducted according to the Department of Education Professional Practices Services Section NEAT procedures. Continued performance at this level should result in notice of termination when the rights of due process and just cause are evident. School districts should remain particularly sensitive to the appeal rights of employees identified in 1012.34, F.S.


Indicates performance that consistently meets a high quality standard. This is professional level service that meets the district expectations and is consistent with the experience level of the employee. The employee has an understanding of the field of applied systems science and applies these principles to the indicators below.

Indicates performance that consistently meets an extremely high quality standard. This service exceeds the typical standard of normal level service and is held in high regard by supervision and colleagues. The employee has a distinguished understanding of the field of applied systems science and successfully applies these principles to the indicators below. Specific comments and examples of high quality work must be included in the assessment.


Domain 2: Applied Systems Science Domain Indicators

23. The degree to which operational systems are understood and consistently applied. 24. The degree to which the payroll system is understood and consistently applied. 25. The degree to which the staffing system is understood and consistently applied. 26. The degree to which the student assessment and evaluation system is understood and consistently applied. 27. The degree to which the budget and district fiscal services system is understood and consistently applied. 28. The degree to which internal accounts and the financial management system is understood and consistently applied. 29. The degree to which the student grade reporting and promotion system is understood and consistently applied. 30. The degree to which public awareness and communication system is planned and promoted. 31. The degree to which an internal awareness and communication system is planned and implemented. 32. The degree to which student growth and achievement diagnostic and data system retrieval is applied to placement and curriculum

development. 33. The degree to which student achievement is celebrated and other recognition systems for attendance, citizenship, athletics, music, art and

others are in place. 34. The degree to which data and data analysis is used to influence student placement, program development and deliberate instruction. 35. The degree to which leaves of absences are managed to be consistent with school board policy. 36. The degree to which the selection and deployment of substitutes supports the effectiveness of the overall staffing system. 37. The degree to which the rules, roles and relationships, which comprise a system, are reviewed, modified or adjusted for effectiveness.

Domain 2: Applied Systems Science Domain Rubric

Unsatisfactory X 0 = Needs Improvement X 1.33 = Effective X 2.67 = Highly Effective X 3.33 =

Domain Raw Score



10 - 29 Effective


45 - 50



Domain 3: Institutional Climate Indicator Rubric



Indicates performance that consistently meets a high quality standard. This is professional level service that meets the district expectations and is consistent with the experience level of the employee. The employee has an understanding of the field of institutional climate and applies these principles to the indicators below.

Indicates performance that consistently meets an extremely high quality standard. This service exceeds the typical standard of normal level service and is held in high regard by supervision and colleagues. The employee has a distinguished understanding of the field of institutional climate and successfully applies these principles to the indicators below. Specific comments and examples of high quality work must be included in the assessment.


Domain 3: Institutional Climate Domain Indicators

38. The degree to which goal focus, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached. 39. The degree to which communication, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached. 40. The degree to which optimal power equalization, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached. 41. The degree to which morale, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and nurtured. 42. The degree to which innovation and adaption, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached. 43. The degree to which autonomy, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached. 44. The degree to which managing productive systems, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached. 45. The degree to which commitment, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached. 46. The degree to which a safe and healthy environment, as a contributor to institutional climate, is planned, monitored, understood and coached. 47. The degree to which student growth and achievement is a primary focus in establishing institutional climate.

Domain 3: Institutional Climate Domain Rubric


Domain Raw Score



7 - 20 Effective


32 – 35



Domain 4: Instructional Leadership Indicator Rubric



Indicates performance that consistently meets a high quality standard. This is professional level service that meets the district expectations and is consistent with the experience level of the employee. The employee has an understanding of the field of instructional leadership and applies these principles to the indicators below.

Indicates performance that consistently meets an extremely high quality standard. This service exceeds the typical standard of normal level service and is held in high regard by supervision and colleagues. The employee has a distinguished understanding of the field of instructional leadership and successfully applies these principles to the indicators below. Specific comments and examples of high quality work must be included in the assessment.


Domain 4: Instructional Leadership Domain Indicators

48. Provide instructional leadership and supervision for student achievement. 49. Manage and administer the development, implementation and assessment of the instructional program at the assigned school. 50. Provide a comprehensive instructional program, including core academic programs, vocational/applied technology programs, performing fine

arts, health and physical education, advanced academic programs, exceptional student education programs and other programs to address the diverse needs of the school population.

51. Utilize current research, outside resources, performance data and feedback from students, teachers, parents and the community to make decisions related to the improvement of instruction and student performance.

52. Provide leadership in the school improvement process and the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. 53. Analyze and report the results of the School Improvement Team’s efforts on student performance. 54. Coordinate program planning with district instructional staff. 55. Oversee the acquisition and utilization of textbooks, other instructional materials and equipment. 56. Facilitate the testing program for the school. 57. Align school initiatives with district, state and school goals. 58. Establish and coordinate procedures for students, teachers, parents and the community to evaluate curriculum. 59. Direct or oversee the development of the master schedule and assign teachers according to identified needs. 60. Facilitate the horizontal and vertical articulation of curriculum within the school, as well as between the school and its feeder system. 61. Coordinate and monitor the implementation of Exceptional Student Education (ESE) programs and services. 62. Facilitate the development and implementation of the school technology plan. 63. Provide leadership in the effective use of technology in the classroom. 64. Explore and evaluate new technologies and their educational impact. 65. Assist classroom teachers with the effective use of technology. 66. Ensure the implementation of graduation requirements and conduct graduation activities and ceremonies in accordance with established

policies and procedures. 67. Manage and administer the development, implementation and assessment of the instructional performance appraisal system.


Domain 4: Instructional Leadership Domain Rubric


Domain Raw Score



12 - 35 Effective


54 - 60



Domain 5: Building and Site Management Indicator Rubric



Indicates performance that consistently meets a high quality standard. This is professional level service that meets the district expectations and is consistent with the experience level of the employee. The employee has an understanding of the field of building and site management and applies these principles to the indicators below.

Indicates performance that consistently meets an extremely high quality standard. This service exceeds the typical standard of normal level service and is held in high regard by supervision and colleagues. The employee has a distinguished understanding of the field of building and site management and successfully applies these principles to the indicators below. Specific comments and examples of high quality work must be included in the assessment.


Domain 5: Building and Site Management Domain Indicators

68. The degree to which building space is assigned to add effectiveness and efficiency to program services and student movement on campuses. 69. The degree to which the grounds are attractively maintained, pleasing to the public view and clean to the degree that it promotes a healthy

and safe environment. 70. The degree to which work orders are submitted and monitored in a timely manner. 71. The degree to which the campus is made safe for students and staff from intruders. 72. The degree to which a campus emergency plan is designed, trained and immediately available to the staff. 73. The degree to which the community is engaged in making the campus and facilities a source of community pride. 74. The degree to which public access and presence on campus is monitored and controlled. 75. The degree to which the community is aware of the procedures necessary to use a portion of the space so that the needs of the community

may be served.

Domain 5: Building and Site Management Domain Rubric


Domain Raw Score



3 - 8 Effective


14 - 15



Domain 6: Core Concepts of Management Indicator Rubric



Indicates performance that consistently meets a high quality standard. This is professional level service that meets the district expectations and is consistent with the experience level of the employee. The employee has an understanding of the field of core concepts of management and applies these principles to the indicators below.

Indicates performance that consistently meets an extremely high quality standard. This service exceeds the typical standard of normal level service and is held in high regard by supervision and colleagues. The employee has a distinguished understanding of the field of core concepts of management and successfully applies these principles to the indicators below. Specific comments and examples of high quality work must be included in the assessment.


Domain 6: Core Concepts of Management Domain Indicators

76. The degree to which planning is comprehensive, strategic, situational and understood as a core concept of management which requires a specific set of skills for implementation.

77. The degree to which all activities, initiatives and events are organized, proffered and implemented with the highest degree of efficiency and clearly understood as a core concept of management.

78. The degree to which staffing is understood as essential, strategic and interconnected to the talent pool necessary for effective systems implementation as a core concept of management.

79. The degree to which directing, as a core concept of management, is utilized for successful follow through on initiatives, activities and events. 80. The degree to which controlling is understood as a core concept of management and is correlated to the profound protocols of leadership.

Domain 6: Core Concepts of Management Domain Rubric


Domain Raw Score



7 - 20 Effective


32 - 35



Domain 7: Applied Protocols of Leadership Indicator Rubric



Indicates performance that consistently meets a high quality standard. This is professional level service that meets the district expectations and is consistent with the experience level of the employee. The employee has an understanding of the field of applied protocols of leadership and applies these principles to the indicators below.

Indicates performance that consistently meets an extremely high quality standard. This service exceeds the typical standard of normal level service and is held in high regard by supervision and colleagues. The employee has a distinguished understanding of the field of applied protocols of leadership and successfully applies these principles to the indicators below. Specific comments and examples of high quality work must be included in the assessment.


Domain 7: Applied Protocols of Leadership Domain Indicators

81. High performing leaders have a personal vision for their school and the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to develop, articulate and implement a shared vision that is supported by the larger organization and the school community.

82. High performing leaders promote a positive learning culture, provide an effective instructional program, and apply best practices to student learning, especially in the area of reading and other foundational skills.

83. High performing leaders manage the organization, operations, facilities and resources in ways that maximize the use of resources in an instructional organization and promote a safe, efficient, legal, and effective learning environment.

84. High performing leaders collaborate with families, business, and community members, respond to diverse community interests and needs, work effectively within the larger organization and mobilize community resources.

85. High performing leaders understand, respond to, and influence the personal, political, social, economic, legal, and cultural relationships in the classroom, the school and the local community.

86. High performing leaders plan and implement the integration of technological and electronic tools in teaching, learning, management, research, and communication responsibilities.

87. High performing leaders monitor the success of all students in the learning environment, align the curriculum, instruction, and assessment processes to promote effective student performance, and use a variety of benchmarks, learning expectations, and feedback measures to ensure accountability for all participants engaged in the educational process.

88. High performing leaders act with integrity, fairness, and honesty in an ethical manner. 89. High performing leaders understand the role of research and development in institutional operations, enhancement and renewal and skillfully

design this element to continuously replenish the data base on which decisions are made. 90. High performing leaders establish quality institutional standards and set high expectations for themselves, the workforce, and the

organization itself. 91. High performing leaders clearly delineate between practices of leadership and practices of management and perform the mutual roles in such

a way as to be effective and understood in the work environment. 92. High performing leaders have clearly defined the functions and services of the organization and skillfully perform the fundamental role of

directing the work of the employees. 93. High performing leaders engage various leadership styles, employing reflective, analytic, systemic, collaborative and action mindsets as needs

and circumstances dictate. 94. High performing leaders understand concepts of organizational development and guide their organizations to create the culture, define the

character, and assess the climate of their organization. 95. High performing leaders guide their institutions to promote organizational growth and to skillfully manage change. 96. High performing leaders develop and formalize a comprehensive planning and scheduling component which guides the institutional work

force.


Domain 7: Applied Protocols of Leadership Domain Indicators

97. High performing leaders practice systems leadership by developing highly productive organizations through the creative integration of all operating systems.

98. High performing leaders have acquired a level and depth of profound knowledge so as to effectively guide organizational rules, roles and relationships to high quality fruition.

99. High performing leaders continually conduct research and development for institutional growth purposes.

Domain 7: Applied Protocols of Leadership Domain Rubric


Domain Raw Score



7 - 20 Effective


32 - 35



Domain 8: Student Growth and Achievement Indicator Rubric



Indicates performance that consistently meets a high quality standard. This is professional level service that meets the district expectations and is consistent with the experience level of the employee. The employee has an understanding of the field of student growth and achievement and applies these principles to the indicators below.

Indicates performance that consistently meets an extremely high quality standard. This service exceeds the typical standard of normal level service and is held in high regard by supervision and colleagues. The employee has a distinguished understanding of the field of student growth and achievement and successfully applies these principles to the indicators below. Specific comments and examples of high quality work must be included in the assessment.


Domain 8: Student Growth and Achievement Domain Indicators

100. Ensure that student growth and achievement are continuous and appropriate schoolwide.

Domain 8: Student Growth and Achievement Domain Rubric


Domain Raw Score


0 Needs Improvement

120 Effective

240 Highly Effective

300



Domain 9: Staff Development Indicator Rubric



Indicates performance that consistently meets a high quality standard. This is professional level service that meets the district expectations and is consistent with the experience level of the employee. The employee has an understanding of the field of staff development and applies these principles to the indicators below.

Indicates performance that consistently meets an extremely high quality standard. This service exceeds the typical standard of normal level service and is held in high regard by supervision and colleagues. The employee has a distinguished understanding of the field of staff development and successfully applies these principles to the indicators below. Specific comments and examples of high quality work must be included in the assessment.


Domain 9: Staff Development Domain Indicators

101. Engage in continuing improvement of professional knowledge and skills. 102. Assist others in acquiring new knowledge and understanding. 103. Keep abreast of developments in instructional methodology, learning theory, curriculum trends, and content. 104. Conduct a personal assessment periodically to determine professional development needs with reference to specific instructional assignment. 105. Participate in school data collection of teacher input on principal’s performance assessment program. 106. Supervise the establishment and maintenance of individual professional development plans for each instructional employee. 107. Supervise assigned personnel and make recommendations for appropriate employment action. 108. Manage and administer personnel development through training, inservice and other developmental activities. 109. Provide training opportunities and feedback to personnel at the assigned school. 110. Perform all required professional development services.

Domain 9: Staff Development Domain Rubric


Domain Raw Score



4 - 11 Effective


18 - 20



5. Scoring Guide for the Copeland Model An evaluation system that is aligned with the purpose of Section 1012.34, F.S. and applicable State Board rules (e.g., 6A-5.065, 6A-5.080) has two functions:

• Providing quality feedback during a work year that focuses improvement effort on essential proficiencies.

• Generating an annual summative performance level based on the proficiency exhibited during the work year.

For Florida School Leaders being evaluated using the Copeland Model for principal evaluation, the summative annual performance level is based on two factors:

• Leadership Practice Score: An assessment of the leader’s proficiency on the Florida Principal Leadership Standards (FPLS) represents 50% (300 points) of the annual performance level. These assessments are categorized in Metric Measurement 1 and 3.

• Student Growth Measures Score: The performance of students under the leader’s supervision represents 50% (300 points) of the annual performance level. The specific growth measures used and “cut points” applied must conform to Florida Statutes and State Board rules. For measuring student learning growth for the school year 2014-2015 please See Component 4 – Dixie County Schools Student Performance Indicators (SPI) Evaluation System.

Summary of Scoring Processes

1. Score Performance Responsibilities in Domains 1-7 and 8 (Leadership Practice) 2. Score Domains 3. Calculate Student Growth Measure Score 4. Combine Leadership Practice score and Student Growth Measures score and assign

Overall Rating About the Copeland Model Scoring Process The Copeland Model has these features:

• The performance labels used in Section 1012.34, F.S. for summative performance levels are also used in the Copeland Model to summarize feedback on domains, proficiency areas, and performance responsibilities:

o Highly Effective (HE) o Effective (E) o Needs Improvement (NI) o Unsatisfactory (U)


• Leadership Practice Weighting: The Copeland Model Leadership Practice score is based on ratings for each of the eight domains. Each domain is weighted according to beliefs from research, consistent with the essential performance responsibilities of the domain service category regarding position success. Therefore, each domain is assigned a weight and a total point value believed to be consistent with the essence of the domain using a 300 point scale. The range of value is broken into four categories: Unsatisfactory, Needs Improvement, Effective, and Highly Effective. The total value with a Highly Effective rating in each indicator equals 300 points. The weights are:

U NE E HE Domain 1: 16% 0 20 40 50 Domain 2: 16% 0 20 40 50 Domain 3: 12% 0 14 28 35 Domain 4: 20% 0 24 48 60 Domain 5: 5% 0 6 12 15 Domain 6: 12% 0 14 28 35 Domain 7: 12% 0 14 28 35 Domain 9: 7% 0 8 16 20

Rating Labels: What do they mean? The principal should complete a self-assessment by scoring each of the performance responsibilities. The evaluator also will score each of the performance responsibilities. In an end-of the year conference, their respective ratings are shared and discussed. The evaluator then determines a final rating for each performance responsibilities and, using the procedures in this scoring guide, calculates the Leadership Practice score. Indicator ratings: When assigning ratings to performance responsibilities in the Copeland Model, the evaluator should begin by reviewing the indicator rubrics. These are “word-picture” descriptions of leadership behaviors in each of the four levels of leadership behavior—“Highly Effective”, “Effective”, “Needs Improvement”, and “Unsatisfactory.” The evaluator finds the level that best describes performance related to the indicator. The rating rubrics provide criteria that distinguish among the proficiency levels of the performance responsibility. The illustrative examples of Leadership Evidence and Impact Evidence for each performance responsibility provide direction on the range of evidence to consider. The rating for each performance responsibility is the lowest rating for which the “word-picture” descriptors are appropriate and representative descriptions of what was observed about the leader’s performance.


The Copeland Model rubrics are designed to give principals a formative as well as a summative assessment of where they stand in all leadership performance areas and detailed guidance on how to improve. While they are not checklists for school visits by the principal’s supervisor, they do reflect the key behaviors about which supervisors and principals should be conversing frequently throughout the year. Moreover, these behavioral leadership descriptions will form the basis for principal and supervisor coaching and mentoring sessions. Distinguishing between proficiency ratings: The “Effective” level describes leadership performance that has local impact (i.e., within the school) and meets organizational needs. It is adequate, necessary, and clearly makes a significant contribution to the school. The majority of the leadership workforce will be in the effective area once they have a clear understanding of what the FPLS require and have made the adjustments and growth necessary to upgrade performance. The previous rating system of “satisfactory “ and “unsatisfactory” does not provide any guidance as to where those who repeat past performance levels will fall in the shift to research and standards-based assessments. Both school leaders and evaluators should reflect on performance based on the new FPLS and the rubrics of the Copeland Model. The “Highly Effective” level is reserved for truly outstanding leadership as described by very demanding criteria. Performance at this level is dramatically superior to “Effective” in its impact on students, staff members, parents, and the school district. Highly effective leadership results from recurring engagement with “deliberate practice.” In brief, the “Highly Effective” leader helps every other element within the organization become as good as they are. In normal distributions, some leaders will be rated highly effective on some indicators, but very few leaders will be rated highly effective as a summative performance level. The ”Needs Improvement” level describes principals who understand what is required for success, are willing to work toward that goal, and, with coaching and support, can become proficient. Needs improvement rating will occur where expectations have been raised and standards made more focused and specific. Professional behavior and focused professional learning will guide school leaders toward increasingly effective performance. Performance at the “Unsatisfactory” level describe leaders who do not understand what is required for proficiency or who have demonstrated through their actions and/or inactions that they choose not to become proficient on the strategies, knowledge bases, and skills sets needed for student learning to improve and faculties to develop.


How to Score the Copeland Model Generating a score has four (4) steps: Step One: Rate each Performance Responsibility. Start with judgments on the performance responsibilities. Performance responsibilities in each Domain are rated as HE, E, NI, or U based on accumulated evidence. The Copeland Model supports this indicator proficiency rating process with rubrics

for distinguishing between the levels (HE, E, NI, or U) that are specific to the performance responsibility.

Ratings can be recorded on the long form or the short form.

Step Two: Score each Domain. Ratings on the performance responsibilities in a Domain are calculated to assign a summative scale value (HE, E, NI, or U) to each domain. Since the number of performance responsibilities in a Domain varies, the following formula is applied to calculate the multiplier for each proficiency rating.

Points for Proficiency Rating ÷ Total Number of Performance Responsibilities The following tables show the calculations for each domain.

Domain 1: Institutional Growth and Development - 22 Performance Responsibilities Unsatisfactory 0 ÷22 = 0 Needs Improvement 20÷22 = .91 Effective 40÷22 = 1.82 Highly Effective 50÷22 = 2.27

Domain 2: Applied Systems Science - 15 Performance Responsibilities

Unsatisfactory 0 ÷15 = 0 Needs Improvement 20÷15 = 1.33

Effective 40÷15 = 2.67 Highly Effective 50÷15 = 3.33

Domain 3: Institutional Climate - 10 Performance Responsibilities

Unsatisfactory 0 ÷10 = 0 Needs Improvement 14÷10 = 1.40

Effective 28÷10 = 2.80 Highly Effective 35÷10 = 3.50


Domain 4: Instructional Leadership - 20 Performance Responsibilities Unsatisfactory 0 ÷20 = 0

Needs Improvement 24÷20 = 1.20 Effective 48÷20 = 2.40

Highly Effective 60÷20 = 3.00

Domain 5: Building and Site Maintenance - 8 Performance Responsibilities Unsatisfactory 0 ÷8 = 0

Needs Improvement 6÷8 = .75 Effective 12÷8 = 1.50


Domain 6: Core Concepts of Management - 5 Performance Responsibilities Unsatisfactory 0 ÷5 = 0

Needs Improvement 14÷5 = 2.80 Effective 28÷5 = 5.60


Domain 7: Applied Protocols of Leadership - 19 Performance Responsibilities Unsatisfactory 0 ÷19 = 0



Domain 9: Staff Development - 10 Performance Responsibilities Unsatisfactory 0 ÷10 = 0


Highly Effective 20÷10 = 2.00 The evaluator will then add up the total number of performance responsibilities for each proficiency rating and transfer this number to the scoring box for that domain. The total number of each proficiency rating is then calculated by the multiplier. These results are then added to achieve the Domain Raw Score. The Domain Raw Score becomes the Summative Scale Value and the overall proficiency rating (U, NI, E, HE) based on the scale for that domain. Step Three: Score Student Growth and Achievement See Component 4 – Dixie County Schools Student Performance Indicators (SPI) Evaluation System.


Step Four: Score Overall Rating The evaluator will add all scores from Domains 1-9. An overall rating is then assigned using the following scale.

Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Effective Highly Effective 0-119 120 - 359 360 - 539 540 – 600

6. Other Documentation Sources

The supervisor and employee will collect data regarding each domain and indicator. This data collection will reflect current status and the progress made by the employee toward goal and/or context category accomplishment. The data will be collected by paying particular attention to the source codes identified on the assessment instrument.

A. Behavioral Event Interview - A validated process of data collection using the

Targeted Selection Interview Process.

B. Direct Documentation - Written material that follows a direct line of communication between the employee and the supervisor. This section also contains information which should flow from a comprehensive 360° feedback type system which may include

1. Self Evaluation

2. School Improvement Plan - From the annual analysis of the evaluation instrument, including the distribution of rankings, this data will be used to influence individual school and the district school improvement planning process.

3. Student Assessment Data

• Classroom based assessment • Performance tests such as Florida Standards Assessments, End of Course

Exams and other standardized achievement tests • High School Competency Test • Formal and informal program reviews

4. Southern Association Accreditation Reports

5. School Climate Survey Instruments from teachers, parents and students.


6. Collect parent input by including the following statement on the Annual School Climate Survey: “If an educator, including the administrators, at this school has had a significant impact on your child’s education during this school year, please explain in the space provided or contact the appropriate school district administrator.”

7. All duties required of the position (job descriptions)

8. School Performance Grade

These items are not all-inclusive, the emphasis is on multiple data sources.

C. Indirect Documentation - Other written materials to which the supervisor has access which typically follow a communication line between the employee and the school-district level function.

D. Training Programs Competency Acquisition - Verified acquisition of specific competencies obtained through designated training programs within the school district through the master inservice plan.

E. Evaluatee Provided - Data provided by the employee receiving the appraisal that supports the concept that this appraisal procedure is participatory. Examples may include communications between the employee and supervisor that document parent interaction, evidence of student growth, and/or discussions of system-wide problems that inhibit school effectiveness.

F. Confirmed Observation - Direct observation by the supervisor of an employee-

exhibiting behavior relating to a job context service category or performance expectations that may be confirmed.

Confidentiality of all data collected in the performance appraisal process will be maintained to the extent allowed under Florida law. All people responsible for data collection, storage and retrieval will be trained in the legal requirements of personnel record keeping.

7. Professional Development Assistance Plan At any time in the performance assessment cycle that performance is considered to need improvement, a professional development assistance plan, complete with assistance and time frame for correction, will be established. If at the time of the summative evaluation conference these deficiencies have not been corrected, a specific objective must be included in the next planning cycle to provide for this correction.


8. Career Development Career development is considered a critical component of this appraisal system. It is an on-going component that does not include any prescribed forms, but rather may be characterized as a continuing discussion between the supervisor and the employee. This discussion is to consider the long-term goals and developmental needs. For additional reference, see Item 11, Professional Learning.

9. Coaching and Assistance The supervisor is to provide the employee with coaching and assistance throughout each yearly cycle in meeting any performance expectations where difficulty is encountered. The supervisor also may suggest other forms of assistance such as advice from a colleague, inservice training, or observing an experienced school based administrator. For employees whose performance is rated Highly Effective or Effective, the supervisor is encouraged to assist them in building on their strengths and further developing their skills. These effective employees should be encouraged to share their experiences or mentor beginners. When performance is rated as Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory during the interim performance review or the final annual review, the coaching and assistance plan is documented on the Professional Development Assistance Form.

10. Performance Assessment Tasks and Timelines The performance appraisal system is cyclical in nature, a process not an event. Based on a timeline that requires summative evaluation instruments to be submitted to the Human Resources Office on or about June 1st of each consecutive fiscal year, the following events should occur:

1. Each employee will participate with his/her supervisor, in an initial performance assessment session to discuss and define performance expectations for the specific position. It is anticipated that this planning session will occur following the discussion of the previous year’s evaluation cycle and prior to the forthcoming year.

2. The supervisor and employee will schedule interim performance evaluation(s). The specific number of reviews may depend on several factors including the nature of the performance objectives, the previous performance experiences of the employee and the individual needs. These interim reviews will be based on formal and informal observations. A minimum of one is required for veteran employees. It is also expected that numerous informal interactions and observations will occur throughout the school year. Informal observations are defined as those interactions


which occur during walkthroughs, committee meetings, staff meetings, three-way parent conferences and others.

3. During the formal and informal interim reviews, the supervisor will collect data regarding each performance area. A deliberate focal point of this discussion will include student growth and achievement. Data from a variety of sources, including parents, should be used.

4. The formal interim review should be conducted midpoint of the yearly cycle consistent with the employee work year.

5. At any time in the performance assessment cycle that performance is considered to need improvement, a professional development assistance plan, complete with assistance and time frame for correction will be established. If at the time of the summative evaluation conference these deficiencies have not been corrected, a specific objective must be included in the next planning to provide for this correction.

6. The supervisor will provide coaching and assistance, as needed, throughout the yearly cycle. The supervisor will demonstrate support for the appraisee in feedback conferences by asking for suggestions on how to improve his/her own performance; probing for alternative solutions and/or opportunities; demonstrating empathy for the appraisee’s feelings; and maintaining the appraisee’s self esteem.

7. The normal due date for summative evaluations is June 1st of each fiscal year. This date may be continued with approval of the Human Resources Department for individuals who started late in the school year or in situations where the completion of a professional development assistance plan would impact the ratings. Summative assessments may be amended based on data from state test scores.

8. The supervisor will conduct the annual summative performance review conference in which the employee receives the final ratings on each domain and indicator. The written summative performance appraisal report must be submitted to the superintendent or designee by the supervisor. Such assessments may be amended up to ninety (90) days contingent upon receiving student growth and achievement data from state testing results.

9. The initial planning meeting is scheduled to repeat the cycle.



Performance Appraisal Tasks

Comprehensive or Annual Summative Review Completing the assessment - a review of the data Performance Development - the year in review Notable strengths and significant contributions - celebrating success Leadership growth - direct organizational impact discussion Work site and job context focus areas - no surprises! Planning Session Planning growth opportunities Negotiation of goals Scheduling reviews Identifying focus areas Direct coaching Planning employee participation and contribution to appraisal system Identifying connectivity to School Improvement Plan Establishing comprehensive feedback circle Clarify standards of measurement On-going Performance Development Activities Collecting data Building capacity by participating in growth opportunities with a direct focus on work

site and specific essential job functions Coaching and career development from planned interaction Learning from experience through reflection and planned interaction with leadership

team Professional learning with correlation from “PD360” or other similar systems Interim - Formative Reviews Review progress on goals; renegotiate developmental strategies and outcomes as

necessary Review data collection - informal portfolio, share and receive preliminary feedback Clarify standards of measurements Discuss noteworthy achievements Provide coaching and encouragement in focus areas Critical Incident Interactions Ongoing interactions to capture learning from experience. The discussions should be guided by an analysis of the event, identifying specifically

what occurred as well as the anticipated outcomes. Review actions and reactions. Specifically focus on the new learnings through reflection.


11. Professional Learning This component is to be used by school principals and supervisors working with the appropriate staff members. This requirement passed by the 1999 Legislature requires school boards to establish and maintain an individual professional development plan for each instructional employee and school based administrator. The professional development plans must be linked to student performance and have clearly defined training activities that result in better student performance. Please refer to the Professional Development Program form.

Each school district shall design a system, approved by the Department of

Education, for the professional growth of personnel that links and aligns inservice activities with needs of student and instructional personnel as determined by school improvement plans, annual school reports, student achievement data, and performance appraisal data of teachers and administrators.

Inservice activities shall primarily focus on subject content and teaching methods, including technology, as related to the Sunshine State Standards; assessment and data analysis; classroom management; and school safety.

The supervisor and the employee, being knowledgeable of district and school improvement plans and the students’ performance data, should conduct a comprehensive inventory of personal skills, talents, strengths and interests with reference to the district/school’s ever changing job responsibilities and organizational demands from the environment, technology, current research, sound educational principals and best practices.

From this inventory, the supervisor and the employee will develop an individual professional development plan that is linked to student performance and contains clearly defined training activities that result in better performance for the students assigned to the school.

Plans must include clearly defined training objectives and specific and measurable improvement in student performance that is expected to result from the training activity.

Supervisors must measure the extent to which each training activity did accomplish the student performance gains that were predicted to result from the training activity.

Conversations between the supervisor and the employee regarding this plan should be continuous. Likewise, the plan should be flexible, fluid and adjustable based on the changing needs of the school and the employee.


12. Performance Appraisal Summary A one page summary form was designed to record the ratings included on the comprehensive assessment instrument. This allows the filing of one page with the Human Resources Office as opposed to filing multiple pages on each assessment.

13. Other Summary Considerations This appraisal system has been developed giving consideration to the philosophical concept that the system is nonthreatening and developmental. This implies a continuing dialogue between the supervisor and the employee. Accordingly, it ensures a system of no surprises. The summative evaluation in this context, therefore, becomes a document that summarizes a yearlong sequence of planned activity. The focus of this planned activity is developing more effective instructional personnel and school based administrators and increasing student growth and achievement.

This assessment system, being data driven, is specifically designed to identify consistent high level performance. This quality performance will be continually rewarded and held in high esteem.

14. Annual Review of Evaluation System The consultant will work with each Dixie County to conduct an annual review of the assessment system by direct examination of each summative evaluation by domain indictor. Any issues that are systems issues, training issues or implementation issues will be revised and forwarded to the Department of Education for approval. This process will continue through the 2014-15 school year and all amended evaluation systems will comply with Florida Statutes.


BIBLIOGRAPHY OGRAPHY Anderson, R. H., and K. J. Snyder, eds., Clinical Supervision: Coaching for Higher Performance,

Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., 1993.

Aquayo, R., Dr. Deming: The American Who Taught the Japanese About Quality, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990.

Barker, J. A., Future Edge, New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1992.

Betts, F., “How Systems Thinking Applies to Education”, Educational Leadership, 50(3), 1992, pp.398-41.

Bernardin, H. J. and R. W. Beatty, Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work, Boston MA: Kent Publishing Company, 1984.

Biehl, Bobb, Stop Setting Goals, Nashville TN: Mooring, 1995.

Boyatzis, R. E. and. D. A. Kolb, Performance, Learning and Development as Modes of Growth and Adaptation, Cleveland, OH: Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, 1993.

Boyatzis, R. E., The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982.

Bradford, D. L. and A. R. Cohen, Managing for Excellence, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1984.

Bridges, E. M., “Evaluation for Tenure and Dismissal”, The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondary School Teachers, Eds. J. Millman and L. Darling-Hammond, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.

Clemmer, Jim, Pathways to Performance, Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1995.

Conley, D. T., “Critical Attributes of Effective Evaluation Systems”, Educational Leadership, 1987.

Covey, Stephen R., The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, New York, NY: Fireside, 1989.

Covey, Stephen R., A. Roger Merrill, and Rebecca R. Merrill, First Things First, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994.

Croghan, J. H., D. G. Lake, and H. M. Schroder, Identification of the Competencies of High-Performing Principals in Florida, Tallahassee: Florida Department of Education, Florida Council on Educational Management, 1983.


Darling-Hammond, L., “Reframing the School Reform Agenda: Developing Capacity for School Transformation”, Phi Delta Kappan, June 1993, pp. 753-761.

Deming, W. E., Out of Crisis, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982.

Drucker, P. F., Managing for the Future, New York, NY: Truman Talley Books/Dutton, 1992.

Drucker, P. F., The New Realities, New York, NY: Harper & Row Publisher, 1989.

Duke, D. L., “Developing Teacher Evaluation Systems that Promote Professional Growth”, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1990.

Findley, D. and B. Finley, “Effective Schools: The Role of the Principal”, Contemporary Education, 1992, pp. 63(2), 102-104.

Fischer, Kimball, Leading Self-Directed Work Teams, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

Florida Commission on Education Reform and Accountability, Blueprint 2000: A System of School Improvement and Accountability, Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, 1992.

Frankl, Victor, Man’s Search for Meaning, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1992.

Fullen, M. G., “Visions that Build”, Educational Leadership, 49(5), 1992, pp. 19-22.

Glatthorn, A., Differentiated Supervision, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1984.

Goodlad, J. I., A Place Called School, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984.

Hargrove, Robert, Masterful Coaching, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 1995.

Herman, Jerry J. and Janice L Herman, Education Quality Management, Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc., 1994.

Holt, M., “The Educational Consequences of W. Edwards Deming”, Phi Delta Kappan, 74(5). 1993, pp. 382-388.

Hunter, M., Enhancement of Teaching through Coaching, Supervision and Evaluation, 1993.

Iwanicki, E. F., Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 9(2), 1995.

Iwanicki, E. F., “Teacher Evaluation for School Improvement”, The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondary School Teachers, Eds. J. Millman and L. Darling-Hammond, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.


Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (D. L. Stufflebeam, Chair), The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Systems for Evaluating Educators, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1988.

Katzenbach, J. R. and D. K. Smith, The Wisdom of Teams, New York, NY: Harper Business, 1993.

Kouzes, J. M. and B. Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988.

Madden, T. G., Applying the Florida Principal Competencies: A Handbook for Career Development, Melbourne, FL: East Central Management Training Institute, 1986.

Madden, T. G., Job Analysis of the High Performing Principal, Nonpublished paper presented to the Florida Council on Educational Management, 1994.

Madden, T.G. and W. H. Drummond, The Florida Principal Competencies Re-Visited: Indicators and Definitions, Paper presented at a meeting of the Florida Council on Educational Management, Tampa, FL, 1986.

McFarland, L. Y., L. E. Senn, and J. R. Childress, 21st Century Leadership, New York, NY: The Leadership Press, 1993.

Murphy, J. A. and S. Pimentel, “Grading Principals”, Phi Delta Kappan, September, 1996.

National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.

Oshry, Barry, Seeing Systems, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995.

Parker, M. L., Leadership for a New Era in Florida Schools, Prepared for the Florida Council on Educational Management, Unpublished, 1993.

Patterson, J. L., Leadership for Tomorrow’s Schools, Arlington, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1993.

Peters, T. J. and R. H. Waterman, Jr., In Search of Excellence, New York: Harper & Row, 1982.

Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation, Educational Evaluation and Decision Making, Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock, 1971.

Scannell, W., The Leadership of Effective Principals, Insights on Educational Policy and Practice, number 5. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab, 1988. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 330 049).

Schlechty, Phillip C., Schools for the Twenty-First Century, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990.


Schroder, H. M., Managerial Competence: The Key to Excellence, Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Co., 1989.

Scriven, M. S., “Duties-based Teacher Evaluation”, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1988.

Scriven, M. S., “Evaluating Teachers as Professionals: The Duties-based Approach”, Teacher Evaluation: Six Prescriptions for Success, Eds. S. J. Stanley and W. J. Popham. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1988.

Scriven, M. S., J. H. Stronge, D. L. Stufflebeam, and W. Webster, Toward a Unified Model: The Foundations of Educational Personnel Evaluation, Ed. Andrew McConney, Western Michigan University, Michigan: Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE), 1994.

Senge, P. M., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York: Doubleday, 1990.

Senge, P. M. and C. Lannon-Kim, “Recapturing the Spirit of Learning through a Systems Approach”, The School Administrator, 48(9). 1991, pp. 8-13.

Sergiovanni, T. J., “Adding Value to Leadership Gets Extraordinary Results”, Educational Leadership, 47(8), 1990, pp. 23-27.

Sergiovanni, T. J., Value-Added Leadership: How to Get Extraordinary Performance in Schools, San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990.

Sikes, Walter, and Allan Drexler, Emerging Practice of Organization Development, Ed. Jack Gant, Alexandria, VA: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1989.

Stiggins, R. J. and D. L. Duke, The Case for Commitment to Teacher Growth: Research on Teacher Evaluation, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1988.

Stronge, J. H., “The Dynamics of Effective Performance Evaluation Systems in Education: Conceptual, Human Relations, and Technical Domains”, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1991.

Stronge, J. H., and V. M. Helm, “Evaluating Education Support Personnel: A Conceptual and Legal Framework”, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1990.

Stronge, J. H., and V. M. Helm, “A Performance Evaluation System for Professional Support Personnel”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1992.

Stufflebeam, D. L., The Personnel Evaluation Standards, Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc., 1988.


Stufflebeam, D. L., Superintendent Performance Evaluation: The State of the Art, Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center, Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation, Western Michigan University, 1996.

The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, U.S. Department of Labor, Learning a Living: A Blueprint for High Performance, A SCANS report for America 2000, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1992.

Wagner, Tony, “Systemic Change: Rethinking the Purpose of School”, Educational Leadership, 15(1), September 1993, pp. 24-28.

Walton, Mary, The Deming Management Method, New York, NY: The Putnam Publishing Group, 1986.

Wheatley, M. J., Leadership and the New Science, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1992.


AMENDED RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY OGRAPHY A Research Guide on National Board Certification of Teachers, Arlington, VA: National Board

for Professional Teaching Standards, 2007.

Archibald, Sarah, “How Well Do Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation Scores Identify High-Quality Teachers? A Multilevel, Longitudinal Analysis of One District.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2007.

Borman, Geoffrey D. and Steven M. Kimball, “Teacher Quality and Educational Equality: Do Teachers With Higher Standards-Based Evaluation Ratings Close Student Achievement Gaps?” The Elementary School Journal 106, no. 1, 2005, pp. 3–20.

Clotfelter, Charles T., Helen F. Ladd and Jacob L. Vigdor, “How and Why Do Teacher Credentials Matter for Student Achievement?” Working Paper 2, Washington DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, 2007.

Creating a Successful Performance Compensation System for Educators, Washington DC: National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, July 2007.

Danielson, Charlotte, Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2007.

Figlio, David N. and Lawrence W. Kenny, “Individual Teacher Incentives and Student Performance,” Journal of Public Economics 91, no. 5–6 June 2007, pp. 901–914.

Goldhaber, Dan and Emily Anthony, Can Teacher Quality Be Effectively Assessed?, Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2004.

Goldhaber, Dan, Michael DeArmond, Scott DeBurgomaster, Teacher Attitudes About Compensation Reform: Implications for Reform Implementation, Seattle: Center for Reinventing Public Education, 2007.

Goldhaber, Dan, Michael DeArmond, Albert Liu and Dan Player, Returns to Skill and Teacher Wage Premiums: What Can We Learn by Comparing the Teacher and Private Sector Labor Markets?, Seattle: Center for Reinventing Public Education, 2007.

Gonring, Phil, Paul Teske, and Brad Jupp, Pay-for-Performance Teacher Compensation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2007.

Gordon, Robert, Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Staiger, “Identifying Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job,” A Hamilton Project Discussion Paper, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, April, 2006.


Halverson, Richard, Carolyn Kelly and Steven M. Kimball, “Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems: How Principals Make Sense of Complex Artifacts to Shape Local Instructional Practice,” in Research and Theory in Educational Administration Volume 3, eds. W. Hay and C. Miskel, Greenwich, CT: George F. Johnson, 2003, pp. 153–188.

Harris, Douglas N. and Tim R. Sass, “The Effects of NBPTS Certified Teachers on Student Achievement,” Working Paper 4, Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, 2007.

Heneman, H.G. III, Anthony Milanowski, Steven M. Kimball, and Allan Odden, Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation as a Foundation for Knowledge- and Skill-Based Pay. CPRE Policy Brief RB-45, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, May 2006.

Hershberg, Ted, “Value-Added Assessment and Systemic Reform: A Response to America’s Human Capital Development Challenge,” paper prepared for the Aspen Institute’s Congressional Institute, Cancun, Mexico, February 22–27, 2005.

Kane, Thomas J., J.E. Rockoff, and Douglas O. Staiger, What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006.

Kellor, Eileen M., Performance-Based Licensure in Connecticut, Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2002.

Kimball, Steven M., “Analysis of Feedback, Enabling Conditions and Fairness Perceptions of Teachers in Three School Districts with New Standards-Based Evaluation Systems,” Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education 16, no. 4, 2002, pp. 241–268.

Koppich, Julia, “Toward Improving Teacher Quality: An Evaluation and Review in Montgomery County Public Schools,” available online at http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/development/documents/pgs/PAR_report_final.doc.

Marzano, R. J., Formative Assessment & Standards-based Grading, Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory, 2010.

Marzano, R. J., Designing & Teaching Learning Goals & Objectives, Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory, 2009.

McCaffrey, Daniel F., J.R. Lockwood, Daniel M. Koretz, and Laura S. Hamilton, Evaluating Value-Added Models for Teacher Accountability, Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2003.

http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/development/documents/pgs/PAR_report_final.doc�

http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/development/documents/pgs/PAR_report_final.doc�


Milanowski, Anthony, “Relationships Among Dimension Scores of Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation Systems and the Stability of Evaluation Score/Student Achievement Relationships Over Time,” CPRE-UW Working Paper Series TC-04-02, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, San Diego, CA, 2004.

Milanowski, Anthony, “The Relationship Between Teacher Performance Evaluation Scores and Student Achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati,” Peabody Journal of Education 79, no. 4, 2004, pp. 33–53.

Milanowski, Anthony and H.G. Heneman III, “Assessment of Teacher Reactions to a Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation System: A Pilot Study,” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 15, no. 3, 2001, pp. 193–212.

Milanowski, Anthony, Steven M. Kimball and Allan Odden, “Teacher Accountability Measures and Links to Learning,” in Measuring School Performance and Efficiency: Implications for Practice and Research, eds. Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwartz, Ross Rubenstein and J. Zabel, Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association, 2005, pp. 137–161.

Milanowski, Anthony, Steven M. Kimball and B. White, “The Relationship Between Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation Scores and Student Achievement: Replication and Extensions at Three Sites,” CPRE-UW Working Paper Series TC-04-01, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 2004.

Odden, Allen, “Lessons Learned About Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation Systems,” Peabody Journal of Education 79, no. 4, 2004, pp. 126–137.

Odden, Allan and Marc Wallace, How to Achieve World Class Teacher Compensation, Freeload Press, 2008.

Pecheone, Raymond L. and Ruth R. Chung, “Evidence in Teacher Education the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT),” Journal of Teacher Education 57, no. 1, January/February 2006, pp. 22–36.

Podgursky, Michael J. and Matthew G. Springer, Teacher Performance Pay: A Review, Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives, 2006.

Sanders, William L., James J. Ashton and S. Paul Wright, “Comparison of the Effects of NBPTS-Certified Teachers with Other Teachers on the Rate of Student Academic Progress”, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and National Science Foundation, 2005.

Sclafani, Susan and Marc S. Tucker, Teacher and Principal Compensation: An International Review, Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, October 2006.


White, Brad, “The Relationship Between Teacher Evaluation Scores and Student Achievement: Evidence from Coventry,” RI. CPRE-UW Working Paper Series TC-04-04, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center Education Research, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, San Diego, CA, 2004.


Additional References for Principals OGRAPHY Ackoff, Russell L., Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For, New York: John

Wiley & Sons, 1984.

Aronson, Daniel, “Overview of Systems Thinking”, found online at http://www.thinking.net/Systems_Thinking/OverviewSTarticle.pdf.

Bailey, Kenneth D., “Boundary Maintenance in Living Systems Theory and Social Entropy Theory”, found online at http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings51st/article/viewFile/437/208.

Bellomo, Nicola, Modeling Complex Living Systems: A Kinetic Theory and Stochastic Game Approach (Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology), Boston, Massachusetts: Birkhäuser, 2007.

Berry, Barbara, “The Link Between Deming’s theory of Profound Knowledge and Systems Thinking”, found online at http://www.improvementandinnovation.com/features/article/link-between-demings-theory-profound-knowledge-and-systems-thinking.

Blumberg, Kent, “Purposeful Abandonment”, available online at http://kentblumberg.typepad.com/kent_blumberg/2007/05/purposeful_aban.html.

Bogue, E. Grady, The Enemies of Leadership: Lessons for Leaders in Education, Bloomingdale, Indiana: A Publication of the Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1985.

Boyatzis, Richard and McKee, Annie, Resonant Leadership, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 2002, pp. 50-51, 66.

Boyatzis, Richard and McKee, Annie, Resonant Leadership, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 2005, pp. 28-29.

Boyatzis, Richard and McKee, Annie, “Great Leaders Move Us”, Resonant Leadership, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 2005, p. 3.

Bridges, William, The Character of Organizations: Using Jungian Type in Organizational Development, CPP Books, A Division of Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1992.

Brown, Tim, “Design Thinking”, Harvard Business Review, June 2008, pp. 85-92.

Capra, Fritjof, Life and Leadership: A Systems Approach”, found online at http://www.fritjofcapra.net/summary.html.

http://www.thinking.net/Systems_Thinking/OverviewSTarticle.pdf�

http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings51st/article/viewFile/437/208�

http://www.improvementandinnovation.com/features/article/link-between-demings-theory-profound-knowledge-and-systems-thinking�

http://www.improvementandinnovation.com/features/article/link-between-demings-theory-profound-knowledge-and-systems-thinking�

http://kentblumberg.typepad.com/kent_blumberg/2007/05/purposeful_aban.html�

http://www.fritjofcapra.net/summary.html�


Chang, Richard, “Turning Passion into Organizational Performance”, TD, May 2011, pp. 104-111.

Clements, Nigel, “Deming’s Thinking in the Modern World”, found online at http://www.prismconsultancy.com/AviewofDemingsthinkinginthemodernworld.pdf.

Crichton, Michael and Preston, Richard, Micro: A Novel, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2011.

Gallos, Joan V., Editor, “Designing High-Performance Work Systems: Organizing People, Work, Technology and Information”, Organization Development, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 2006.

George, Bill and Sims, Peter, True North: Discover your Authentic Leadership, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

Goleman, Daniel; Boyatziz, Richard; and McKee, Annie, Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School, 2002, Pp. 92-96, 192-194.

Griffen, Ricky W. and Kelly, Anne M. O’Leary, (Editors), The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior, San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass, 2004.

Hall, Doug, “Change Comes from Within: Internal Revitalization within the Living City”, found online at http://www.egc.org/lsm/change_comes_from_within.

Hall, Doug, “Crossing the Perception Threshold”, found online at http://egc.org/lsm/content/crossing-perception-threshold.

Jenkins, Lee L., It’s the System (Not the Staff) That Needs a Tuneup”, The School Administrator, April 2008.

Kluckhohn, Clyde, Mirror for Man, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1949.

Lisle, Jason, “The Splendor of God’s Creation”, found online at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/splendor-of-creation.

Martin, Roger, “How Successful Leaders Learn”, Harvard Business Review, June 2007, pp. 60-67.

Maxwell, John C., The 5 Levels of Leadership: Proven Steps to Maximize your Potential, New York: Center Street, 2001.

McGrath, Roger, Jr., “Organizationally Induced Helplessness: The Antithesis of Empowerment”, Quality Progress, April 1994.

http://www.prismconsultancy.com/AviewofDemingsthinkinginthemodernworld.pdf�

http://www.prismconsultancy.com/AviewofDemingsthinkinginthemodernworld.pdf�

http://www.egc.org/lsm/change_comes_from_within�

http://egc.org/lsm/content/crossing-perception-threshold�

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/splendor-of-creation�


Miller, James Grier and Miller, Jessie L., “The Earth as a System” found online at http://www.newciv.org/ISSS_Primer/asem22jm.html.

Newcomb, Amelia, John Kotter on Leading System Transformation”, The School Administrator, April 2008.

Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotaka takeuchi, “The Wise Leader”, Harvard Business Review, May 2011, pp. 58-67.

Pearson, Christine M. and Porath, Christine L., “On Incivility, It’s Impact, and Directions for Future Research”, The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior, San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass, 2004.

Rainey, Mary Ann, “An Appreciative Inquiry into the Factors of Culture Continuity During Leadership Transitions: A Cass Study of Leadshare, Canada”, Appreciative Inquiry, Champaign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing, 2000, Pp. 143-153.

Reed, Col. George E., “Leadership and Systems Thinking”, found online at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dau/ree_mj06.pdf.

Reeves, Douglas. B., “The learning leader: How to Focus School Improvement for Better Results, Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2006.

Reeves, Douglas B., “Accountability for Learning: How Teachers and School Leaders Can Take Charge. Denver: Advanced Learning Press, 2004.

Reeves, Douglas B., “101 More Questions and Answers About Standards, Assessment and Accountability, Denver: Advanced Learning Press, 2004.

Reeves, Douglas B., “Making Standards Work: How to Implement Standards-based Assessments in the Classroom, School, and District (3rd ed.), Denver: Advanced Learning Press, 2002.

Reeves, Douglas B., “The Leader’s Guide to Standards: A Blueprint for Educational Equity and Excellence, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

Reeves, Douglas B., “101 Questions and Answers About Standards, Assessment and Accountability”; Denver: Advanced Learning Press, 2001.

Reeves, Douglas B., “Accountability in Action: A Blueprint for Learning Organizations’, Denver: Advanced Learning Press, 2000.

Rothwell, William J., “The Secret Crisis: Managing the Loss of Institutional Memory”, available online at http://www.linkageinc.com/tools/printer_friendly.aspx.

http://www.newciv.org/ISSS_Primer/asem22jm.html�

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dau/ree_mj06.pdf�

http://www.linkageinc.com/tools/printer_friendly.aspx�


Schlechty, Phillip C., “Understanding the System”, Shaking Up the School House: How to Support and Sustain Educational Innovation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.

Senge, Peter, “Systems Citizenship: The Leadership Mandate for the Millennium”, Leader to Leader, Summer 2009, pp. 21-26.

Shambaugh, Rebecca, “The Secrets of Resilient Leaders”, Leader to Leader, Number 58, Fall 2010

Sharlicki, Daniel P. and Folger, Robert, “Broadening our Understanding of Organizational Behavior”, The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior, San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass, 2004.

Spreier, Scott W.; Fontaine, Mary H.; and Malloy, Ruth L., “Leadership Run Amok”, Harvard Business Review, June 2006, pp. 77-80.

Thompson, Mark and Tracey, Brian, Now, Build a Great Business!: 7 Ways to Maximize Your Profits in Any Market, New York: AMACON, 2011.

Waters Foundation, “Systems Thinking in Schools”, found online at http://www.watersfoundation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.display$id=255.

Williamson, Harold, “Are you a Natural Systems Thinker?”, found online at http://www.hopelle.com/artsys.html.

http://www.watersfoundation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.display$id=255�

http://www.hopelle.com/artsys.html�

COMPONENT 1

EXCERPTS FROM THE FLORIDA SUPERINTENDENT’S

MENTORING PROGRAM

This Component is included with permission from the Florida Association of School

Superintendents. It was developed specifically for Superintendents in the

completion of their Chief Executive Officer Leadership Development Program

(CEOLDP). Inasmuch as several districts are developing peer assistance programs, it

was believed that several of the major concepts include in this component would be

helpful. Be advised that this does not constitute the total document, but rather an

abbreviation for purposes served in an appraisal system.

1

Introduction

Learning is a process which transcends all boundaries; the lessons learned in one field are often

readily applicable to another. Strategies which address issues in the field of business, for example, may

assist those in the field of education. The world of private business and industry has long recognized

mentoring as an important activity which has enhanced the career success and personal fulfillment of

organizational members. The area of teacher education has embraced this concept as a means of helping

classroom teachers in becoming more effective and successful with its inclusion in the program for

beginning teachers.

Beyond teacher education, however, the field of education, within more recent years, has only begun

to test and witness the value of formal mentoring programs for educational administrators. Educational

leadership has become increasingly difficult and complex, causing increased frustrations felt even by the

experienced administrator. This phenomenon has called for a strategy which assists in the professional

development of all educational leaders. In light of this, several states and numerous school districts are

turning to mentoring programs for administrators to improve their chances of success.

The State of Florida is one of those states which capitalized on the potential value of mentoring for

educational leaders by implementing such a program for school district superintendents in 1992.

The primary purpose of this document is to discuss the superintendent mentoring program in the

State of Florida. However, the reader must first gain a thorough understanding of the definition and

concept of mentoring, its underlying assumptions, and its applications to business and education,

particularly for administrators. Topics to be discussed will include the models of mentoring, the potential

problems encountered in a mentoring relationship, the characteristics and responsibilities of the

participants in the mentoring program as well as the benefits procured and the costs incurred. In

addition, mentor training will be discussed and a proposal of a model for training mentors will be

considered. The literature that is referred to throughout this document is based primarily on research

which focuses on mentoring in the field of business and mentoring as it applies to the field of education,

particularly in the area of educational leadership. A thorough discussion of the superintendent mentoring

program in the State of Florida will follow a review of the fundamental concepts of mentoring.

Additionally, a list of references and recommended readings on the subject of mentoring is appended for

further study.

“the mentoring process (is) a dynamic, reciprocal relationship in a work

environment between an advanced career incumbent and a beginner

aimed at promoting the career development of both”

2

A Review of Literature on Mentoring

Mentoring Defined

Derived from the Greek word meaning “to endure,” the concept of mentoring refers to a sustained

relationship which can be traced back to Homer’s Odyssey: “Mentor was the teacher entrusted by

Odysseus to tutor his son, Telemachus. Based on this literary description, we have been provided over

the centuries with a lasting image of the wise and patient counselor serving to shape and guide the lives

of younger, less experienced colleagues” (Daresh & Playko, 1989). Furthermore, it is revealed that the

original Mentor was actually a woman, the goddess Athene in disguise. And, even though being a

goddess gave her access to formidable power in Homer’s world, Athene/Mentor was judicious about how

she employed it. In what might have been a glorious denouement for her, when Odysseus and

Telemachus confront their usurpers at the close of “The Odyssey, Athene did not “…throw all her powers

in, to give him victory, but continued to put the strength and courage of both Odysseus and Telemachus

on trial, while she herself withdrew, taking the shape of a swallow and darting aloft to perch on the smoky

beam of the hall” (Homer, 1946).

According to Gibb and Megginson (1993), “While we would not suggest that modern mentors

attempt similar feats, the story clearly places the mentor where we would want her - looking on and

encouraging the protégé.” This image of the mentor serving as a wise guide to a younger protégé

permeates the literature on mentoring. Definitions range from “a mixture of parent and peer” (Levinson)

to “a non-parental role model who actively provides guidance, support, and opportunities for the

protégé” (Sheehy, 1976). This notion of the mentor serving as a guide to adult development connotes a

“form of ‘torch passing’ from one generation to the next” (Daresh & Playko, 1989).

More recent definitions emphasize the didactic, interactive nature of the mentoring process, “a

dynamic, reciprocal relationship in a work environment between an advanced career incumbent

(mentor) and a beginner (protégé) aimed at promoting the career development of both” (Healy &

Wilchert). This definition, as illustrated below, clearly has implications when applied to mentoring for

educational administrators (Wasden):

The mentor is a master at providing opportunities for the growth of others, by identifying situations

and events which contribute knowledge and experience to the life of the steward. Opportunities are not

happen-stance; they must be thoughtfully designed and organized into logical sequence. Sometimes

hazards are attached to opportunity. The mentor takes great pains to help the steward recognize and

negotiate dangerous situations. In doing all this, the mentor has an opportunity for growth through

service, which is the highest form of leadership.

Most of the research on mentoring, however, concludes that definitional issues demand more

attention: “The phenomenon of mentoring is not clearly conceptualized…mentoring appears to mean one

thing to developmental psychologists, another thing to business people, and a third thing to those in

academic settings” (Merriam, 1983). In fact, one literature review cited “at least 15 significantly different

definitions from these three fields” (Gibb & Megginson). Despite the numerous definitions, what sets

3

mentoring apart from other developmental practices? Gibb and Megginson (1993) contend

“Confidentiality clearly makes the mentoring relationship quite different from typical management or

learning relationships.” The mentoring relationship involves counseling which in turn requires a degree of

respect for certain professional and personal issues on the part of both parties.

The mentoring process then is a mutually enhancing growth experience for both the mentor and the

protégé. It is a learning process which combines the traditional modes of occupational learning - formal

education, apprenticeship, and “learning-while-doing” or learning from experience (Dunlap) and, in a

sense, moves one step beyond them. Where the business world has long used the term “mentor” to

conjure “such diverse images as ‘teacher, coach, trainer, positive role model, developer of talent, opener

of doors, protector, sponsor, or successful leader…the current literature suggests that mentoring needs to

be understood as a combination of most, if not all, of these individual role descriptors” (Daresh & Playko,

1989). The implication, then, is to foster a relationship which moves along a type of advisory continuum

from one end - from peer pal to guide to sponsor to patron - to the other, the true mentor (Daresh &

Playco, 1989).

“The mentoring process – is a mutually enhancing growth experience for both the mentor and the protégé.”

…the mentor has an opportunity to grow through service,

which is the highest form of leadership.

The Matching Process

One of the ways to avoid these potential problems is to take precautions in the early stages of the

program. As previously stated, the matching process in a formal relationship ranges considerably and

may promote varying chances of success. Chao, Walz, and Gardner (1992) state that the “current practice

of random assignment of protégés to mentors is analogous to blind dates; there would be a small

probability that the match would be successful.” One article in particular, “Take My Mentor, Please!”

(Kizilos) clearly illustrates this possibility with several instances of unsuccessful mentoring relationships.

Assignment, matching, or selection may set the tone for the relationship and significantly affect its

direction and, thus, its chances for success. Therefore, careful consideration must be given to this

process. A district office of the Internal Revenue Service in Missouri attempted to heed this advice

(Kizilos). In instituting its formal mentoring program –

The matchmaking process at the IRS recognizes the importance of

personal chemistry in pairing protégés with mentors. After interviewing

new managers and studying their preferences and personalities, a career

adviser assigns protégés to one of the 31 senior managers in the mentor

pool. The two then meet. If they like each other, there’s a match.

Managers are never asked to mentor against their will…

4

In addition to taking personal chemistry into consideration, it is suggested that “research examining

how mentors and protégés are attracted to each other could be applied to identify critical matching

factors in formal mentorship programs” (Chao, et al).

Gender in Mentoring

A discussion of the matching process naturally involves the consideration of the gender

composition of the mentoring dyad. Recent sensitivity to gender-related problems in the work force

and the recognition of stylistic differences between men and women have sparked an interest in this

area: “Women may manage conflict differently from the way men typically do. They may delegate

authority and make group decisions differently. They often define the whole notion of teamwork

differently” (Kizilos). Several studies have been conducted to examine the influence of gender

composition on the effectiveness of the mentoring relationship contrasting same-sex relationships

(either male-male or female-female) with cross-gender relationships, focusing primarily on the male

mentor-female protégé relationship. One such study hypothesized that heterogeneous gender

mentoring dyads would spend less time together and protégés would obtain fewer benefits from the

relationship compared to homogeneous gender mentoring dyads based on indications that –

“…the development of successful cross-gender mentorships may be

inhibited by perceptions that women lack managerial skills and are

unsuitable for challenging positions, preferences for interaction with

members of the same gender in the work environment, and concerns that

peers may perceive the mentoring relationships as sexual in nature,

leading to resentment and malicious gossip.” (Noe)

Similar issues are raised by other researchers who identify potential barriers to the establishment of

cross-gender relationships and observations about female protégés in general (Burke et al):

A developmental dilemma exists for the management of both internal relationships

(closeness/distance of the participants) and external relationships (perceptions of the

relationship by outsiders)

Women bring unique competencies and needs to the relationship.

Women protégés were seen as needing more encouragement and having to be

“sold” more actively than were their male colleagues.

Women were more likely than men to stress caring, nurturing and teaching when

describing the mentorship.

5

Women considered the mentor’s role of providing feedback about strengths and

weaknesses to be more important than did men.

The development of a close friendship was more likely in relationships involving a

female protégé than those involving only men.

Interestingly, despite these issues and concerns, the research studies resulted in the following

findings:

Mentors matched with opposite-sex protégés reported that these protégés used the

mentorship more effectively than same-sex protégés (Burke, et al)

Female protégés established stronger emotional ties than male protégés with male

mentors (Fagenson)

In terms of career/job outcomes, mentoring worked equally well for women and men

(Fagenson)

Females reported receiving significantly more psycho-social benefits from the

mentoring relationships than did males (Noe)

No significant differences were found between men and women in mentoring

experience, intentions to mentor, or the costs and benefits reported to be associated

with mentoring relationships (Ragins & Scandura)

Two possible explanations are offered for these findings (Noe):

• “Protégés in mentoring relationships with members of the opposite gender work

harder to make the relationship successful because of an awareness of the possible

negative outcomes that are believed to result from cross-gender relationships at

work”

• “Women may be more motivated than men to utilize mentors who are provided via a

formal program because of the general lack of mentors for women”

6

Characteristics and Responsibilities of Participants

Part of the answer to the dilemma of appropriate matching or pairing resides in research which has

been conducted on the ideal or desired characteristics and responsibilities of the participants, whether

male or female, involved in the mentoring process. As previously mentioned, the mentoring process is a

mutually enhancing one and, as such, it requires certain attributes and duties.

Mentors

Research indicates that the following list of characteristics may aid in the selection of those who

would serve as effective mentors for educational leaders (Daresh & Playko, 1989):

Mentors should have experience as practicing school administrators, and they should

be generally regarded by their peers and others as being effective.

Mentors should demonstrate generally accepted positive leadership qualities, such as

(but not necessarily limited to):

– intelligence

– good (oral and written) communication skills

– past, present, and future understanding with simultaneous orientation

– acceptance of multiple alternative solutions to complex problems

– clarity of vision and the ability to share that vision with others in the organization

– well-developed interpersonal skills and sensitivities

Mentors need to be able to ask the right questions of beginning administrators, and

not just provide the “right” answers all the time.

Mentors must accept “another way of doing things,” and avoid the tendency to tell

beginners that the way to do something is “the way I used to do it.”

Mentors should express the desire to see people go beyond their present levels of

performance, even if it might mean that they are able to do some things better than

the mentors might be able to do the same things.

Mentors need to model the principles of continuous learning and reflection.

Mentors should exhibit the awareness of the political and social realities of life in at

least one school system; they must know the “real way” that things get done.

Furthermore, Haensly and Edlind (1986) suggest other characteristics which are recommended for the

“ideal” mentor:

Outstanding knowledge, skills, and expertise in a particular domain.

7

Enthusiasm that is sincere, convincing, and most importantly, constantly conveyed to

their protégés.

The ability to communicate to others a clear picture of their personal attitudes,

values, and ethical standards.

The ability to communicate sensitively the type of feedback that is needed regarding

their protégé’s development and progress toward desirable standards and

competence and professional behavior.

Sensitive listening ability to their protégé’s ideas, doubts, concerns, and enthusiastic

outpourings.

A caring attitude and a belief in their protégé’s potential.

Flexibility and a sense of humor.

A restrained sense of guidance so that their protégé may develop as independently

as possible.

Once these characteristics have been identified in potential mentors and they have been selected to

serve as mentors, they must carry out certain responsibilities successfully in order for the programs to

achieve the potential benefits. Daresh & Playko (1989) emphasize that the mentor must be willing to

provide time for the protégé simply to talk: “perhaps the most important thing that anyone can do as a

mentor is to be available when needed by the protégé, not to ‘fix’ problems, but rather, to indicate that

someone cares about what the beginner is doing.” In addition, they list what they consider to be the

most important responsibilities of the mentor:

Advising - In this way, the mentor responds to a protégé’s need to gain additional

information needed to carry out a job effectively.

Communicating - Here, the mentor works consistently to ensure that open lines of

communication are always available between himself/herself and the protégé.

Counseling - The mentor provides needed emotional support to the protégé.

Guiding - In this way, the mentor works to orient and acquaint the new administrator

to the informal and formal norms of (the job).

Modeling - The mentor serves as a true role model to the protégé by consistently

demonstrating professional and competent performance on the job.

Skill Developing - The mentor assists the protégé in learning skills needed to carry

out the job effectively.

8

Rogus and Drury view the mentoring role as two-fold: “Helping with problems the mentee identifies

is an essential part of the mentor’s supportive function; helping the mentee identify problems he or she

might otherwise not consider is part of the challenge function.” Often during this survival stage,

beginning administrators are concerned with maintenance. The mentor must encourage the protégé to

push beyond that desire to simply make it through the day without a new crisis (Rogus & Drury):

In a sense, the mentor’s task is to help the mentee keep a part of his or her

mind focused on questions that transcend the urgencies which normally

dominate first-year administrator thinking, to promote analysis of the

organization’s function, and to develop a clear vision of what the

organization might become. This is the most demanding part of the

mentoring role.

Protégés

The success of the mentoring relationship depends upon the protégé as well. According to Haensly

and Edlind (1986), “ideal” protégés should possess the following characteristics:

Enthusiasm about the domain in which they are working, and also about their

personal involvement in the study of that domain.

The ability to demonstrate initiative along with a conscientious effort to develop their

own self-potential.

A commitment to carry through on suggested plans and activities and a desire to go

beyond any established minimal levels of performance.

An open-minded, objective, and non-defensive attitude.

A degree of insightfulness about self and others, often tempered by a good sense of

humor.

In addition, they are expected to perform certain responsibilities to achieve the goals established by

the mentoring process (Daresh & Playko, 1989):

Learn from the many people who work in their school systems, in addition to their

assigned mentors to decrease the likelihood that the mentoring arrangement

becomes a dependency relationship.

9

Come forward to their mentors to seek advice regarding specific issues and concerns

and articulate them in an open and honest fashion because mentors cannot be

expected to be “mind readers”.

Remain open to suggestions that are offered by their mentors; if people act as if they

know all the answers before asking the question, mentors will likely lose much of

their enthusiasm to work with protégés.

The Mentor/New Employee Relationship

The establishment of a mentoring relationship by a formalized arrangement does not necessarily

guarantee its effectiveness and success. The development of a positive, strong, and trusting relationship

takes time and commitment from both participants. Playko (1990) discusses certain ingredients which are

necessary for a productive mentoring relationship:

Value – “In general, the pairings must be valued by both participants. They must find

the arrangement equally valuable and important that will serve as an opportunity for

the mentor and protégé to participate in a supportive setting.”

Mutuality – “The relationship should indicate a mutuality that is warmly regarded by

both parties in terms of trust and respect…This conceptualization emphasizes that

true mentoring has the potential of being as helpful to the mentor as it is to the

protégé.”

Two-way, interactive activity – “…both the mentor and the protégé are encouraged

to express inner feelings, thoughts, and questions regarding their professional role or

personal problems that they may wish to share. In essence, this can be viewed as a

shared and expressive learning experience for both participants who sit, listen, and

reflect on situations (past and present) to help each other in formulating available

options or directions that can be pursued in resolving problems. All this is made

possible through a variety of interactive collegial decision-making processes.”

Ongoing collaboration – “(A) mentoring relationship should serve as a form of

motivation for both the mentor and the protégé in that it will stimulate a desire for

both to grow personally and professionally. Within a caring and trusting relationship,

both parties should be able to view each other as colleagues who can offer new

insights and possible solutions to arising problems.”

It was the responsibility of both parties to incorporate these elements into their relationship.

10

Bibliography

Burke, Ronald J., McKeen, Carol A., & McKenna, Catherine. (1994) “Benefits of Mentoring in Organizations.” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9, 3: 23-32.

Chao, Georia T., Walz, Pat M, & Gardner, Philip D. (1992) “Formal and Informal Mentorships: A Comparison on Mentoring Functions and Contract with Non-mentored Counterparts.” Personnel Psychology: A Journal of Applied Research, 45, 3: 619-636.

Daresh, John C., & Playko, Marsha A. (1989) Administrative Mentoring: A Training Manual. Greeley, CO: Center for Educational Leadership at the University of Northern Colorado.

Daresh, John C., & Playko, Marsha A. (1989) The Administrative Entry Year Program in Ohio: A Resource Guide. Greeley, CO: Center for Educational Leadership at the University of Northern Colorado.

Dunlap, Diane M. (1990) Formal and Informal Mentorships for Aspiring and Practicing Administrators. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts.

Fagenson, Ellen A. (1989) “The Mentor Advantage: Perceived Career/Job Experiences of Protégés Versus Non-Protégés. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10: 309-320.

Gibb, Stephen, & Megginson, David. (1993) “Inside Corporate Mentoring Schemes: A New Agenda of Concerns.” Personnel Review, 22, 1: 40-54.

Haensly, Patricia A., & Edlind, Elaine P. (1986) A Search for Ideal Types in Mentorship. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Mentoring, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Healy, C., & Welchert, A. (1990) “Mentoring Relations: A Definition to Advance Research and Practice.” Educational Researcher, 9: 17-21.

Homer (trans., E. V. Rieu) (1946) The Odyssey, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Kizilos, Peter. (1990) “Take My Mentor, Please!” Training: The Magazine of Human Resources Development, 27, 4:; 49-55.

Levinson, Daniel. (1978) Seasons of a Man’s Life. New York, NY: Knopf.

Noe, Raymond A. (1988) “An Investigation of the Determinants of Successful Assigned Mentoring Relationships.” Personnel Psychology: A Journal of Applied Research, 41, 3: 457-479.

Playko, Marsha A. (1980) “What it Means to be Mentored.” NASSP Bulletin, 74, 525: 29-32.

Ragins, Belle Rose, & Scandura, Terri A. (1994) “Gender Differences in Expected Outcomes of Mentoring Relationships.” The Academy of Management Journal, 37, 4: 957-971.

Rogus, Joseph F., & Drury, William R. (1988) “The Administrator Induction Program: Building on Experience.” NASSP Bulletin, 72, 508: 11-16.

Sheehy, Gail. (1976) “The Mentor Connection: The Secret Link in the Successful Woman’s Life.” New York Magazine: 33-39.

Wasden, DelF. (1988) The Mentoring Handbook. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, College of Education.

COMPONENT 2

EMPLOYEE COACHING

This brief publication is an executive summary of a major research project conducted by

Educational Management Consultant Services, Inc. This work was commissioned by the

Florida Association of District School Superintendents. The document was designed as a

training manual to be used in mentoring and coaching school principals and district level

leaders. The complete work will be published under the title “Executive Coaching in Public

Education.” The content of this document are protected under applicable copyright rules and

statutes. It may not be reproduced without the expressed written consent of Jerry P.

Copeland, President of EMCS, Inc.

©EMCS 1

SECTION I An Introduction to Employee Coaching

Because employee coaching is a relatively recent practice, there is limited information available on the full scope of issues involved in using a coach. This introduction is intended to provide a better understanding of the following: Whether a school executive needs an employee coach or whether he/she is

ready for one.

What the most promising characteristics of a good coach are.

How to evaluate the qualifications of a prospective coach.

Understanding the nature of the coaching relationship.

What to expect when you use a coach, including the results the school executive should achieve.

How coaching should relate to a person as well as the overall organizational system.

Do You Need an Employee Coach?

Employee coaching is a process that fosters self awareness and that results in the motivation to

change, as well as the guidance needed if change is to take place in ways that meet organizational

needs.

Dotlich and Cairo

Employee coaching is often confused with other valuable but different services. It is not the same as consulting, a situational or organizational intervention, or medical counseling. Employee coaching is also different from a long-term mentoring relationship with a trusted professional colleague. According to an article published in Leadership in Action by Karen Kirkland Miller, a coaching manager at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) San Diego Campus, the following questions distinguish coaching from other activities:

©EMCS 2

“Do I need help in solving a complicated business problem? If yes do not hire a coach; hire a business consultant.

Do I need to discuss a deeply personal matter about my internal sense of well-being? If yes, do not hire a coach; engage a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist, or counselor.

Do I need to discuss the internal politics of my organization and my career path within it? If yes, do not hire a coach; find a trusted person in your organization who is willing to serve as a mentor to you.

Do I need to learn and practice a specific new skill set that I lack? If yes, do not hire a coach; find an appropriate skills development course that offers opportunities to practice the new skill set, perhaps using videotaped feedback.

Do I need to acquire a specific field of knowledge? If yes, do not hire a coach; get the information from such sources as books, tapes, Web sites, classes, or discussion groups, depending on your preferred learning style, and set aside enough time for studying and internalizing the new information.

Do I need spiritual, moral, or religious guidance? If yes, do not hire a coach; find a rabbi, minister, priest, or other spiritual counselor to assist you.

Do I need to evaluate whether I am in the right career and to consider possible options for changing careers or professions? If yes, do not hire a coach; hire an expert in career counseling who can do aptitude and interest testing and serve as an expert during your transition.

Do I need structured planning and support to develop a new way of leading or managing others? If yes, consider hiring a coach.”

Determine the State of Readiness Prior to using a coach, a school executive should reflect on the specific degree of readiness. If he/she is not motivated then don’t do it. The writers from the available literature generally agree that to determine the state of readiness, the executive must sincerely respond to the following personal queries: Do I have a clear understanding of the organizational mission, vision, and

constancy of purpose?

Can I clearly articulate the mission, vision, and constancy of purpose to the employees that I supervise?

©EMCS 3

Am I in agreement personally with the mission, vision, and constancy of purpose for myself and the organization that I serve?

Have I undergone or am I willing to undergo a series of rigorous self appraisals which will reflect feedback from peers, supervisors and those I supervise?

Am I willing to commit the time, energy, and resources to change what needs to be changed or should I seek a new career path which may be more consistent with my personal skills, training, and belief system?

Is my nature such that I am likely to spend more time trying to discern who to blame for an error than is required to correct the error?

Is the organizational culture at a place on the growth continuum such that an intensive internal coaching program will be safe for my career development? If not, should I consider an employee coach from another school district or even at all?

Am I willing to be honest enough to openly interact about my shortcomings and admit that I can improve the quality of my service delivery?

What personal characteristics, as determined by measures such as Myers Briggs indicators and others, should a coach have, to be effective in working with me?

Do I have a clear understanding of what is required to manage change?

Do I truly believe as a public school executive that all children can learn; and that we can teach each one regardless of his/her socioeconomic condition or racial-ethnic heritage?

Do I have the personal capacity and willingness to change from “Managing the trivial many to providing leadership for the significant few.”

Characteristics of a Good Employee Coach Since employee coaching is somewhat new in the broad field of management science, several organizations, companies, and educational institutions are working diligently to develop this new science. Among the more prominent of these is the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL). CCL and others in the field of leadership development tend to agree that the list which follows represents acceptable qualities for employee coaching. These writers include: Coble, Deal, Deck, Huge, Copeland, Rogers, Hargrove, Dotlich, Cairo, Schlechty, and others. The following list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive:

©EMCS 4

Intensive knowledge and experience in public education, organizational alignment, strategic planning, practicing the power of purpose, and an extensive background in employee mentoring, supervision, and consulting.

A successful change agent with experience in writing, research, and consulting in managing the science of change and the correlates of adult learning theory.

Executive presence which means having an observable professional demeanor that is personable, articulate, and confident.

Intensive listening skills which contribute to the capacity to build rapport and trust in a nonthreatening and developmental atmosphere.

Unquestionable integrity and credibility, an authentic person who talks and walks each premise.

In-depth knowledge in assessment methodology, including psychological testing interpretation. This specifically means knowing which instrument is appropriate in each setting and having the capacity to be data driven in developing feedback sessions.

A strategic thinker and planner who recognizes the strategic implications of management/operational decisions which may have strategic impact. This person will know of that which he/she does not know, and as a result be able to conceptualize issues over the horizon.

Appropriately educated for the setting, usually requiring a Masters Degree or higher.

A clear understanding of perception and the frame or frames from which an individual may view a particular issue, organization, or recommended solution.

Extensive interpersonal skills which include compassion, empathy, and the ability to communicate while preserving dignity.

A demonstrable willingness to learn and adjust, including a creative spirit which promotes growth and organizational change.

A visible core value system which includes sincerity as well as a nondiscriminatory, non-biased attitude when dealing interpersonally with rules, roles, and relationships.

A successful employee coach will create a relationship which is professional, confidential, nonthreatening, and developmental.

Absent these attributes, employee coaching will not work.

©EMCS 5

Robert Hargrove, in a publication entitled, Masterful Coaching, adds six additional characteristics to this listing (Hargrove, pg. 42-49). These characteristics are: “The Ability to Inspire – Employee coaches inspire people by helping them

recognize the previously unseen possibilities that lay embedded in their existing circumstances.” Remember the story of James Escalante, a math teacher at an inner-city high school in East Los Angeles.

“Setting High Standards – Employee coaches seek excellence by setting higher standards not only for themselves but for others. They are not only stern taskmasters with others but also with themselves.”

“Honesty and Integrity – Employee coaches hold themselves to the highest standards of honesty and integrity, not just because of expediency but because these qualities really matter to them. Integrity is the consistency between what the coach wants for the employee and what the coach says and does, - “doing what you say you will do. Speaking honestly to people involves letting people know where they stand, questioning what people take for granted, and honestly acknowledging all mistakes… Employee coaches confront people for the good of the organization and out of a deep sense of caring for others.”

“Disciplined Intensity – Most people can rise to the occasion when there is a crisis, what distinguishes an employee coach is his/her ability to elicit disciplined intensity using people’s inner motivation rather than relying on outside pressure.”

“Forwarding Action – Employee coaches don’t get stalled at the starting gate or bogged down strategizing, planning, or preparing… They forward the action by identifying the openings that will allow them to get a meaningful result in the shortest period of time and, at the same time, will allow them to learn something that will provide new opportunities for action.”

“A Passion to Help Others Learn, Grow, and Perform – Employee coaches have a burning desire to help others learn, grow, and perform. They are highly perceptive in discerning the gap between who people are today and their potential. They see leaders where others see followers. They see creative thinkers where others see those who can only follow conventional wisdom... An employee coach cannot stand to see someone who has potential but who is not being helped to fulfill it. It is the coach’s job to make this happen… It is the urge to make a difference in other people’s lives that sets an employee coach apart.”

©EMCS 6

Employee Coaching Connectivity In order for employee coaching to have a personal and/or organizational impact, it must have direct connectivity to a well-planned overall development system. In this particular case, the employee coaching component is part of a comprehensive program of executive development services offered through the Florida Association of District School Superintendents. This program serves various cohort groups such as school principals, district-level executives, school board and superintendent executive assistants and school superintendents. The school superintendent component is designed to provide continuity of leadership in the State of Florida since approximately 30 of Florida’s 67 superintendents, either elected or appointed, vacate the office each four years. This comprehensive training sequence is divided into three intense training modules. Supporting Technical Assistance This literature clearly indicates that employee coaching is less powerful when used in isolation or when it is used simply to prevent on the job failure. When used correctly, employee coaching will help system school executives manage and lead their organizations with an emphasis on taking charge of their own careers and allow other executives to do the same while maintaining a direct focus – Student Growth and Achievement. To further demonstrate the need for employee coaching and the relationship of various school system executive systems with emphasis on the principalship, the following research is included. On careful examination a reader will note the direct parallel in concept, precept, practice, and theory with the above described superintendent developmental experiences. School Principals Perceptions, Roles, Rewards and Challenges A study (Lyons) was conducted at the University of North Carolina by 97 students who collected data from 194 principals. These principals were from 14 school districts served by the University. “The study had several limitations. First, since students were allowed to select the two principals that they would interview, the respondents were not randomly selected. For this reason, the findings cannot be generalized to all school principals. Second, students were permitted to interview principals in schools where they were employed as teachers if they chose to do so. In instances where this occurred, the objectivity and candidness of

©EMCS 7

some responses could be called in question due to the superior-subordinate relationship involved in the interview. This research project was designed to determine whether a group of principals perceived the following research conclusions as a part of their leadership roles. Recent research, theory, and professional organizations (for principals) have generally concluded that successful principals must: Have a vision for their schools.

Have clear and well-understood goals.

Establish a safe and positive school climate.

Focus on academics, teaching, and learning.

Practice shared decision making in concert with teachers, parents, and students. All participating principals were asked to respond to nine standard questions:

1. How do you develop school goals?

2. How do you determine school priorities?

3. How do you make decisions at the school level?

4. How do you assess school results/effectiveness?

5. What planning procedures do you use at the school level?

6. What satisfactions or rewards do you derive from the principalship?

7. What are your greatest frustrations in the job?

8. What do you perceive to be your most important duties as principal?

9. What advice would you offer a beginning principal? Based on the data contained in the interview summaries, the respondents had very clear ideas of their most important duties. Given the open-ended nature of the question, it was interesting to note the level of unanimity in the responses. Responses were ranked on the basis of frequency of mention. The majority of the respondents were in substantial agreement on what they perceived to be their four most important responsibilities. Following the top four priorities, there was not as much agreement among the respondents on the remaining items. In response to

©EMCS 8

the question, “What do you perceive to be your three most important duties?,” the following are reported in priority order: Providing a safe school environment and a positive school climate.

Fostering good teaching and learning.

Communicating with parents and promoting good school-community relations.

Hiring and developing a good staff.

Monitoring student progress.

Managing school resources.

Determining school goals.

Leading, inspiring, and motivating staff.

Maintaining a child oriented school and being an advocate for children.

Maintaining positive staff relations and staff harmony. The findings from the study led to some specific suggested changes for school principal training programs and employee coaching: Provide the leadership to develop and articulate a vision for the school.

Lead teachers and other members of the school community in goal setting, planning, and shared decision making.

Become intimately familiar with the variables used to determine school effectiveness, particularly school test data used to assess academic progress.

Work cooperatively with superiors to determine annual school goals and priorities.

Provide a safe school environment and a positive school climate that fosters good teaching and learning.

Communicate with parents and promote good school-community relations.

Recruit and develop a competent staff and be able to lead, inspire, and motivate staff members.

Monitor student progress, particularly in academic areas.

©EMCS 9

Manage school resources.

Maintain a child-oriented school and be an advocate for children.

Maintain positive staff relationships and staff harmony.

©EMCS 10

SECTION II The Focus and Direction of Employee Coaching

Becoming a masterful employee coach is a lifelong process of personal analysis, deep self awareness, and continued professional growth. This is a specific and all together distinct field of thought and service. Employee coaching is not delivering a one-size-fits-all solution; rather it contains the noblest of purpose – leading others to the full realization of their visions, deepest thoughts, spontaneous ideas, and living out values. In more specific terms, the central focus is on a complete transformation. This becomes the building platform for everything else an employee coach will do. “The key to becoming a masterful coach lies in having the dream, aspiration, and the bone-deep commitment to make a difference in the lives of employees within an organizational context. This commitment will unlock wisdom, intuition, and insight when mere technique fails.” (Hargrove, pg. 13) From the literature there are at least four constructs of masterful employee coaching. These are:

1. Coaching as Stewardship.

2. Personal Transformation and Reinvention.

3. Creating Communities of Commitment and Team Collaboration.

4. Expanding People’s Capacity to take Effective Action” (Hargrove, pgs. 18-26). Each of these points are briefly described herein. Coaching as Stewardship

Stewardship is taking a stand for the future of the people, communities, complex social systems, and the world we

care about.

One cannot contemplate stewardship without considering at a soul level the essence of being. The sociology of our contemporary society creates the concept that our sole purpose of being is to live out our lives fully, successfully, and as happily as we possibly can. Few are endowed with the thought that our being carries the responsibility of passing to the next generation a world which is better situated than we found it. This goes far beyond passing on an accumulation of wealth. It implies the necessity to pass on a collective vision from a cornerstone of intrinsic values institutionalized in our

©EMCS 11

communities, schools, social structure, and the very essence of being in practicing the art of living a constructive life. Victor Frankl, an existentialist thinker, wrote a publication entitled Man’s Search for Meaning. This publication summarizes his holocaust experiences which had a profound impact on his methodology and practice as a psychiatrist. Frankl believed that at the very core of every being is the absolute will to exist. Our society has imposed the next layer and defines it as a series of accommodations designed to improve the quality of life. Unfortunately, in our society this translates quickly to an accumulation of wealth, the abundance of self interest, and accordingly, becoming a CEO in which, of itself, creates the view of being on the road to personal and organizational success. Stewardship will transform this layer from enhancing the quality of life to adding value to the essence of being. The question is then raised, “What does it take to accommodate this premise?” The answer is perhaps too lengthy for this publication, but it certainly includes dealing with purpose, choosing service over self interest, establishing a vision, nurturing the human spirit, seeing who we are and what we stand for, thinking creatively about the future, of people, institutions, and the world. “Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible. Thus, in responsibleness one discovers the very essence of human existence.” (Frankl, pg. 131) The alternative to this discussion may not be acceptable. Hargrove states, “That we are existing off the capital of future generations.” The effective employee coach who truly understands the qualities of stewardship will stand out accordingly. These patterns of behavior will eliminate for employees the artificial boundaries between the things they care about at the office and things they care about as human beings. It will create a culture that encourages people to bring their total being to work. This will not only impact productivity but make a difference to the organization and the community. Personal Transformation and Reinvention

“Nothing happens without personal transformation.”

W. Edward Deming

Employee coaching is about empowering people to visualize a future they truly desire by discovering what they passionately care about. Employee coaches have left a legacy in Fortune 500 Companies. Many CEO’s have profited from coaches who encouraged them in this direction and so have the cultures that established their success.

©EMCS 12

Transforming contemporary organizations and leaders is not an event, but a continual process of discovering how to add value to the “essence of being”. In the field of public education, numerous executive leaders can articulate that which they passionately care about and are successful in building a shared vision within the organization. Upon close examination, however, many of these leaders have not been impacted by the realization that reinventing the organization cannot be separated from transforming and reinventing themselves. Employee coaching is not based on an intense analysis of what is wrong with an executive, rather it is the discovery of the context or frame that shapes the perceptions which influence decisions. Any organizational context is made up of the sum of employee’s specific perceptions and beliefs and perhaps assumptions that they believe to be true. Employee coaching involves empowering people to transform who they are and reinvent themselves by helping them to see how their frames of reference, thinking, and behavior produce unintended consequences. This work involves encouraging people to surface and question the way they have framed their points of view about themselves, others, or their circumstances with the idea of creating a fundamental shift. For example, a shift from self-interest to stewardship, from being control oriented to being creative and generative, from seeing conflict as embarrassing or threatening to seeing conflict as a leverage point for building a shared view. When people’s frames of reference shift, it allows them to see things in new ways and to act in new ways.” (Hargrove, pg. 22) Creating Communities of Commitment and Team Collaboration

Effective collaboration is an intricate series of planned interpersonal interactions of both internal and external networking driven by a common purpose. Such has been

described as a beehive – a complete community.

Copeland

To eliminate the power, control, fragmentation, and piecemeal approach, many leaders, managers, consultants, and coaching practitioners from a variety of organizations are searching for metaphors to clarify this new science. Some of the more recent follow.

Servant leadership.

Beehive–a complete community.

A living community of commitment.

Productivity as a community of purposeful practice.

©EMCS 13

A living organization with an unlimited diet of common purpose.

A thinking culture with perpetual synergy that adds value to the very essence of human existence.

In this organizational culture, vision and purpose are shared. Employees have a sense that not only is the work worth doing but it is also deeply purposeful. Employees draw their identity from their individuality and from their specific connectivity to the whole. This is perfectly consistent with the nature of the human spirit. Most have a sincere desire to work with dedication, passion, and pride. “At CNN, the game is covering the planet in real time so as not only to produce information but also to impact opinion shapers and movers. At Swissair, it is flying people to hundreds of destinations with personal service touches that give everyone a sense of real worth. At Ben & Jerry’s, it is making ice cream, like Rain Forest Crunch, with the intent of changing the world.” (Hargrove, pg. 23) In public education, it is revitalizing curriculum and instruction according to Schlechty, Coble, and others by reformation and by building a new infrastructure that motivates every student to achieve extraordinary results. Due care must be exercised not to confuse this discussion with the first or second waves of school reform. The first followed the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Most of these reforms resulted in omnibus education bills containing various incentives and regulations. Many state legislatures assumed that schools were more alike than different, and therefore reforms tended to be applied across the board in a one-size-fits-all syndrome. This bureaucratic tinkering generally resulted in teachers and principals being more accountable, but much less empowered. The second wave of reform gained momentum in the mid to late 1980’s. While the first identified teachers and principals as the problem, the second tended to see them as the solution. This new wave ushered in the bottom up approach and introduced the concepts of collegiality, participatory culture, empowering teachers with the sharing of decisions and with greater teacher autonomy. In return schools were to be held to a higher standard with greater accountability. The outcome of these efforts has altered how teachers and principals are prepared and coached. Moreover, one must be careful not to be overly critical of the level of effort exhausted at a district or school level. Most school executives and teachers are working harder than they have ever worked. We must also realize that this class of our current employees may be the best we will ever have. This fact being due to critical shortages and the competitive job market place. Therefore, the need for profoundly masterful employee coaching is approaching an all time high.

©EMCS 14

In the previously described community of commitment and purpose, leaders stand for what matters and leadership comes from throughout the organization. Communication and standards of excellence are focused, challenging, and rigorous. Employees visualize how they fit with a part of the organization which fits together to make a whole. Employee coaching in the years ahead will increasingly transform the educational community. Leaders will offer guiding visions and values which will shift the culture from following orders to working on causal integrated relationships to purpose. Expanding People’s Capacity to Take Effective Action The fourth compass point of employee coaching is leading employees to take effective action. On occasion employees are working in job classifications that do not match their personal qualities or challenge them to excellence. Likewise, employees often set goals that are not creative, do not stretch their minds, or use their skills. This lacks the inspiration to achieve high levels of commitment. The research generally indicates that the majority of the work force truly desires to do an effective job. The key appears to be in finding the perfect match. The baffling aspect of this concept is that individual interests do not always follow their educational or their experiential background. Coaching people to be more effective starts with the explanation of what we were born to do and then finding the arena that fits our value system and a job where we can do it. Accordingly, the level of effectiveness will be greatly enhanced. It becomes immediately obvious that if the employees do not understand the prior premise then even if they happen upon a great job match they may not recognize it with particularity. Coaching in this area is deliberate and will produce amazing results when employees are motivated to be excited, really care about what they do, and have something at stake. This grows a culture where employees discover the core of their creativity, generate new ideas, and innovative solutions.

©EMCS 15

SECTION III Critical Components of Employee Coaching

Matching personal qualities, skills, purpose, and vision with job expectations will produce extraordinary results.

Copeland

David Dotlich and Peter Cairo, in a publication entitled Action Coaching, defined several types of coaching from traditional methods to executive development services. This publication is contemporary, forward thinking and probably sets a new benchmark for employee coaching within an organizational setting. The book is primarily written for Corporate America but crosswalks in a recipe format to public education. The following types of action coaching are paraphrased: Contemporary organizations on a growing basis are starting to recognize that coaching is a core competency for executives and other managers. Internationally, including public education, downsizing, the bottom line, and accountability movements have created fewer hands to accomplish a larger task. Increasing productivity by enhancing commitment is now a survival skill. Coaching delivery in an organizational context adds insurance to the likelihood of visionary growth.

“Manager Coaches - The old notion of a manager was a no-nonsense boss who didn’t deal with the soft issues. Not so many years ago, managers wouldn’t touch issues such as individual purpose and values versus results. Today such issues are crucial. For one thing, the role of the manager has expanded as the number of managers per organization has shrunk. For another, self-reliant workforces require individual managers to do more of their own problem solving. Coaching allows managers to do more with less. In addition, managers can no longer motivate without getting into both the head and hearts of their people. Coaching helps managers do exactly that.

Employee Coaches - Many executives are using coaching to train and mentor future leaders; they’re also employing it as a way to develop key competencies in their direct reports. At the same time, they’re determining when coaching is appropriate, deciding who should be a coach (external or internal), and setting coaching goals for individuals that link to desired business results.

©EMCS 16

Peer Coaches - As organizations flatten and the lines between functions and titles blur and as individuals are increasingly working together in self-directed teams, the need for peers to coach each other has intensified. It’s not always possible to go to a boss for help. Co-workers are much more likely to have the time and inclination to assist a fellow worker who is having problems or wants to develop in new ways. All they need are accessible coaching skills.

Specially Trained Internal Coaches - These people often work in the Human Resources Department and their mission is to coach whomever needs assistance. Like school counselors, they exist because organizations recognize that the high-pressure, competitive environment and confusing issues will produce people with problems and unmet goals. Permanent coaches such as these are terrific generalists, able to handle a wide range of coaching issues.

External Coaches - These still exist, though they tend to be more specialized than in the past. Organizations usually hire such coaches for specific purposes: To develop high-potentials, to handle politically charged situations (where an internal coach wouldn’t have the objectivity or platform to do a good job), to work on leadership development issues such as accelerating the business skills of individuals or groups, or to deal with complicated or delicate problems (a highly talented but out-of-control executive). In other words, external coaches have the specialized expertise that other people might not have.” (Dotlich, Cairo, pgs. 6-8).

Dotlich and Cairo have simplified the definition of action (employee) coaching. As follows: Employee Coaching is a process that fosters self-awareness and that results in the motivation to change as well as the guidance needed if change is to take place in ways that meet organizational needs. (Dotlich and Cairo, pg. 18). This definition raises several questions. What is the methodology to motivate an employee to a point of full self awareness in an organizational context and then act accordingly? Within a systems context, how can one be sure that each of these individual employee changes will indeed have a positive impact on the organizational constancy? What is the certainty that such awareness will enhance the organizational culture as opposed to simply advancing an employee’s aspirations and career expectations? These questions and others are answered by describing at least four essential elements of employee coaching. These elements follow:

FIRST, self-awareness is linked with organizational results. Early in the coaching process personal development goals are set which match an employee’s perception of necessary changes to the need for change in the organizational context. These two perceptions may vary dramatically, but must be reconciled.

©EMCS 17

SECOND, an executive plan is put in place. Employee coaching plans are clear and substantial. They ask people to accomplish specific essential tasks, set visionary benchmarks, and agree on the indicators of measurement. Employee coaching may require employees to develop critical incident reports, establish journals based on reflective thinking, and test new behaviors while developing/learning new skills. The record of coaching interactions may impact an employee’s future in the organization. While designed to be positive, shortcomings may have a negative impact. Sincerity, compassion, creditability, and integrity will help clarify that we all are held accountable.

THIRD, the level of achievement is set based on organizational need. The exertion of human effort in the workplace should be systemically influenced by the mission and vision of that specific organization. On occasions, nothing will suffice short of a complete transformation of employee attitudes and behaviors. “For this reason, Dotlich and Cairo recommend the setting of one of the four following goals: self-awareness, performance improvement, performance breakthrough, or transformation.

FOURTH, the process is structured and provides proven tools. Employee coaching is far from being a seat-of-the-pants methodology. It may be situational but employee coaching unfolds in a logical, orderly manner. There is a definable beginning, middle, and end to the process as well as an extensive tool chest to facilitate the process. This well organized system will eliminate the uncertainties and the vague irrational outcomes that plague other approaches.

Dotlich and Cairo present a continuum from traditional coaching to employee coaching. This continuum follows.

©EMCS 18

From Traditional Coaching to Executive Coaching

From Traditional Coaching To Employee Coaching

Therapist-patient relationship Professional-organizational

relationship

One-size-fits-all approach to development

Personalized to each employee

Self-awareness as an end Uses self-awareness as a

means to create needed organizational behavior

Focused primarily on personal insights, not action

Focused on implementing new

learnings into measurable results

Unstructured approach and interactions

Strategic and planned actions

leads to performance breakthroughs

Focus on individual only; little link to organizational realities and obstacles in changing behavior

Matches individual aspirations and skills to the organizational context with a focus on purpose

Adapted from Exhibit 1.3, Dotlich and Cairo, pg. 21.

According to Dotlich and Cairo, there are at least eight steps of executive coaching. They view these steps as flexible so that a coach would not feel locked into the chronological order. Each employee may enter the process at a different point or some of the steps may have already been taken. “You must, however, adhere to the four key elements of the process: (1) self-awareness is linked with business results; (2) an executive plan is put in place; (3) the level of goal achievement is set based on organizational need; and (4) the process is structured and uses proven tools.” (Dotlich and Cairo, pg. 33).

©EMCS 19

The Employee Coaching process consists of the following eight steps:

1. Determine what needs to happen and in what context.

2. Establish trust and mutual expectations.

3. Contract with the client for results.

4. Collect and communicate feedback.

5. Translate talk into action.

6. Support big steps.

7. Foster reflection about actions.

8. Evaluate individual and organizational progress. We hope that this overview of employee coaching will provide a vibrant and living sense of how this process unfolds and how it can be implemented within school districts. It is our intention to further develop techniques, and training activities that will assist along the journey. This is not a complicated process, it is one, however, that requires skill and knowledge. Any process held out for the purpose of reshaping human behavior needs to be led by a seasoned and learned professional.

©EMCS 20

SECTION IV The Organizational Context of Effective Coaching

The product of employee coaching within an organization should unleash the human spirit and expand the work force capability to achieve beyond anticipated measures of productivity so as to institutionalize real change. This does not begin with tinkering with the strategy, structure, or systems of the organization. It also does not start with coaching techniques like setting goals, motivating people, and giving feedback. It starts with considering and being willing to alter the underlying context in which these occur. The cultural context is made up of the sum total of all the conclusions people in the organization have reached in order to succeed. This culture is shaped by the shared interpretations employees make about the operational environment, the existing theory of practice, and the core competencies that have been built up over time. It is also shaped by the management and leadership culture that is inherited or self-imposed. This network of underlying assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes are largely invisible but still influential. It is this basic cultural context that is important to consider in creating a framework for effective coaching. For example, the prevailing culture of most school districts is based on some type of alignment—the institutional practice of placing different people and groups into separate divisions and departments. Consequently, if you move from coaching the individual to coaching a group, especially in an organization like a school district, you have to talk about the context in which you are coaching. Is the coaching going to take place in the context of unilateral decision making, subservience, and dependency? Or is it going to take place in the context of internal commitment, external networking, collaboration and involvement? Considering the context is essential before you begin the journey of coaching any group. Robert Hargrove, in a book titled Masterful Coaching, looked at the cultural context from two perspectives, the first being, command, control, and coercion; the second being stewardship, internal commitment, and learning model. The Command, Control, and Coercion Model This model has been traditional in many organizations. According to (Hargrove, pg. 7) “ Bill Walsh, former coach of the San Francisco 49ers, in this context there is only one person who does all the thinking, makes all the decisions, and designs the game plan and that person is the dictator.” There are many executives whose need to pursue power to serve their own purposes and the desire to win is so strong that they use this context without even being aware of it.

©EMCS 21

Despite all the attention given to visionary leadership, culture change, empowerment, quality, strategic planning, understanding purpose, and service in recent years, most of the changes have impacted limited numbers of people and have been largely cosmetic. This often reduces itself down to autocracy—getting people to do things that they ordinarily would not want to do. The price paid for that is enormous. This model withers the human spirit and saps people of the motivation for high level performance and the ability to embrace the concept of change. The organization becomes impersonal and values stability, predictability, and control above all else. This creates a culture that flattens creativity, is inconsistent with quality and adds no value. Finally, people resist and most feel bewildered, frustrated, and resentful. This model is contradictory to the nature of the human spirit. People who work under this model have to accept being dependent, submissive, and passive in the face of the leader. Since this goes against a person’s basic instincts, the command and control model breeds defensive behavior. The boss ultimately is stymied, the shared view is lost, people try to win or withdraw from the conversation, the whole is reduced to the most powerful of the parts and the organization becomes unmanageable, falls into a mood of resignation or in the case of public schools, becomes more domestic and operates in spite of the leadership. Another significant issue of this model is that employees tend to perceive everything that comes from the top as another form of coercion. Thus, coaching people in this context will be seen as an attempt to dominate or to get more out of people after they are already past the breaking point. Motivating people with a reward system will be seen as manipulation and giving feedback will be perceived as checking up on what are you doing or saying to me this time? Learning and training are resisted because people do not participate in setting their own learning agendas. This becomes self perpetuating creating a vicious non productive cycle. The Stewardship, Internal Commitment, and Learning Model In attempting to realize high-standards and visionary change so as to create higher levels of commitment from people, every organization reaches an ethos or point of crisis that represents a need to create a new culture. One approach is the previous described system of command and control. A second system is the concept often called creating a learning organization through focused commitment and a shared vision. School districts that operate under this cultural context are “light years” apart from those that operate under the traditional control domains. In a learning organization with a common vision, employees do not give up their creative spirit in order to earn a living. Rather they begin a journey to answer “Who am I really?” and “What can I do in this organization that I passionately care about?” As this culture

©EMCS 22

grows, employees form a group or groups which surround a constancy of purpose which is larger than themselves. They negotiate their own goals within an organizational context and work collaboratively with unparalleled intensity. The organization that results from this is new. It embraces change and because of a sharpness of focus will clearly challenge the uncertain with enthusiasm. This phenomenon is equally true without reference to the size of the organization or the service delivered. In the emerging organization, the traditional systems and control functions may still be there but they exist only to serve and maintain a focus on the mission and vision with an added value that they indeed make a difference to employees. Institutional control is maintained by the employee commitment, collaboration, and involvement with their work about which they are particularly passionate. The new culture is a community built on communication, visible support, service leadership, and institutionalized creativity. This concept is summarized on the following page. A learning institution inspires employees to reach new horizons rather than new plateaus. These changes institutionalize the need for additional learning which creates change and a new revolving cycle. This new cycle is learner influenced and determined through collaboration and networking. It is not an isolated activity but rather a completely new culture that is synergistic. The pursuit of each new horizon creates the need for employee coaching. One might ask, “Who is the coach in the new organizational context? “The coach is an organization leader or manager, a frontline supervisor, a project manager, an external consultant, or simply a colleague. In this context, the role of the coach is that of being a steward, facilitative leader, and teacher, not just the person with the most power. He or she works with people to create a shared vision and values based on what matters to the institution, its demands and constraints, and what the people truly care about. In this context, one of the coach’s primary tasks is to help people create effective organizations that they believe in, where they can produce extraordinary results as an offering, not by demand.” (Hargrove, pg. 11) It is on this model that Employee Coaching is based.

©EMCS 23

New Culture The Shift to a Learning Organization

Service Context From Situational Domination

To Practicing the Power of Purpose

Direction Setting Vision from “on top” Shared Vision Thinking and Execution Top thinks, others act

Work now, grieve later Collaboration and interaction at all levels

Nature of Thinking Absolute control and the exercise of power

Systems design and collaborative visionary conversations

Conflict Resolution Conflict resolved by political or situational ethics

Focus on diversity and growth from disparity of opinion. Involve yea and nay sayers

Role of Leadership Set vision and motivate people with temporary rewards or threats

Build shared vision

Make major decisions and create situations which control local actions

Empower and inspire commitment

Delegate learning to the training department

Encourage team reflection, learning and networking to make better decisions

Coach people in a personal transformational context and to the development of necessary skills

Adapted from Diagram 1.2, Masterful Coaching, Robert Hargrove, Pg. 11.

©EMCS 24

SECTION V The Connection of Employee Coaching and Leadership

Development The Florida Association of District School Superintendents includes Mentoring and Employee Coaching as essential elements of leadership development. In the early stages of career development the new superintendent (or other executive) is provided the services of a mentor. As training and experience progress the superintendent is provided a learning partner, a coach, to assist the learning process. As superintendents’ careers progress, coaching takes on an even greater dynamic. Any superintendent, at any point in his/her career, is provided a coach on request. Such a need may be triggered by the superintendent’s grappling with a difficult problem with which the coach has experience or may be triggered by a superintendent wishing to implement a new program, project or strategy with which a coach has experience. From its training programs, involving mentoring and coaching, Florida school districts have developed a strength in networking, resulting in sharing best practices, resolving problems, establishing a constancy of purpose, and establishing professional collegiality and friendships.

©EMCS 25

Bibliography Bonsting, John Jay. 1992. Schools of Quality. Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development, Alexandria, VA. Boyer, E. L. 1985, “In the Aftermath of Excellence.” Education Leadership, Vol. 46, No. 6:

10-13. Brubaker, Dale L. and Coble, Larry D. 1997. Staying on Track. Corwin Press, Inc.,

Thousand Oaks, CA. Caine, Renate Nummela and Caine, Geoffrey. 1997. Education on the Edge of Possibility.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. Dotlich, David L. and Cairo, Peter C. 1999. Action Coaching. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San

Francisco, CA. Douglas, C.A., and Morley, W. H. Executive Coaching: An Annotated Bibliography.

Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership, 2000. Frankl, Viktor E. 1985. Man’s Search for Meaning. Washington Square Press, New York,

N.Y. Hanson, E. M. 1991. Educational Administration and Organiza-tional Behavior, 3rd

edition, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hagrove, Robert. 1995. Masterful Coaching. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Lyons, James E. Winter 1991. “ERS Spectrum.” How School Principals Perceive Their

Roles, Rewards, and Challenges. Marsh, David D. 1999. Preparing our Schools for the 21st Century. Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. Metz, M.H. 1988. “Some Missing Elements in the Educational Reform Movement.”

Educational Administration Quarterly Vol. 24: 446-460. Miller, Karen Kirkland. 2000. “Leadership in Action.” A Leader’s Guide to Executive

Coaching, Vol. 20, Number 1: 4-7. National Association of Elementary School Principals. (1990). Principals for 21st Century

Schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.

©EMCS 26

National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Governors’ Association. 1986. Time for Results: the Governors’ 1991 Report on

Education. Washington, DC: Author. Schlechty, Phillip C. 1990. Schools for the Twenty-first Century. Jossey-Bass Publishers,

San Francisco, CA. Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning

Organization. New York: Doubleday. Villa, Richard A. and Thousand, Jacqueline S. 1995. Creating an Inclusive School.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.

COMPONENT 3

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORMS School Based Administrators

Observation and Data Collection/Analysis Form

Observation and Data Collection/Analysis Summary Correlation of Standards

Professional Development Program Professional Development Assistance Form

©EMCS Page 1 of 18

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DIXIE COUNTY SCHOOL BASED ADMINISTRATOR

OBSERVATION AND DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS FORM

Name __________________________________________ Position ___________________________ Employee # ___________

Subject/Course __________________________ School/Dept. ______________________________ School Year ____________

Comments of the Evaluator _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Comments of the Evaluatee _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Information from teachers and parents was collected and analyzed in the preparation of this report. Yes No

This evaluation has been discussed with me. Yes No _________________________________ _______________ ______________________________ _____________ Signature of Evaluator Date Signature of Evaluatee Date

Signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with this evaluation.

SCHOOL BASED ADMINISTRATOR (Continued)

O – Observed I – Clearly Indicated C – Collected Data NE – Not Evident ©EMCS Page 2 of 18

Domain 1: Institutional Growth and Development Performance Values (Check One)

Observation Code*

Performance Responsibilities U NI E HE Indicate all that apply

Policy Governance

1. The degree to which School Board rules are understood and applied in daily operations.

2. The degree to which State Board of Education rules are understood and applied in daily operations.

3. The degree to which Florida Statutes governing public education are understood and applied.

4. The degree to which the provisions of the labor contracts are understood and consistently applied.

5. The degree to which the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act is understood and consistently applied to covered employees.

6. The degree to which current Federal and State case law impacting public education is understood and applied in daily operations.

7. The degree to which the code of federal regulations governing grants and other federal fiscal resources are understood and consistently applied.

8. The degree to which provisions governing risk management and unemployment compensation are understood and consistently applied.

9. The degree to which the Florida educational accountability system is understood and consistently applied.

10. The degree to which internal administrative procedures and policies are understood and consistently applied.

Leadership/Management

11. The degree to which expectations are prioritized and acted on following the premise of first things first.

12. The degree to which the leader plans and prepares relentlessly.

13. The degree to which the premise that everyone is accountable all of the time is communicated and applied.



Domain 1: Institutional Growth and Development Performance Values (Check One)

Observation Code*


14. The degree to which staffing decisions are considered strategic and based on talent pool needs such that the leader is always surrounded with great people.

15. The degree to which the art and science of reflection is practiced prior to making a decision.

16. The degree to which challenging goals are set with the expectation that achievement will exceed the anticipated results.

17. The degree to which the leader knows precisely what they believe as well as why they believe it and can articulate the same into a precise, consistent message.

18. The degree to which the leader walks the walk of the leadership message.

19. The degree to which loyalty “a vital virtue” is practiced toward the school, the school district, public education in general, and to each staff member.

20. The degree to which the traits of interpersonal sensitivity are consistently applied.

21. The degree to which the leader demonstrates the capacity of continuous learning based on contemporary literature.

22. The degree to which a common purpose is communicated and followed to the end that such becomes commonplace within the school.


Domain Raw Score

Domain Raw Score Unsatisfactory 0 - 9

Needs Improvement 10 - 29

Effective 30 - 44

Highly Effective 45 - 50




Domain 2: Applied Systems Science Performance Values (Check One)

Observation Code*


23. The degree to which operational systems are understood and consistently applied.

24. The degree to which the payroll system is understood and consistently applied.

25. The degree to which the staffing system is understood and consistently applied.

26. The degree to which the student assessment and evaluation system is understood and consistently applied.

27. The degree to which the budget and district fiscal services system is understood and consistently applied.

28. The degree to which internal accounts and the financial management system is understood and consistently applied.

29. The degree to which the student grade reporting and promotion system is understood and consistently applied.

30. The degree to which public awareness and communication system is planned and promoted.

31. The degree to which an internal awareness and communication system is planned and implemented.

32. The degree to which student growth and achievement diagnostic and data system retrieval is applied to placement and curriculum development.

33. The degree to which student achievement is celebrated and other recognition systems for attendance, citizenship, athletics, music, art and others are in place.

34. The degree to which data and data analysis is used to influence student placement, program development and deliberate instruction.

35. The degree to which leaves of absences are managed to be consistent with school board policy.

36. The degree to which the selection and deployment of substitutes supports the effectiveness of the overall staffing system.



Domain 2: Applied Systems Science Performance Values (Check One)

Observation Code*


37. The degree to which the rules, roles and relationships, which comprise a system, are reviewed, modified or adjusted for effectiveness.


Domain Raw Score



10 - 29 Effective


45 - 50




Domain 3: Institutional Climate Performance Values (Check)

Observation Code*


38. The degree to which goal focus, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached.

39. The degree to which communication, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached.

40. The degree to which optimal power equalization, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached.

41. The degree to which morale, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and nurtured.

42. The degree to which innovation and adaption, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached.

43. The degree to which autonomy, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached.

44. The degree to which managing productive systems, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached.

45. The degree to which commitment, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached.

46. The degree to which a safe and healthy environment, as a contributor to institutional climate, is planned, monitored, understood and coached.

47. The degree to which student growth and achievement is a primary focus in establishing institutional climate.



Domain 3: Institutional Climate (Continued)


Domain Raw Score



Effective 21 - 31

Highly Effective 32 – 35




Domain 4: Instructional Leadership Performance Values (Check)

Observation Code*


48. Provide instructional leadership and supervision for student achievement.

49. Manage and administer the development, implementation and assessment of the instructional program at the assigned school.

50. Provide a comprehensive instructional program, including core academic programs, vocational/applied technology programs, performing fine arts, health and physical education, advanced academic programs, exceptional student education programs and other programs to address the diverse needs of the school population.


52. Provide leadership in the school improvement process and the implementation of the School Improvement Plan.

53. Analyze and report the results of the School Improvement Team’s efforts on student performance.

54. Coordinate program planning with district instructional staff.

55. Oversee the acquisition and utilization of textbooks, other instructional materials and equipment.

56. Facilitate the testing program for the school.

57. Align school initiatives with district, state and school goals.

58. Establish and coordinate procedures for students, teachers, parents and the community to evaluate curriculum.

59. Direct or oversee the development of the master schedule and assign teachers according to identified needs.

60. Facilitate the horizontal and vertical articulation of curriculum within the school, as well as between the school and its feeder system.



Domain 4: Instructional Leadership Performance Values (Check)

Observation Code*


61. Coordinate and monitor the implementation of Exceptional Student Education (ESE) programs and services.

62. Facilitate the development and implementation of the school technology plan.

63. Provide leadership in the effective use of technology in the classroom.

64. Explore and evaluate new technologies and their educational impact.

65. Assist classroom teachers with the effective use of technology.

66. Ensure the implementation of graduation requirements and conduct graduation activities and ceremonies in accordance with established policies and procedures.

67. Manage and administer the development, implementation and assessment of the instructional performance appraisal system.


Domain Raw Score



12 - 35 Effective


54 - 60




Domain 5: Building and Site Management Performance Values (Check)

Observation Code*


68. The degree to which building space is assigned to add effectiveness and efficiency to program services and student movement on campuses.

69. The degree to which the grounds are attractively maintained, pleasing to the public view and clean to the degree that it promotes a healthy and safe environment.

70. The degree to which work orders are submitted and monitored in a timely manner.

71. The degree to which the campus is made safe for students and staff from intruders.

72. The degree to which a campus emergency plan is designed, trained and immediately available to the staff.

73. The degree to which the community is engaged in making the campus and facilities a source of community pride.

74. The degree to which public access and presence on campus is monitored and controlled.

75. The degree to which the community is aware of the procedures necessary to use a portion of the space so that the needs of the community may be served.


Domain Raw Score



Effective 9 - 13





Domain 6: Core Concepts of Management Performance Values (Check)

Observation Code*


76. The degree to which planning is comprehensive, strategic, situational and understood as a core concept of management which requires a specific set of skills for implementation.

77. The degree to which all activities, initiatives and events are organized, proffered and implemented with the highest degree of efficiency and clearly understood as a core concept of management.

78. The degree to which staffing is understood as essential, strategic and interconnected to the talent pool necessary for effective systems implementation as a core concept of management.

79. The degree to which directing, as a core concept of management, is utilized for successful follow through on initiatives, activities and events.

80. The degree to which controlling is understood as a core concept of management and is correlated to the profound protocols of leadership.


Domain Raw Score



7 - 20 Effective


32 - 35




Domain 7: Applied Protocols of Leadership Performance Values (Check)

Observation Code*


81. High performing leaders have a personal vision for their school and the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to develop, articulate and implement a shared vision that is supported by the larger organization and the school community.







88. High performing leaders act with integrity, fairness, and honesty in an ethical manner.

89. High performing leaders understand the role of research and development in institutional operations, enhancement and renewal and skillfully design this element to continuously replenish the data base on which decisions are made.

90. High performing leaders establish quality institutional standards and set high expectations for themselves, the workforce, and the organization itself.



Domain 7: Applied Protocols of Leadership Performance Values (Check)

Observation Code*


91. High performing leaders clearly delineate between practices of leadership and practices of management and perform the mutual roles in such a way as to be effective and understood in the work environment.

92. High performing leaders have clearly defined the functions and services of the organization and skillfully perform the fundamental role of directing the work of the employees.

93. High performing leaders engage various leadership styles, employing reflective, analytic, systemic, collaborative and action mindsets as needs and circumstances dictate.

94. High performing leaders understand concepts of organizational development and guide their organizations to create the culture, define the character, and assess the climate of their organization.

95. High performing leaders guide their institutions to promote organizational growth and to skillfully manage change.

96. High performing leaders develop and formalize a comprehensive planning and scheduling component which guides the institutional work force.



99. High performing leaders continually conduct research and development for institutional growth purposes.



Domain 7: Applied Protocols of Leadership (Continued)


Domain Raw Score



Effective 21 - 31





Domain 8: Student Growth and Achievement Performance Values (Check)

Observation Code*


100. Ensure that student growth and achievement are continuous and appropriate for age group, subject area, and/or student program classification.


Domain Raw Score


0 Needs Improvement

120 Effective

240 Highly Effective

300




Domain 9: Staff Development Performance Values (Check)

Observation Code*


101. Engage in continuing improvement of professional knowledge and skills.

102. Assist others in acquiring new knowledge and understanding.

103. Keep abreast of developments in instructional methodology, learning theory, curriculum trends, and content.

104. Conduct a personal assessment periodically to determine professional development needs with reference to specific instructional assignment.

105. Participate in school data collection of teacher input on principal’s performance assessment program.

106. Supervise the establishment and maintenance of individual professional development plans for each instructional employee.

107. Supervise assigned personnel and make recommendations for appropriate employment action.

108. Manage and administer personnel development through training, inservice and other developmental activities.

109. Provide training opportunities and feedback to personnel at the assigned school.

110. Perform all required professional development services.



Domain 9: Staff Development (Continued)


Domain Raw Score



Effective 12 - 17





OVERALL RATING


Unsatisfactory Needs

Improvement Effective

Highly Effective

Metric Measurement 1 Domain 1: Institutional Growth and Development 0 20 40 50 Domain 2: Applied Systems Science 0 20 40 50 Domain 3: Institutional Climate 0 14 28 35 Domain 4: Instructional Leadership 0 24 48 60 Domain 5: Building and site Management 0 6 12 15 Domain 6: Core Concepts of Management 0 16 28 35 Domain 7: Applied Protocols of Leadership 0 14 28 35

Metric Measurement 2 Domain 8: Student Growth and Achievement 0 120 240 300

Metric Measurement 3 Domain 9: Staff Development 0 8 16 20

TOTAL

Overall Score ________

Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Effective Highly Effective 0-119 120 - 359 360 - 539 540 – 600

©EMCS Signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with this evaluation. Page 1 of 1


OBSERVATION AND DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Name ______________________________________________ Position ____________________________

Employee # _______________________________ Subject/Course ________________________________

School/Dept. ______________________________________________ School Year ___________________

Unsatisfactory Needs

Improvement Effective

Highly Effective

Metric Measurement 1 Domain 1: Institutional Growth and Development 0 20 40 50

Donain2: Applied Systems Science 0 20 40 50

Domain 3: Institutional Climate 0 14 28 35

Domain 4: Instructional Leadership 0 24 48 60

Domain 5: Building and Site Management 0 6 12 15

Domain 6: Core Concepts of Management 0 14 28 35

Domain 7: Applied Protocol of Leadership 0 14 28 35

Metric Measurement 2 Domain 8: Student Growth and Achievement 0 120 240 300

Metric Measurement 3 Domain 9: Staff Development 0 8 16 20

Total

Overall Score ________ Information from teachers parents was collected and analyzed in the preparation of this report.

Unsatisfactory 0-119

Needs Improvement 120-359

Effective 360-539

Very Effective 540-600

Comments of the Evaluatee __________________________________________________________________________________ Comments of the Evaluator __________________________________________________________________________________ This evaluation has been discussed with me Yes No ____________________________ _____________ _________________________ ____________ Signature of Evaluatee Date Signature of Evaluator Date

©EMCS Page 1 of 37


CORRELATION OF STANDARDS

Domain 1: Institutional Growth and Development Performance Responsibilities: Policy Governance 1. The degree to which School Board rules are understood and applied in daily operations. 2. The degree to which State Board of Education rules are understood and applied in daily operations. 3. The degree to which Florida Statutes governing public education are understood and applied. 4. The degree to which the provisions of the labor contracts are understood and consistently applied. 5. The degree to which the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act is understood and consistently applied to

covered employees. 6. The degree to which current Federal and State case law impacting public education is understood and

applied in daily operations. 7. The degree to which the code of federal regulations governing grants and other federal fiscal resources are

understood and consistently applied. 8. The degree to which provisions governing risk management and unemployment compensation are

understood and consistently applied. 9. The degree to which the Florida educational accountability system is understood and consistently applied. 10. The degree to which internal administrative procedures and policies are understood and consistently

applied. Leadership/Management 11. The degree to which expectations are prioritized and acted on following the premise of first things first. 12. The degree to which the leader plans and prepares relentlessly. 13. The degree to which the premise that everyone is accountable all of the time is communicated and applied. 14. The degree to which staffing decisions are considered strategic and based on talent pool needs such that the

leader is always surrounded with great people. 15. The degree to which the art and science of reflection is practiced prior to making a decision. 16. The degree to which challenging goals are set with the expectation that achievement will exceed the

anticipated results. 17. The degree to which the leader knows precisely what they believe as well as why they believe it and can

articulate the same into a precise, consistent message. 18. The degree to which the leader walks the walk of the leadership message. 19. The degree to which loyalty “a vital virtue” is practiced toward the school, the school district, public

education in general, and to each staff member. 20. The degree to which the traits of interpersonal sensitivity are consistently applied. 21. The degree to which the leader demonstrates the capacity of continuous learning based on contemporary

literature. 22. The degree to which a common purpose is communicated and followed to the end that such becomes

commonplace within the school. Educator Accomplished Practices: (a) Quality of Instruction.

1. Instructional Design and Lesson Planning. Applying concepts from human development and learning theories, the effective educator consistently:

SCHOOL BASED ADMINSTRATOR (Continued)

©EMCS Page 2 of 37

a. Aligns instruction with state-adopted standards at the appropriate level of rigor; e. Uses diagnostic student data to plan lessons; and

2. The Learning Environment. To maintain a student-centered learning environment that is safe, organized, equitable, flexible, inclusive, and collaborative, the effective educator consistently: a. Organizes, allocates, and manages the resources of time, space, and attention; b. Manages individual and class behaviors through a well-planned management system; c. Conveys high expectations to all students; e. Models clear, acceptable oral and written communication skills; f. Maintains a climate of openness, inquiry, fairness and support; g. Integrates current information and communication technologies;

(b) Continuous Improvement, Responsibility and Ethics. 1. Continuous Professional Improvement. The effective educator consistently:

a. Designs purposeful professional goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on students’ needs;

e. Engages in targeted professional growth opportunities and reflective practices; and f. Implements knowledge and skills learned in professional development in the teaching and

learning process. 2. Professional Responsibility and Ethical Conduct. Understanding that educators are held to a high

moral standard in a community, the effective educator adheres to the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession of Florida, pursuant to Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, F.A.C., and fulfills the expected obligations to students, the public and the education profession.

Florida Principal Leadership Standards: Domain 1: Student Achievement: Standard 1: Student Learning Results. Effective school leaders achieve results on the school’s student learning goals. a. The school’s learning goals are based on the state’s adopted student academic standards and the district’s

adopted curricula; and b. Student learning results are evidenced by the student performance and growth on statewide assessments;

district-determined assessments that are implemented by the district under Section 1008.22, F.S.; international assessments; and other indicators of student success adopted by the district and state.

Domain 2: Instructional Leadership: Standard 3: Instructional Plan Implementation. Effective school leaders work collaboratively to develop and implement an instructional framework that aligns curriculum with state standards, effective instructional practices, student learning needs and assessments. The leader: a. Implements the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices as described in Rule 6A-5.065, F.A.C. through a

common language of instruction; b. Engages in data analysis for instructional planning and improvement; c. Communicates the relationships among academic standards, effective instruction, and student

performance; d. Implements the district’s adopted curricula and state’s adopted academic standards in a manner that is

rigorous and culturally relevant to the students and school; and e. Ensures the appropriate use of high quality formative and interim assessments aligned with the adopted

standards and curricula.


©EMCS Page 3 of 37

Standard 4: Faculty Development. Effective school leaders recruit, retain and develop an effective and diverse faculty and staff. The leader: a. Generates a focus on student and professional learning in the school that is clearly linked to the system-

wide strategic objectives and the school improvement plan; b. Evaluates, monitors, and provides timely feedback to faculty on the effectiveness of instruction; c. Employs a faculty with the instructional proficiencies needed for the school population served; d. Identifies faculty instructional proficiency needs, including standards-based content, research-based

pedagogy, data analysis for instructional planning and improvement, and the use of instructional technology;



Standard 5: Learning Environment. Effective school leaders structure and monitor a school learning environment that improves learning for all of Florida’s diverse student population. The leader: a. Maintains a safe, respectful and inclusive student-centered learning environment that is focused on

equitable opportunities for learning and building a foundation for a fulfilling life in a democratic society and global economy;



d. Provides recurring monitoring and feedback on the quality of the learning environment; e. Initiates and supports continuous improvement processes focused on the students’ opportunities for

success and well-being. f. Engages faculty in recognizing and understanding cultural and developmental issues related to student

learning by identifying and addressing strategies to minimize and/or eliminate achievement gaps. Domain 3: Organizational Leadership Standard 6: Decision Making. Effective school leaders employ and monitor a decision-making process that is based on vision, mission and improvement priorities using facts and data. The leader: a. Gives priority attention to decisions that impact the quality of student learning and teacher proficiency; b. Uses critical thinking and problem solving techniques to define problems and identify solutions; c. Evaluates decisions for effectiveness, equity, intended and actual outcome; implements follow-up actions;

and revises as needed; d. Empowers others and distributes leadership when appropriate; and e. Uses effective technology integration to enhance decision making and efficiency throughout the school. Standard 7: Leadership Development. Effective school leaders actively cultivate, support, and develop other leaders within the organization. The leader: a. Identifies and cultivates potential and emerging leaders; b. Provides evidence of delegation and trust in subordinate leaders; c. Plans for succession management in key positions; d. Promotes teacher–leadership functions focused on instructional proficiency and student learning; and


©EMCS Page 4 of 37

e. Develops sustainable and supportive relationships between school leaders, parents, community, higher education and business leaders.

Standard 8: School Management. Effective school leaders manage the organization, operations, and facilities in ways that maximize the use of resources to promote a safe, efficient, legal, and effective learning environment. The leader: a. Organizes time, tasks and projects effectively with clear objectives and coherent plans; b. Establishes appropriate deadlines for him/herself and the entire organization; c. Manages schedules, delegates, and allocates resources to promote collegial efforts in school improvement

and faculty development; and d. Is fiscally responsible and maximizes the impact of fiscal resources on instructional priorities. Standard 9: Communication. Effective school leaders practice two-way communications and use appropriate oral, written, and electronic communication and collaboration skills to accomplish school and system goals by building and maintaining relationships with students, faculty, parents, and community. The leader: a. Actively listens to and learns from students, staff, parents, and community stakeholders; b. Recognizes individuals for effective performance; c. Communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents, and community; d. Maintains high visibility at school and in the community and regularly engages stakeholders in the work of

the school; e. Creates opportunities within the school to engage students, faculty, parents, and community stakeholders

in constructive conversations about important school issues. f. Utilizes appropriate technologies for communication and collaboration; and g. Ensures faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements, academic standards, and

all other local state and federal administrative requirements and decisions. Domain 4: Professional and Ethical Behavior: Standard 10: Professional and Ethical Behaviors. Effective school leaders demonstrate personal and professional behaviors consistent with quality practices in education and as a community leader. The leader: a. Adheres to the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in

Florida, pursuant to Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, F.A.C. b. Demonstrates resiliency by staying focused on the school vision and reacting constructively to the barriers

to success that include disagreement and dissent with leadership; c. Demonstrates a commitment to the success of all students, identifying barriers and their impact on the well-

being of the school, families, and local community; d. Engages in professional learning that improves professional practice in alignment with the needs of the

school system; and e. Demonstrates willingness to admit error and learn from it; f. Demonstrates explicit improvement in specific performance areas based on previous evaluations and

formative feedback. Classroom Teacher High Effect Indicators Learning Goal with Scales: The teacher provides students with clearly stated learning goals accompanied by a scale or rubric that describes levels of performance relative to the learning goal. Tracking Student Progress: The teacher facilitates the tracking of student progress on learning goals using a formative approach to assessment. Established Content Standards: The teacher ensures that lesson and unit plans are aligned with established state content standards identified by the state and the manner in which that content should be sequenced.


©EMCS Page 5 of 37

Multi-tiered System of Supports: The teacher provides a learning environment with multiple tiers of support to meet individual needs and affect positive change. Clear Goals: The teacher identifies a lesson or part of a lesson as involving important information to which students should pay particular attention. School Leadership High Effect Indicators Feedback Practices: The school leader monitors, evaluates proficiency, and provides timely feedback to faculty on the effectiveness of instruction on priority instructional goals, and the cause and effect relationships between professional practice and student achievement on those goals. Facilitating Professional Learning: The school leader manages the organization, operations, and facilities to provide the faculty with quality resources and time for professional learning, and engages faculty in effective individual and collaborative learning on priority professional goals throughout the school year. Clear Goals and Expectations: The school leader communicates goals and expectations clearly and concisely using Florida’s common language of instruction and appropriate written and oral skills; communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents, and community; and ensures that the faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements, academic standards, and all other local, state, and federal administrative requirements and decisions. Instructional Resources: The school leader maximizes the impact of school personnel and fiscal and facility resources to provide recurring systemic support for instructional priorities and a supportive learning environment. High Effect Size Strategies: The school leader takes actions to ensure that instructional personnel receive recurring feedback on their proficiency in high effect size instructional strategies. Instructional Initiatives: District-supported state initiatives focused on student growth are supported by the school leader with specific and observable actions including monitoring of implementation and measurement of progress toward initiative goals and professional learning to improve faculty capacity to implement the initiatives. The following indicators relate to leadership focused on specific instructional improvement initiatives: Monitoring Text Complexity: The school leader monitors teacher implementation of instructional

processes involving complex text with embedding of close reading and rereading of complex text as a routine event incorporating these two processes: - writing in response to text - text-based discussions with students

Interventions: The school leader routinely uses teacher-collected student response data to determine effectiveness of instruction and interventions school-wide, grade-wide, class-wide, and specific to student sub-groups. (MTSS)

Instructional Adaptations: The school leader routinely engages teachers collaboratively in a structured data-based planning and problem-solving process in order to modify instruction and interventions for accelerated student progress and to monitor and evaluate the effect of those modifications. (MTSS)

ESOL Strategies: The school leader monitors the school and classrooms for comprehensible instruction delivered to ESOL students and the utilization of ESOL teaching strategies appropriate to the students in the class. (ESOL)

EMCS Indicators of an Effective Educational Institution (School and/or District): 1. Effective organizations have a comprehensive program for research and development. 2. Effective organizations have leaders who understand and apply core concepts of leadership. 3. Effective organizations have leaders who understand the varied duties in management and leadership and

keep a balance in carrying out practices in management and leadership.


©EMCS Page 6 of 37

4. Effective organizations have established institutional quality standards. 5. Effective organizations have beliefs, a vision, mission, and purposes that are in synchrony. 6. Effective organizations have a common information base connected to institutional purpose. 8. Effective organizations have institutional designs around the central purpose of the organization. 10. Effective organizations skillfully manage systemic and institutional change. 11. Effective organizations have institutional preparedness and are proactive for the future. 13. Effective organizations have fully functioning human resources management and development systems. 14. Effective organizations have well-defined, active systems of teaching and learning. 15. Effective organizations have evaluation systems signaling continuous progress. 16. Effective organizations have well defined and managed systems of proprietary interests. 17. Effective organizations have clearly defined institutional functions and practices. 19. Effective organizations have fiscal soundness, characterized by application of best practices in use of

resources. 20. Effective organizations have organizational alignments that embrace leadership and management

accountability. 21. Effective organizations have an environment for institutional politics controlled by the artful practice of

interpersonal and intrapersonal interaction within the organizational context. 22. Effective organizations have systems where personnel are empowered, enabled, and assisted. 29. Effective organizations have institutional integrity. 31. Effective organizations make effective use of technology at all levels. 32. Effective organizations have comprehensive programs for institutional security. 33. Effective organizations have established effective programs for mentoring and institutional coaching. 34. Effective organizations practice vertical and horizontal teaming. 35. Effective organizations have visibility and accessibility. 36. Effective organizations implement labor contracts skillfully. 37. Effective organizations practice formalized institutional planning. 38. Effective organizations are places where systems functions are realized through defined and harmonic

interactions of the workforce as rules and roles change through evolving institutional dynamics. 40. Effective organizations are places where leadership and institutional courage are evident with reference to

the body politic. 42. Effective organizations are learning organizations where every leader is a learner. 44. Effective organizations are places where leaders are high performing, healthy role models. 45. Effective organizations have complete data banks of institutional knowledge with specific role assignments

for institutional memory responsibilities. 46. Effective organizations are places where persons walk-the-walk and behave with optimism, honesty and

consideration for others.


©EMCS Page 7 of 37

Domain 2: Applied Systems Science

Performance Responsibilities: 23. The degree to which operational systems are understood and consistently applied. 24. The degree to which the payroll system is understood and consistently applied. 25. The degree to which the staffing system is understood and consistently applied. 26. The degree to which the student assessment and evaluation system is understood and consistently applied. 27. The degree to which the budget and district fiscal services system is understood and consistently applied. 28. The degree to which internal accounts and the financial management system is understood and consistently

applied. 29. The degree to which the student grade reporting and promotion system is understood and consistently

applied. 30. The degree to which public awareness and communication system is planned and promoted. 31. The degree to which an internal awareness and communication system is planned and implemented. 32. The degree to which student growth and achievement diagnostic and data system retrieval is applied to

placement and curriculum development. 33. The degree to which student achievement is celebrated and other recognition systems for attendance,

citizenship, athletics, music, art and others are in place. 34. The degree to which data and data analysis is used to influence student placement, program development

and deliberate instruction. 35. The degree to which leaves of absences are managed to be consistent with school board policy. 36. The degree to which the selection and deployment of substitutes supports the effectiveness of the overall

staffing system. 37. The degree to which the rules, roles and relationships, which comprise a system, are reviewed, modified or

adjusted for effectiveness. Educator Accomplished Practices: (a) Quality of Instruction.

1. Instructional Design and Lesson Planning. Applying concepts from human development and learning theories, the effective educator consistently: a. Aligns instruction with state-adopted standards at the appropriate level of rigor; d. Selects appropriate formative assessments to monitor learning; e. Uses diagnostic student data to plan lessons; and

2. The Learning Environment. To maintain a student-centered learning environment that is safe, organized, equitable, flexible, inclusive, and collaborative, the effective educator consistently: a. Organizes, allocates, and manages the resources of time, space, and attention; e. Models clear, acceptable oral and written communication skills; f. Maintains a climate of openness, inquiry, fairness and support; g. Integrates current information and communication technologies; i. Utilizes current and emerging assistive technologies that enable students to participate in high-

quality communication interactions and achieve their educational goals. 4. Assessment. The effective educator consistently:

a. Analyzes and applies data from multiple assessments and measures to diagnose students’ learning needs, informs instruction based on those needs, and drives the learning process;

b. Designs and aligns formative and summative assessments that match learning objectives and lead to mastery;


©EMCS Page 8 of 37

c. Uses a variety of assessment tools to monitor student progress, achievement and learning gains; d. Modifies assessments and testing conditions to accommodate learning styles and varying levels of

knowledge; e. Shares the importance and outcomes of student assessment data with the student and the student’s

parent/caregiver(s); and f. Applies technology to organize and integrate assessment information.


a. Designs purposeful professional goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on students’ needs;

b. Examines and uses data-informed research to improve instruction and student achievement; d. Collaborates with the home, school and larger communities to foster communication and to

support student learning and continuous improvement; e. Engages in targeted professional growth opportunities and reflective practices; and f. Implements knowledge and skills learned in professional development in the teaching and

learning process. 2. Professional Responsibility and Ethical Conduct. Understanding that educators are held to a high

moral standard in a community, the effective educator adheres to the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession of Florida, pursuant to Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, F.A.C., and fulfills the expected obligations to students, the public and the education profession.

Florida Principal Leadership Standards: Domain 1: Student Achievement: Standard 1: Student Learning Results. Effective school leaders achieve results on the school’s student learning goals. a. The school’s learning goals are based on the state’s adopted student academic standards and the district’s



Domain 3: Organizational Leadership Standard 7: Leadership Development. Effective school leaders actively cultivate, support, and develop other leaders within the organization. The leader: a. Identifies and cultivates potential and emerging leaders; b. Provides evidence of delegation and trust in subordinate leaders; c. Plans for succession management in key positions; d. Promotes teacher–leadership functions focused on instructional proficiency and student learning; and e. Develops sustainable and supportive relationships between school leaders, parents, community, higher

education and business leaders. Standard 8: School Management. Effective school leaders manage the organization, operations, and facilities in ways that maximize the use of resources to promote a safe, efficient, legal, and effective learning environment. The leader: a. Organizes time, tasks and projects effectively with clear objectives and coherent plans; b. Establishes appropriate deadlines for him/herself and the entire organization; c. Manages schedules, delegates, and allocates resources to promote collegial efforts in school improvement

and faculty development; and


©EMCS Page 9 of 37

d. Is fiscally responsible and maximizes the impact of fiscal resources on instructional priorities. Standard 9: Communication. Effective school leaders practice two-way communications and use appropriate oral, written, and electronic communication and collaboration skills to accomplish school and system goals by building and maintaining relationships with students, faculty, parents, and community. The leader: a. Actively listens to and learns from students, staff, parents, and community stakeholders; b. Recognizes individuals for effective performance; c. Communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents, and community; d. Maintains high visibility at school and in the community and regularly engages stakeholders in the work of



all other local state and federal administrative requirements and decisions. Domain 4: Professional and Ethical Behavior: Standard 10: Professional and Ethical Behaviors. Effective school leaders demonstrate personal and professional behaviors consistent with quality practices in education and as a community leader. The leader: a. Adheres to the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in





formative feedback. Classroom Teacher High Effect Indicators Learning Goal with Scales: The teacher provides students with clearly stated learning goals accompanied by a scale or rubric that describes levels of performance relative to the learning goal. Tracking Student Progress: The teacher facilitates the tracking of student progress on learning goals using a formative approach to assessment. Established Content Standards: The teacher ensures that lesson and unit plans are aligned with established state content standards identified by the state and the manner in which that content should be sequenced. Multi-tiered System of Supports: The teacher provides a learning environment with multiple tiers of support to meet individual needs and affect positive change. Tracking Rate of Progress: The teacher’s implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) routinely collects, analyzes, and uses on-going progress monitoring data to evaluate student rate of progress aligned with behavioral and grade-level academic standards. Clear Goals: The teacher identifies a lesson or part of a lesson as involving important information to which students should pay particular attention.


©EMCS Page 10 of 37

School Leadership High Effect Indicators Facilitating Professional Learning: The school leader manages the organization, operations, and facilities to provide the faculty with quality resources and time for professional learning, and engages faculty in effective individual and collaborative learning on priority professional goals throughout the school year. Clear Goals and Expectations: The school leader communicates goals and expectations clearly and concisely using Florida’s common language of instruction and appropriate written and oral skills; communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents, and community; and ensures that the faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements, academic standards, and all other local, state, and federal administrative requirements and decisions. Instructional Resources: The school leader maximizes the impact of school personnel and fiscal and facility resources to provide recurring systemic support for instructional priorities and a supportive learning environment. High Effect Size Strategies: The school leader takes actions to ensure that instructional personnel receive recurring feedback on their proficiency in high effect size instructional strategies. EMCS Indicators of an Effective Educational Institution (School and/or District): 1. Effective organizations have a comprehensive program for research and development. 4. Effective organizations have established institutional quality standards. 5. Effective organizations have beliefs, a vision, mission, and purposes that are in synchrony. 6. Effective organizations have a common information base connected to institutional purpose. 8. Effective organizations have institutional designs around the central purpose of the organization. 10. Effective organizations skillfully manage systemic and institutional change. 11. Effective organizations have institutional preparedness and are proactive for the future. 13. Effective organizations have fully functioning human resources management and development systems. 14. Effective organizations have well-defined, active systems of teaching and learning. 15. Effective organizations have evaluation systems signaling continuous progress. 17. Effective organizations have clearly defined institutional functions and practices. 18. Effective organizations have decision-making systems characterized by strategic thinking and planning. 19. Effective organizations have fiscal soundness, characterized by application of best practices in use of


accountability. 22. Effective organizations have systems where personnel are empowered, enabled, and assisted. 23. Effective organizations are places where there is purposeful abandonment of nonproductive practices. 25. Effective organizations are places where organizational awareness and sensitivity are promoted through

matching skills and talents to tasks leading to development of institutional purpose. 26. Effective organizations have leadership structures that see beyond the present and maintain a progressive

edge. 27. Effective organizations conduct cost/benefit analyses before implementing new programs. 28. Effective organizations allow sufficient time for programs to reach maturity in accordance with program

design before implementing change. 30. Effective organizations have a pervasive atmosphere of high expectations. 31. Effective organizations make effective use of technology at all levels. 32. Effective organizations have comprehensive programs for institutional security. 33. Effective organizations have established effective programs for mentoring and institutional coaching. 34. Effective organizations practice vertical and horizontal teaming. 36. Effective organizations implement labor contracts skillfully.



37. Effective organizations practice formalized institutional planning. 38. Effective organizations are places where systems functions are realized through defined and harmonic

interactions of the workforce as rules and roles change through evolving institutional dynamics. 39. Effective organizations are places where there is power equalization through organized alignment

commensurate with distributed institutional responsibility. 45. Effective organizations have complete data banks of institutional knowledge with specific role assignments

for institutional memory responsibilities.

Domain 3: Institutional Climate Performance Responsibilities: 38. The degree to which goal focus, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached. 39. The degree to which communication, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached. 40. The degree to which optimal power equalization, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood

and coached. 41. The degree to which morale, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and nurtured. 42. The degree to which innovation and adaption, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and

coached. 43. The degree to which autonomy, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached. 44. The degree to which managing productive systems, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood

and coached. 45. The degree to which commitment, as a contributor to institutional climate, is understood and coached. 46. The degree to which a safe and healthy environment, as a contributor to institutional climate, is planned,

monitored, understood and coached. 47. The degree to which student growth and achievement is a primary focus in establishing institutional

climate. Educator Accomplished Practices: (a) Quality of Instruction.

2. The Learning Environment. To maintain a student-centered learning environment that is safe, organized, equitable, flexible, inclusive, and collaborative, the effective educator consistently: a. Organizes, allocates, and manages the resources of time, space, and attention; f. Maintains a climate of openness, inquiry, fairness and support; g. Integrates current information and communication technologies;


d. Collaborates with the home, school and larger communities to foster communication and to support student learning and continuous improvement;

Florida Principal Leadership Standards: Domain 1: Student Achievement: Standard 2: Student Learning as a Priority. Effective school leaders demonstrate that student learning is their top priority through leadership actions that build and support a learning organization focused on student success. The leader: a. Enables faculty and staff to work as a system focused on student learning; b. Maintains a school climate that supports student engagement in learning; c. Generates high expectations for learning growth by all students; and



d. Engages faculty and staff in efforts to close learning performance gaps among student subgroups within the school.

Domain 2: Instructional Leadership: Standard 3: Instructional Plan Implementation. Effective school leaders work collaboratively to develop and implement an instructional framework that aligns curriculum with state standards, effective instructional practices, student learning needs and assessments. The leader: a. Implements the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices as described in Rule 6A-5.065, F.A.C. through a




standards and curricula. Standard 4: Faculty Development. Effective school leaders recruit, retain and develop an effective and diverse faculty and staff. The leader: a. Generates a focus on student and professional learning in the school that is clearly linked to the system-





Standard 5: Learning Environment. Effective school leaders structure and monitor a school learning environment that improves learning for all of Florida’s diverse student population. The leader: a. Maintains a safe, respectful and inclusive student-centered learning environment that is focused on






learning by identifying and addressing strategies to minimize and/or eliminate achievement gaps.



Domain 3: Organizational Leadership Standard 6: Decision Making. Effective school leaders employ and monitor a decision-making process that is based on vision, mission and improvement priorities using facts and data. The leader: a. Gives priority attention to decisions that impact the quality of student learning and teacher proficiency; b. Uses critical thinking and problem solving techniques to define problems and identify solutions; c. Evaluates decisions for effectiveness, equity, intended and actual outcome; implements follow-up actions;

and revises as needed; d. Empowers others and distributes leadership when appropriate; and e. Uses effective technology integration to enhance decision making and efficiency throughout the school. Domain 4: Professional and Ethical Behavior: Standard 10: Professional and Ethical Behaviors. Effective school leaders demonstrate personal and professional behaviors consistent with quality practices in education and as a community leader. The leader: a. Adheres to the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in





formative feedback. Classroom Teacher High Effect Indicators Multi-tiered System of Supports: The teacher provides a learning environment with multiple tiers of support to meet individual needs and affect positive change. School Leadership High Effect Indicators Feedback Practices: The school leader monitors, evaluates proficiency, and provides timely feedback to faculty on the effectiveness of instruction on priority instructional goals, and the cause and effect relationships between professional practice and student achievement on those goals. Facilitating Professional Learning: The school leader manages the organization, operations, and facilities to provide the faculty with quality resources and time for professional learning, and engages faculty in effective individual and collaborative learning on priority professional goals throughout the school year. Clear Goals and Expectations: The school leader communicates goals and expectations clearly and concisely using Florida’s common language of instruction and appropriate written and oral skills; communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents, and community; and ensures that the faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements, academic standards, and all other local, state, and federal administrative requirements and decisions. High Effect Size Strategies: The school leader takes actions to ensure that instructional personnel receive recurring feedback on their proficiency in high effect size instructional strategies.



Instructional Initiatives: District-supported state initiatives focused on student growth are supported by the school leader with specific and observable actions including monitoring of implementation and measurement of progress toward initiative goals and professional learning to improve faculty capacity to implement the initiatives. The following indicators relate to leadership focused on specific instructional improvement initiatives: Monitoring Text Complexity: The school leader monitors teacher implementation of instructional





EMCS Indicators of an Effective Educational Institution (School and/or District): 4. Effective organizations have established institutional quality standards. 5. Effective organizations have beliefs, a vision, mission, and purposes that are in synchrony. 6. Effective organizations have a common information base connected to institutional purpose. 8. Effective organizations have institutional designs around the central purpose of the organization. 9. Effective organizations have a well-defined organizational character, a well-developed organizational

culture and a healthy organizational climate. 10. Effective organizations skillfully manage systemic and institutional change. 13. Effective organizations have fully functioning human resources management and development systems. 14. Effective organizations have well-defined, active systems of teaching and learning. 15. Effective organizations have evaluation systems signaling continuous progress. 16. Effective organizations have well defined and managed systems of proprietary interests. 17. Effective organizations have clearly defined institutional functions and practices. 18. Effective organizations have decision-making systems characterized by strategic thinking and planning. 19. Effective organizations have fiscal soundness, characterized by application of best practices in use of


accountability. 21. Effective organizations have an environment for institutional politics controlled by the artful practice of

interpersonal and intrapersonal interaction within the organizational context. 22. Effective organizations have systems where personnel are empowered, enabled, and assisted. 24. Effective organizations are places where organizational growth and cultural change are promoted through

risk-taking which results from reflective and intuitive thinking. 29. Effective organizations have institutional integrity. 30. Effective organizations have a pervasive atmosphere of high expectations. 32. Effective organizations have comprehensive programs for institutional security.



34. Effective organizations practice vertical and horizontal teaming. 35. Effective organizations have visibility and accessibility. 38. Effective organizations are places where systems functions are realized through defined and harmonic


commensurate with distributed institutional responsibility. 47. Effective organizations are institutions that believe in themselves and have the competence and confidence

to practice their functions fully and effectively.

Domain 4: Instructional Leadership Performance Responsibilities: 48. Provide instructional leadership and supervision for student achievement. 49. Manage and administer the development, implementation and assessment of the instructional program at

the assigned school. 50. Provide a comprehensive instructional program, including core academic programs, vocational/applied

technology programs, performing fine arts, health and physical education, advanced academic programs, exceptional student education programs and other programs to address the diverse needs of the school population.


52. Provide leadership in the school improvement process and the implementation of the School Improvement Plan.

53. Analyze and report the results of the School Improvement Team’s efforts on student performance. 54. Coordinate program planning with district instructional staff. 55. Oversee the acquisition and utilization of textbooks, other instructional materials and equipment. 56. Facilitate the testing program for the school. 57. Align school initiatives with district, state and school goals. 58. Establish and coordinate procedures for students, teachers, parents and the community to evaluate

curriculum. 59. Direct or oversee the development of the master schedule and assign teachers according to identified

needs. 60. Facilitate the horizontal and vertical articulation of curriculum within the school, as well as between the

school and its feeder system. 61. Coordinate and monitor the implementation of Exceptional Student Education (ESE) programs and

services. 62. Facilitate the development and implementation of the school technology plan. 63. Provide leadership in the effective use of technology in the classroom. 64. Explore and evaluate new technologies and their educational impact. 65. Assist classroom teachers with the effective use of technology. 66. Ensure the implementation of graduation requirements and conduct graduation activities and ceremonies

in accordance with established policies and procedures. 67. Manage and administer the development, implementation and assessment of the instructional performance

appraisal system.



Educator Accomplished Practices: (a) Quality of Instruction.

1. Instructional Design and Lesson Planning. Applying concepts from human development and learning theories, the effective educator consistently: a. Aligns instruction with state-adopted standards at the appropriate level of rigor; b. Sequences lessons and concepts to ensure coherence and required prior knowledge; c. Designs instruction for students to achieve mastery; d. Selects appropriate formative assessments to monitor learning; e. Uses diagnostic student data to plan lessons; and f. Develops learning experiences that require students to demonstrate a variety of applicable skills

and competencies. 2. The Learning Environment. To maintain a student-centered learning environment that is safe,

organized, equitable, flexible, inclusive, and collaborative, the effective educator consistently: a. Organizes, allocates, and manages the resources of time, space, and attention; b. Manages individual and class behaviors through a well-planned management system; c. Conveys high expectations to all students; d. Respects students’ cultural linguistic and family background; e. Models clear, acceptable oral and written communication skills; f. Maintains a climate of openness, inquiry, fairness and support; g. Integrates current information and communication technologies; h. Adapts the learning environment to accommodate the differing needs and diversity of students;

and i. Utilizes current and emerging assistive technologies that enable students to participate in high-

quality communication interactions and achieve their educational goals. 3. Instructional Delivery and Facilitation. The effective educator consistently utilizes a deep and

comprehensive knowledge of the subject taught to: a. Deliver engaging and challenging lessons; b. Deepen and enrich students’ understanding through content area literacy strategies, verbalization

of thought, and application of the subject matter; c. Identify gaps in students’ subject matter knowledge; d. Modify instruction to respond to preconceptions or misconceptions; e. Relate and integrate the subject matter with other disciplines and life experiences; f. Employ higher-order questioning techniques; g. Apply varied instructional strategies and resources, including appropriate technology, to provide

comprehensible instruction, and to teach for student understanding; h. Differentiate instruction based on an assessment of student learning needs and recognition of

individual differences in students; i. Support, encourage, and provide immediate and specific feedback to students to promote student

achievement; and j. Utilize student feedback to monitor instructional needs and to adjust instruction.

4. Assessment. The effective educator consistently: a. Analyzes and applies data from multiple assessments and measures to diagnose students’ learning

needs, informs instruction based on those needs, and drives the learning process; b. Designs and aligns formative and summative assessments that match learning objectives and lead

to mastery; c. Uses a variety of assessment tools to monitor student progress, achievement and learning gains;



d. Modifies assessments and testing conditions to accommodate learning styles and varying levels of knowledge;

e. Shares the importance and outcomes of student assessment data with the student and the student’s parent/caregiver(s); and

f. Applies technology to organize and integrate assessment information. (b) Continuous Improvement, Responsibility and Ethics.

1. Continuous Professional Improvement. The effective educator consistently: a. Designs purposeful professional goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on

students’ needs; b. Examines and uses data-informed research to improve instruction and student achievement; c. Uses a variety of data, independently, and in collaboration with colleagues, to evaluate learning

outcomes, adjust planning and continuously improve the effectiveness of the lessons; d. Collaborates with the home, school and larger communities to foster communication and to

support student learning and continuous improvement; Florida Principal Leadership Standards: Domain 1: Student Achievement: Standard 1: Student Learning Results. Effective school leaders achieve results on the school’s student learning goals. a. The school’s learning goals are based on the state’s adopted student academic standards and the district’s



Standard 2: Student Learning as a Priority. Effective school leaders demonstrate that student learning is their top priority through leadership actions that build and support a learning organization focused on student success. The leader: a. Enables faculty and staff to work as a system focused on student learning; b. Maintains a school climate that supports student engagement in learning; c. Generates high expectations for learning growth by all students; and d. Engages faculty and staff in efforts to close learning performance gaps among student subgroups within the

school. Domain 2: Instructional Leadership: Standard 3: Instructional Plan Implementation. Effective school leaders work collaboratively to develop and implement an instructional framework that aligns curriculum with state standards, effective instructional practices, student learning needs and assessments. The leader: a. Implements the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices as described in Rule 6A-5.065, F.A.C. through a




standards and curricula.



Standard 5: Learning Environment Effective school leaders structure and monitor a school learning environment that improves learning for all of Florida’s diverse student population. The leader: a. Maintains a safe, respectful and inclusive student-centered learning environment that is focused on






learning by identifying and addressing strategies to minimize and/or eliminate achievement gaps. Domain 3: Organizational Leadership Standard 8: School Management. Effective school leaders manage the organization, operations, and facilities in ways that maximize the use of resources to promote a safe, efficient, legal, and effective learning environment. The leader: a. Organizes time, tasks and projects effectively with clear objectives and coherent plans; b. Establishes appropriate deadlines for him/herself and the entire organization; c. Manages schedules, delegates, and allocates resources to promote collegial efforts in school improvement

and faculty development; and d. Is fiscally responsible and maximizes the impact of fiscal resources on instructional priorities. Classroom Teacher High Effect Indicators Learning Goal with Scales: The teacher provides students with clearly stated learning goals accompanied by a scale or rubric that describes levels of performance relative to the learning goal. Tracking Student Progress: The teacher facilitates the tracking of student progress on learning goals using a formative approach to assessment. Established Content Standards: The teacher ensures that lesson and unit plans are aligned with established state content standards identified by the state and the manner in which that content should be sequenced. Multi-tiered System of Supports: The teacher provides a learning environment with multiple tiers of support to meet individual needs and affect positive change. Tracking Rate of Progress: The teacher’s implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) routinely collects, analyzes, and uses on-going progress monitoring data to evaluate student rate of progress aligned with behavioral and grade-level academic standards. Clear Goals: The teacher identifies a lesson or part of a lesson as involving important information to which students should pay particular attention. Text Complexity: The teacher cognitively challenges students through the use of “complex text” to learn content information and routinely includes close reading, rereading, and use of dependent questions to deepen student understanding of text incorporating these two processes:

• writing in response to text • text-based discussions with students



ESOL Students: The teacher provides instruction to ESOL students on the development of the English language learners’ ability to produce and respond to spoken and written English texts, from pronunciation and formation of individual sounds and letters, through word and sentence level, to patterns of text structure utilizing the appropriate ESOL teaching strategies. School Leadership High Effect Indicators Feedback Practices: The school leader monitors, evaluates proficiency, and provides timely feedback to faculty on the effectiveness of instruction on priority instructional goals, and the cause and effect relationships between professional practice and student achievement on those goals. Facilitating Professional Learning: The school leader manages the organization, operations, and facilities to provide the faculty with quality resources and time for professional learning, and engages faculty in effective individual and collaborative learning on priority professional goals throughout the school year. Clear Goals and Expectations: The school leader communicates goals and expectations clearly and concisely using Florida’s common language of instruction and appropriate written and oral skills; communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents, and community; and ensures that the faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements, academic standards, and all other local, state, and federal administrative requirements and decisions. Instructional Resources: The school leader maximizes the impact of school personnel and fiscal and facility resources to provide recurring systemic support for instructional priorities and a supportive learning environment. Instructional Initiatives: District-supported state initiatives focused on student growth are supported by the school leader with specific and observable actions including monitoring of implementation and measurement of progress toward initiative goals and professional learning to improve faculty capacity to implement the initiatives. The following indicators relate to leadership focused on specific instructional improvement initiatives: Monitoring Text Complexity: The school leader monitors teacher implementation of instructional





EMCS Indicators of an Effective Educational Institution (School and/or District): 1. Effective organizations have a comprehensive program for research and development. 3. Effective organizations have leaders who understand the varied duties in management and leadership and

keep a balance in carrying out practices in management and leadership. 4. Effective organizations have established institutional quality standards. 7. Effective organizations have refined craft knowledge and leaders and employees use this knowledge to

skillfully perform their roles.



8. Effective organizations have institutional designs around the central purpose of the organization. 14. Effective organizations have well-defined, active systems of teaching and learning. 15. Effective organizations have evaluation systems signaling continuous progress. 16. Effective organizations have well defined and managed systems of proprietary interests. 17. Effective organizations have clearly defined institutional functions and practices. 23. Effective organizations are places where there is purposeful abandonment of nonproductive practices. 28. Effective organizations allow sufficient time for programs to reach maturity in accordance with program

design before implementing change. 30. Effective organizations have a pervasive atmosphere of high expectations. 31. Effective organizations make effective use of technology at all levels. 34. Effective organizations practice vertical and horizontal teaming. 42. Effective organizations are learning organizations where every leader is a learner. 47. Effective organizations are institutions that believe in themselves and have the competence and confidence


Domain 5: Building and Site Management Performance Responsibilities: 68. The degree to which building space is assigned to add effectiveness and efficiency to program services and

student movement on campuses. 69. The degree to which the grounds are attractively maintained, pleasing to the public view and clean to the

degree that it promotes a healthy and safe environment. 70. The degree to which work orders are submitted and monitored in a timely manner. 71. The degree to which the campus is made safe for students and staff from intruders. 72. The degree to which a campus emergency plan is designed, trained and immediately available to the staff. 73. The degree to which the community is engaged in making the campus and facilities a source of community

pride. 74. The degree to which public access and presence on campus is monitored and controlled. 75. The degree to which the community is aware of the procedures necessary to use a portion of the space so

that the needs of the community may be served. Educator Accomplished Practices: (a) Quality of Instruction.

2. The Learning Environment. To maintain a student-centered learning environment that is safe, organized, equitable, flexible, inclusive, and collaborative, the effective educator consistently: a. Organizes, allocates, and manages the resources of time, space, and attention; g. Integrates current information and communication technologies; h. Adapts the learning environment to accommodate the differing needs and diversity of students;

and 4. Assessment. The effective educator consistently:


c. Uses a variety of assessment tools to monitor student progress, achievement and learning gains; f. Applies technology to organize and integrate assessment information.



Florida Principal Leadership Standards: Domain 1: Student Achievement: Standard 2: Student Learning as a Priority. Effective school leaders demonstrate that student learning is their top priority through leadership actions that build and support a learning organization focused on student success. The leader: a. Enables faculty and staff to work as a system focused on student learning; b. Maintains a school climate that supports student engagement in learning; c. Generates high expectations for learning growth by all students; and d. Engages faculty and staff in efforts to close learning performance gaps among student subgroups within the

school. Domain 2: Instructional Leadership: Standard 5: Learning Environment. Effective school leaders structure and monitor a school learning environment that improves learning for all of Florida’s diverse student population. The leader: a. Maintains a safe, respectful and inclusive student-centered learning environment that is focused on






learning by identifying and addressing strategies to minimize and/or eliminate achievement gaps. Domain 3: Organizational Leadership Standard 8: School Management. Effective school leaders manage the organization, operations, and facilities in ways that maximize the use of resources to promote a safe, efficient, legal, and effective learning environment. The leader: a. Organizes time, tasks and projects effectively with clear objectives and coherent plans; b. Establishes appropriate deadlines for him/herself and the entire organization; c. Manages schedules, delegates, and allocates resources to promote collegial efforts in school improvement



in constructive conversations about important school issues.



f. Utilizes appropriate technologies for communication and collaboration; and g. Ensures faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements, academic standards, and

all other local state and federal administrative requirements and decisions. Classroom Teacher High Effect Indicators Multi-tiered System of Supports: The teacher provides a learning environment with multiple tiers of support to meet individual needs and affect positive change. Tracking Rate of Progress: The teacher’s implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) routinely collects, analyzes, and uses on-going progress monitoring data to evaluate student rate of progress aligned with behavioral and grade-level academic standards. School Leadership High Effect Indicators Facilitating Professional Learning: The school leader manages the organization, operations, and facilities to provide the faculty with quality resources and time for professional learning, and engages faculty in effective individual and collaborative learning on priority professional goals throughout the school year. Clear Goals and Expectations: The school leader communicates goals and expectations clearly and concisely using Florida’s common language of instruction and appropriate written and oral skills; communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents, and community; and ensures that the faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements, academic standards, and all other local, state, and federal administrative requirements and decisions. Instructional Resources: The school leader maximizes the impact of school personnel and fiscal and facility resources to provide recurring systemic support for instructional priorities and a supportive learning environment. Instructional Initiatives: District-supported state initiatives focused on student growth are supported by the school leader with specific and observable actions including monitoring of implementation and measurement of progress toward initiative goals and professional learning to improve faculty capacity to implement the initiatives. The following indicators relate to leadership focused on specific instructional improvement initiatives: Monitoring Text Complexity: The school leader monitors teacher implementation of instructional





EMCS Indicators of an Effective Educational Institution (School and/or District): 3. Effective organizations have leaders who understand the varied duties in management and leadership and

keep a balance in carrying out practices in management and leadership. 4. Effective organizations have established institutional quality standards.



7. Effective organizations have refined craft knowledge and leaders and employees use this knowledge to skillfully perform their roles.

16. Effective organizations have well defined and managed systems of proprietary interests. 17. Effective organizations have clearly defined institutional functions and practices. 19. Effective organizations have fiscal soundness, characterized by application of best practices in use of


accountability. 23. Effective organizations are places where there is purposeful abandonment of nonproductive practices. 27. Effective organizations conduct cost/benefit analyses before implementing new programs. 31. Effective organizations make effective use of technology at all levels. 32. Effective organizations have comprehensive programs for institutional security. 38. Effective organizations are places where systems functions are realized through defined and harmonic

interactions of the workforce as rules and roles change through evolving institutional dynamics. 45. Effective organizations have complete data banks of institutional knowledge with specific role assignments

for institutional memory responsibilities.

Domain 6: Core Concepts of Management Performance Responsibilities: 76. The degree to which planning is comprehensive, strategic, situational and understood as a core concept of

management which requires a specific set of skills for implementation. 77. The degree to which all activities, initiatives and events are organized, proffered and implemented with the

highest degree of efficiency and clearly understood as a core concept of management. 78. The degree to which staffing is understood as essential, strategic and interconnected to the talent pool

necessary for effective systems implementation as a core concept of management. 79. The degree to which directing, as a core concept of management, is utilized for successful follow through

on initiatives, activities and events. 80. The degree to which controlling is understood as a core concept of management and is correlated to the

profound protocols of leadership. Educator Accomplished Practices: (a) Quality of Instruction.

2. The Learning Environment. To maintain a student-centered learning environment that is safe, organized, equitable, flexible, inclusive, and collaborative, the effective educator consistently: a. Organizes, allocates, and manages the resources of time, space, and attention; b. Manages individual and class behaviors through a well-planned management system; c. Conveys high expectations to all students; d. Respects students’ cultural linguistic and family background; e. Models clear, acceptable oral and written communication skills; f. Maintains a climate of openness, inquiry, fairness and support; h. Adapts the learning environment to accommodate the differing needs and diversity of students;





c. Uses a variety of assessment tools to monitor student progress, achievement and learning gains; d. Modifies assessments and testing conditions to accommodate learning styles and varying levels of

knowledge; e. Shares the importance and outcomes of student assessment data with the student and the student’s

parent/caregiver(s); and (b) Continuous Improvement, Responsibility and Ethics.

1. Continuous Professional Improvement. The effective educator consistently: b. Examines and uses data-informed research to improve instruction and student achievement; c. Uses a variety of data, independently, and in collaboration with colleagues, to evaluate learning


support student learning and continuous improvement; e. Engages in targeted professional growth opportunities and reflective practices; and














and revises as needed; d. Empowers others and distributes leadership when appropriate; and e. Uses effective technology integration to enhance decision making and efficiency throughout the school. Standard 7: Leadership Development. Effective school leaders actively cultivate, support, and develop other leaders within the organization. The leader: a. Identifies and cultivates potential and emerging leaders; b. Provides evidence of delegation and trust in subordinate leaders; c. Plans for succession management in key positions; d. Promotes teacher–leadership functions focused on instructional proficiency and student learning; and e. Develops sustainable and supportive relationships between school leaders, parents, community, higher





all other local state and federal administrative requirements and decisions.



Classroom Teacher High Effect Indicators Multi-tiered System of Supports: The teacher provides a learning environment with multiple tiers of support to meet individual needs and affect positive change. Tracking Rate of Progress: The teacher’s implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) routinely collects, analyzes, and uses on-going progress monitoring data to evaluate student rate of progress aligned with behavioral and grade-level academic standards. Text Complexity: The teacher cognitively challenges students through the use of “complex text” to learn content information and routinely includes close reading, rereading, and use of dependent questions to deepen student understanding of text incorporating these two processes:


School Leadership High Effect Indicators Feedback Practices: The school leader monitors, evaluates proficiency, and provides timely feedback to faculty on the effectiveness of instruction on priority instructional goals, and the cause and effect relationships between professional practice and student achievement on those goals. Facilitating Professional Learning: The school leader manages the organization, operations, and facilities to provide the faculty with quality resources and time for professional learning, and engages faculty in effective individual and collaborative learning on priority professional goals throughout the school year. Clear Goals and Expectations: The school leader communicates goals and expectations clearly and concisely using Florida’s common language of instruction and appropriate written and oral skills; communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents, and community; and ensures that the faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements, academic standards, and all other local, state, and federal administrative requirements and decisions. Instructional Resources: The school leader maximizes the impact of school personnel and fiscal and facility resources to provide recurring systemic support for instructional priorities and a supportive learning environment. High Effect Size Strategies: The school leader takes actions to ensure that instructional personnel receive recurring feedback on their proficiency in high effect size instructional strategies. EMCS Indicators of an Effective Educational Institution (School and/or District): 1. Effective organizations have a comprehensive program for research and development. 2. Effective organizations have leaders who understand and apply core concepts of leadership. 3. Effective organizations have leaders who understand the varied duties in management and leadership and

keep a balance in carrying out practices in management and leadership. 4. Effective organizations have established institutional quality standards. 5. Effective organizations have beliefs, a vision, mission, and purposes that are in synchrony. 6. Effective organizations have a common information base connected to institutional purpose. 7. Effective organizations have refined craft knowledge and leaders and employees use this knowledge to

skillfully perform their roles. 8. Effective organizations have institutional designs around the central purpose of the organization. 9. Effective organizations have a well-defined organizational character, a well-developed organizational

culture and a healthy organizational climate. 10. Effective organizations skillfully manage systemic and institutional change. 11. Effective organizations have institutional preparedness and are proactive for the future. 12. Effective organizations practice informed predictability based on a solid knowledge base and the practice

of reflective thinking. 16. Effective organizations have well defined and managed systems of proprietary interests.



17. Effective organizations have clearly defined institutional functions and practices. 18. Effective organizations have decision-making systems characterized by strategic thinking and planning. 21. Effective organizations have an environment for institutional politics controlled by the artful practice of


risk-taking which results from reflective and intuitive thinking. 25. Effective organizations are places where organizational awareness and sensitivity are promoted through


edge. 29. Effective organizations have institutional integrity. 30. Effective organizations have a pervasive atmosphere of high expectations. 33. Effective organizations have established effective programs for mentoring and institutional coaching. 34. Effective organizations practice vertical and horizontal teaming. 37. Effective organizations practice formalized institutional planning. 38. Effective organizations are places where systems functions are realized through defined and harmonic


commensurate with distributed institutional responsibility. 40. Effective organizations are places where leadership and institutional courage are evident with reference to

the body politic. 41. Effective organizations are places where persons have the personal courage to plan and act consistent with

the system’s culture and operations. 42. Effective organizations are learning organizations where every leader is a learner. 43. Effective organizations are places where the art and practice of reflection are evident and effective. 44. Effective organizations are places where leaders are high performing, healthy role models. 46. Effective organizations are places where persons walk-the-walk and behave with optimism, honesty and

consideration for others. 47. Effective organizations are institutions that believe in themselves and have the competence and confidence


Domain 7: Applied Protocols of Leadership Performance Responsibilities: 81. High performing leaders have a personal vision for their school and the knowledge, skills, and dispositions

to develop, articulate and implement a shared vision that is supported by the larger organization and the school community.









88. High performing leaders act with integrity, fairness, and honesty in an ethical manner. 89. High performing leaders understand the role of research and development in institutional operations,

enhancement and renewal and skillfully design this element to continuously replenish the data base on which decisions are made.

90. High performing leaders establish quality institutional standards and set high expectations for themselves, the workforce, and the organization itself.

91. High performing leaders clearly delineate between practices of leadership and practices of management and perform the mutual roles in such a way as to be effective and understood in the work environment.

92. High performing leaders have clearly defined the functions and services of the organization and skillfully perform the fundamental role of directing the work of the employees.

93. High performing leaders engage various leadership styles, employing reflective, analytic, systemic, collaborative and action mindsets as needs and circumstances dictate.

94. High performing leaders understand concepts of organizational development and guide their organizations to create the culture, define the character, and assess the climate of their organization.

95. High performing leaders guide their institutions to promote organizational growth and to skillfully manage change.

96. High performing leaders develop and formalize a comprehensive planning and scheduling component which guides the institutional work force.



99. High performing leaders continually conduct research and development for institutional growth purposes. Educator Accomplished Practices: (a) Quality of Instruction.

2. The Learning Environment. To maintain a student-centered learning environment that is safe, organized, equitable, flexible, inclusive, and collaborative, the effective educator consistently: c. Conveys high expectations to all students; d. Respects students’ cultural linguistic and family background; e. Models clear, acceptable oral and written communication skills; f. Maintains a climate of openness, inquiry, fairness and support; h. Adapts the learning environment to accommodate the differing needs and diversity of students;



c. Uses a variety of assessment tools to monitor student progress, achievement and learning gains;



d. Modifies assessments and testing conditions to accommodate learning styles and varying levels of knowledge;

e. Shares the importance and outcomes of student assessment data with the student and the student’s parent/caregiver(s); and


b. Examines and uses data-informed research to improve instruction and student achievement; c. Uses a variety of data, independently, and in collaboration with colleagues, to evaluate learning


support student learning and continuous improvement; e. Engages in targeted professional growth opportunities and reflective practices; and














and revises as needed; d. Empowers others and distributes leadership when appropriate; and e. Uses effective technology integration to enhance decision making and efficiency throughout the school. Standard 7: Leadership Development. Effective school leaders actively cultivate, support, and develop other leaders within the organization. The leader: a. Identifies and cultivates potential and emerging leaders; b. Provides evidence of delegation and trust in subordinate leaders; c. Plans for succession management in key positions; d. Promotes teacher–leadership functions focused on instructional proficiency and student learning; and e. Develops sustainable and supportive relationships between school leaders, parents, community, higher





all other local state and federal administrative requirements and decisions.



Classroom Teacher High Effect Indicators Multi-tiered System of Supports: The teacher provides a learning environment with multiple tiers of support to meet individual needs and affect positive change. Tracking Rate of Progress: The teacher’s implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) routinely collects, analyzes, and uses on-going progress monitoring data to evaluate student rate of progress aligned with behavioral and grade-level academic standards. ESOL Students: The teacher provides instruction to ESOL students on the development of the English language learners’ ability to produce and respond to spoken and written English texts, from pronunciation and formation of individual sounds and letters, through word and sentence level, to patterns of text structure utilizing the appropriate ESOL teaching strategies. School Leadership High Effect Indicators Feedback Practices: The school leader monitors, evaluates proficiency, and provides timely feedback to faculty on the effectiveness of instruction on priority instructional goals, and the cause and effect relationships between professional practice and student achievement on those goals. Facilitating Professional Learning: The school leader manages the organization, operations, and facilities to provide the faculty with quality resources and time for professional learning, and engages faculty in effective individual and collaborative learning on priority professional goals throughout the school year. Clear Goals and Expectations: The school leader communicates goals and expectations clearly and concisely using Florida’s common language of instruction and appropriate written and oral skills; communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents, and community; and ensures that the faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements, academic standards, and all other local, state, and federal administrative requirements and decisions. Instructional Resources: The school leader maximizes the impact of school personnel and fiscal and facility resources to provide recurring systemic support for instructional priorities and a supportive learning environment. High Effect Size Strategies: The school leader takes actions to ensure that instructional personnel receive recurring feedback on their proficiency in high effect size instructional strategies. Instructional Initiatives: District-supported state initiatives focused on student growth are supported by the school leader with specific and observable actions including monitoring of implementation and measurement of progress toward initiative goals and professional learning to improve faculty capacity to implement the initiatives. The following indicators relate to leadership focused on specific instructional improvement initiatives: Monitoring Text Complexity: The school leader monitors teacher implementation of instructional







EMCS Indicators of an Effective Educational Institution (School and/or District): 1. Effective organizations have a comprehensive program for research and development. 2. Effective organizations have leaders who understand and apply core concepts of leadership. 3. Effective organizations have leaders who understand the varied duties in management and leadership and

keep a balance in carrying out practices in management and leadership. 4. Effective organizations have established institutional quality standards. 5. Effective organizations have beliefs, a vision, mission, and purposes that are in synchrony. 6. Effective organizations have a common information base connected to institutional purpose. 7. Effective organizations have refined craft knowledge and leaders and employees use this knowledge to


culture and a healthy organizational climate. 10. Effective organizations skillfully manage systemic and institutional change. 11. Effective organizations have institutional preparedness and are proactive for the future. 12. Effective organizations practice informed predictability based on a solid knowledge base and the practice

of reflective thinking. 16. Effective organizations have well defined and managed systems of proprietary interests. 17. Effective organizations have clearly defined institutional functions and practices. 18. Effective organizations have decision-making systems characterized by strategic thinking and planning. 21. Effective organizations have an environment for institutional politics controlled by the artful practice of


risk-taking which results from reflective and intuitive thinking. 26. Effective organizations have leadership structures that see beyond the present and maintain a progressive

edge. 28. Effective organizations allow sufficient time for programs to reach maturity in accordance with program

design before implementing change. 29. Effective organizations have institutional integrity. 30. Effective organizations have a pervasive atmosphere of high expectations. 33. Effective organizations have established effective programs for mentoring and institutional coaching. 34. Effective organizations practice vertical and horizontal teaming. 37. Effective organizations practice formalized institutional planning. 38. Effective organizations are places where systems functions are realized through defined and harmonic


commensurate with distributed institutional responsibility. 42. Effective organizations are learning organizations where every leader is a learner. 43. Effective organizations are places where the art and practice of reflection are evident and effective. 44. Effective organizations are places where leaders are high performing, healthy role models. 46. Effective organizations are places where persons walk-the-walk and behave with optimism, honesty and

consideration for others.



47. Effective organizations are institutions that believe in themselves and have the competence and confidence to practice their functions fully and effectively.

Domain 8: Student Growth and Achievement Performance Responsibilities: 100. Ensure that student growth and achievement are continuous and appropriate schoolwide. Educator Accomplished Practices: (a) Quality of Instruction.

1. Instructional Design and Lesson Planning. Applying concepts from human development and learning theories, the effective educator consistently: c. Designs instruction for students to achieve mastery; d. Selects appropriate formative assessments to monitor learning;

e. Uses diagnostic student data to plan lessons; and f. Develops learning experiences that require students to demonstrate a variety of applicable skills and

competencies. 2. The Learning Environment. To maintain a student-centered learning environment that is safe,

organized, equitable, flexible, inclusive, and collaborative, the effective educator consistently: c. Conveys high expectations to all students; h. Adapts the learning environment to accommodate the differing needs and diversity of students; and i. Utilizes current and emerging assistive technologies that enable students to participate in high-

quality communication interactions and achieve their educational goals. 3. Instructional Delivery and Facilitation. The effective educator consistently utilizes a deep and

comprehensive knowledge of the subject taught to: b. Deepen and enrich students’ understanding through content area literacy strategies, verbalization of

thought, and application of the subject matter; c. Identify gaps in students’ subject matter knowledge; f. Employ higher-order questioning techniques; g. Apply varied instructional strategies and resources, including appropriate technology, to provide

comprehensible instruction, and to teach for student understanding; h. Differentiate instruction based on an assessment of student learning needs and recognition of

individual differences in students; i. Support, encourage, and provide immediate and specific feedback to students to promote student

achievement; and j. Utilize student feedback to monitor instructional needs and to adjust instruction.

4. Assessment. The effective educator consistently: a. Analyzes and applies data from multiple assessments and measures to diagnose students’ learning

needs, informs instruction based on those needs, and drives the learning process; c. Uses a variety of assessment tools to monitor student progress, achievement and learning gains; e. Shares the importance and outcomes of student assessment data with the student and the student’s

parent/caregiver(s). (b) Continuous Improvement, Responsibility and Ethics.


students’ needs; b. Examines and uses data-informed research to improve instruction and student achievement.



Florida Principal Leadership Standards: Standard 1: Student Learning Results. Effective school leaders achieve results on the school’s student learning goals. a. The school’s learning goals are based on the state’s adopted student academic standards and the district’s



Standard 2: Student Learning as a Priority. Effective school leaders demonstrate that student learning is their top priority through leadership actions that build and support a learning organization focused on student success. The leader: a. Enables faculty and staff to work as a system focused on student learning; b. Maintains a school climate that supports student engagement in learning; c. Generates high expectations for learning growth by all students; and d. Engages faculty and staff in efforts to close learning performance gaps among student subgroups within

the school. Classroom Teacher High Effect Indicators Learning Goal with Scales: The teacher provides students with clearly stated learning goals accompanied by a scale or rubric that describes levels of performance relative to the learning goal. Tracking Student Progress: The teacher facilitates the tracking of student progress on learning goals using a formative approach to assessment. Multi-tiered System of Supports: The teacher provides a learning environment with multiple tiers of support to meet individual needs and affect positive change. Tracking Rate of Progress: The teacher’s implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) routinely collects, analyzes, and uses on-going progress monitoring data to evaluate student rate of progress aligned with behavioral and grade-level academic standards. Clear Goals: The teacher identifies a lesson or part of a lesson as involving important information to which students should pay particular attention. Text Complexity: The teacher cognitively challenges students through the use of “complex text” to learn content information and routinely includes close reading, rereading, and use of dependent questions to deepen student understanding of text incorporating these two processes:


ESOL Students: The teacher provides instruction to ESOL students on the development of the English language learners’ ability to produce and respond to spoken and written English texts, from pronunciation and formation of individual sounds and letters, through word and sentence level, to patterns of text structure utilizing the appropriate ESOL teaching strategies. School Leadership High Effect Indicators Instructional Initiatives: District-supported state initiatives focused on student growth are supported by the school leader with specific and observable actions including monitoring of implementation and measurement of progress toward initiative goals and professional learning to improve faculty capacity to implement the initiatives. The following indicators relate to leadership focused on specific instructional improvement initiatives:



Monitoring Text Complexity: The school leader monitors teacher implementation of instructional processes involving complex text with embedding of close reading and rereading of complex text as a routine event incorporating these two processes: - writing in response to text - text-based discussions with students




EMCS Indicators of an Effective Educational Institution (School and/or District): 1. Effective organizations have a comprehensive program for research and development. 2. Effective organizations have leaders who understand and apply core concepts of leadership. 4. Effective organizations have established institutional quality standards. 5. Effective organizations have beliefs, a vision, mission, and purposes that are in synchrony. 7. Effective organizations have refined craft knowledge and leaders and employees use this knowledge to


culture and a healthy organizational climate. 14. Effective organizations have well-defined, active systems of teaching and learning. 15. Effective organizations have evaluation systems signaling continuous progress. 16. Effective organizations have well defined and managed systems of proprietary interests. 17. Effective organizations have clearly defined institutional functions and practices. 30. Effective organizations have a pervasive atmosphere of high expectations. 31. Effective organizations make effective use of technology at all levels. 32. Effective organizations have comprehensive programs for institutional security. 33. Effective organizations have established effective programs for mentoring and institutional coaching. 37. Effective organizations practice formalized institutional planning. 42. Effective organizations are learning organizations where every leader is a learner.

Domain 9: Staff Development Performance Responsibilities: 101. Engage in continuing improvement of professional knowledge and skills. 102. Assist others in acquiring new knowledge and understanding. 103. Keep abreast of developments in instructional methodology, learning theory, curriculum trends, and

content. 104. Conduct a personal assessment periodically to determine professional development needs with reference

to specific instructional assignment. 105. Participate in school data collection of teacher input on principal’s performance assessment program.



106. Supervise the establishment and maintenance of individual professional development plans for each instructional employee.

107. Supervise assigned personnel and make recommendations for appropriate employment action. 108. Manage and administer personnel development through training, inservice and other developmental

activities. 109. Provide training opportunities and feedback to personnel at the assigned school. 110. Perform all required professional development services. Educator Accomplished Practices: (b) Continuous Improvement, Responsibility and Ethics.


students’ needs; b. Examines and uses data-informed research to improve instruction and student achievement; e. Engages in targeted professional growth opportunities and reflective practices; and f. Implements knowledge and skills learned in professional development in the teaching and

learning process. Florida Principal Leadership Standards: Domain 2: Instructional Leadership: Standard 4: Faculty Development. Effective school leaders recruit, retain and develop an effective and diverse faculty and staff. The leader: a. Generates a focus on student and professional learning in the school that is clearly linked to the system-





Domain 3: Organizational Leadership Standard 7: Leadership Development. Effective school leaders actively cultivate, support, and develop other leaders within the organization. The leader: a. Identifies and cultivates potential and emerging leaders; b. Provides evidence of delegation and trust in subordinate leaders; c. Plans for succession management in key positions; d. Promotes teacher–leadership functions focused on instructional proficiency and student learning; and e. Develops sustainable and supportive relationships between school leaders, parents, community, higher

education and business leaders. Classroom Teacher High Effect Indicators Learning Goal with Scales: The teacher provides students with clearly stated learning goals accompanied by a scale or rubric that describes levels of performance relative to the learning goal.



School Leadership High Effect Indicators Feedback Practices: The school leader monitors, evaluates proficiency, and provides timely feedback to faculty on the effectiveness of instruction on priority instructional goals, and the cause and effect relationships between professional practice and student achievement on those goals. Facilitating Professional Learning: The school leader manages the organization, operations, and facilities to provide the faculty with quality resources and time for professional learning, and engages faculty in effective individual and collaborative learning on priority professional goals throughout the school year. High Effect Size Strategies: The school leader takes actions to ensure that instructional personnel receive recurring feedback on their proficiency in high effect size instructional strategies. EMCS Indicators of an Effective Educational Institution (School and/or District): 3. Effective organizations have leaders who understand the varied duties in management and leadership and

keep a balance in carrying out practices in management and leadership. 6. Effective organizations have a common information base connected to institutional purpose. 7. Effective organizations have refined craft knowledge and leaders and employees use this knowledge to

skillfully perform their roles. 8. Effective organizations have institutional designs around the central purpose of the organization. 13. Effective organizations have fully functioning human resources management and development systems. 17. Effective organizations have clearly defined institutional functions and practices. 20. Effective organizations have organizational alignments that embrace leadership and management

accountability. 22. Effective organizations have systems where personnel are empowered, enabled, and assisted. 25. Effective organizations are places where organizational awareness and sensitivity are promoted through


edge. 33. Effective organizations have established effective programs for mentoring and institutional coaching. 36. Effective organizations implement labor contracts skillfully. 38. Effective organizations are places where systems functions are realized through defined and harmonic


commensurate with distributed institutional responsibility. 42. Effective organizations are learning organizations where every leader is a learner. 43. Effective organizations are places where the art and practice of reflection are evident and effective.

© EMCS Page 1 of 1

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DIXIE COUNTY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Name ______________________________________________ Position ________________ Employee # _______________________________ Subject/Course _____________________ School/Dept. ________________________________________ School Year _____________

Section I List areas of perceived growth opportunities (what new knowledge must be gained in order to become more effective with reference to school, district and state initiatives; i.e. course titles, training programs, skills, contemporary readings, clinical practice, program observations, technology skill development and others.)* A. Growth Dimensions B. Growth Dimensions C. Growth Dimensions

*No more than three areas of growth should be pursued at any one time.

Section II - Service provider support and impact correlation

List the names and locations of agencies, departments, master inservice plan components, institutions or persons that will provide the specific training. Include an explanation of how the new knowledge correlates to a performance category from the job description, a specific competency, an accomplished practice, goal setting component and/or to student growth and achievement.

Section III - Timelines List the anticipated time required to complete each segment of the planned activity. Effective development plans generally span a period of two to three years. Such plans are subject to annual review and modifications based on changing priorities, emerging technology and the like.

Section IV - Program Assessment Describe in specific terms how the successful completion of the program components of each growth dimension will be determined. This description should include the measurable impact on student growth and achievement.

Employee’s Signature Date Supervisor(s) Signature Date

© EMCS Page 1 of 1

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DIXIE COUNTY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FORM

Employee’s Name _____________________________________________________________ Position ______________________________________________________________________ Supervisor’s Name _____________________________________________________________ PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION IMPROVEMENT OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES ASSISTANCE Date for follow-up review ________________ Date for completion ________________ Employee’s Signature Date Supervisor(s) Signature Date

© EMCS

COMPONENT 4

DIXIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (SPI)

EVALUATION SYSTEM

Table of Contents

Student Performance Indicators (SPI) Evaluation System

©EMCS i Dixie County School District 2014-15

Evaluation Committees and Student Performance Indicators ....................................................... 1 Identification of the Appropriate SLG (Student Learning Growth Code) ....................................... 6 Timeline for SPI Deadlines & Implementation ............................................................................... 7 District Management

Annual District Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Analysis ........................................... 9 Comparison of Deliberate Practice with VAM/SPI ........................................................... 10 Evaluation Committee ...................................................................................................... 11 Evaluation Committee Agreements – Dixie County ......................................................... 12

District & School Management Forms

District Roster Verification Removal Form for Non-VAM Courses ................................... 16 EMCS Student Performance Indicator Rubric Weighting Form ........................................ 17 Example: EMCS Student Performance Indicator Rubric Weighting Form ........................ 18 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Calculation Worksheet .......................................... 19

District Level Rubrics

EMCS Student Performance Indicator Rubric Weighting Form ........................................ 21 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Carry Forward Rubric (Single Year) ....................... 22 VAM District Score (Reading and Math Combined) ........................................................ 23 VAM District Score (Reading Only) .................................................................................. 24 VAM District Score (Math Only) ....................................................................................... 25 AMO Ranking Growth Rubric (Math) ................................................................................ 26 AMO Ranking Growth Rubric (Reading) .......................................................................... 27 District Grades Rubric Levels ............................................................................................ 28 District Rankings Rubric Levels ......................................................................................... 29 Superintendent Approved Learning Target/Objective ..................................................... 30 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Calculation Worksheet .......................................... 31

Table of Contents


©EMCS ii Dixie County School District 2014-15

School Administrator Level Rubrics

EMCS Student Performance Indicator Rubric Weighting Form ........................................ 33 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Carry Forward Rubric (Single Year) ....................... 34 VAM School Score (Reading and Math Combined) ......................................................... 35 VAM School Score (Reading Only) ................................................................................... 36 VAM School Score (Math Only) ....................................................................................... 37 Superintendent Approved Learning Target/Objective ..................................................... 38 School Grades Rubric Levels ............................................................................................. 39 AMO Ranking Growth Rubric (Math) ................................................................................ 40 AMO Ranking Growth Rubric (Reading) .......................................................................... 41 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Calculation Worksheet .......................................... 42

Elementary School Rubrics - PreK-2

EMCS Student Performance Indicator Rubric Weighting Form ........................................ 44 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Carry Forward Rubric (Single Year) ....................... 45 Pre-K ESE BDI (Batelle Developmental Inventory) Student Performance Rubric ............ 46 Principal/Director Approved Learning Target Rubric Levels ............................................ 47 Student Learning Objectives Target Rubric Levels (SLO) .................................................. 48 Kindergarten SAT 10 General Education Rubric Levels (Achievement Approach) ........... 49 Kindergarten SAT 10 ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Achievement Approach) .......... 50 Classroom & Final Exam Achievement Rubric Levels Worksheet ................................... 51 I-Ready Average Scale Score Gain Rubric (Math Only) ..................................................... 52 I-Ready Average Scale Score Gain Rubric (Reading Only) ................................................ 53 I-Ready % of Students Achieving Target (Math Only)....................................................... 54 I-Ready % of Students Achieving Target (Reading Only) .................................................. 55 Principal Approved Learning Target: Grades K-2 Self Contained Percent of IEP Goals Met ............................................................................................ 56 Working Papers ................................................................................................................. 57 SAT 10 Math Growth Rubrics (Grades 1-2) (Growth Approach) (Using NCE) (Elementary Schools) .................................................................................................. 58 SAT 10 Reading Growth Rubrics (Grades 1-2) (Growth Approach) (Using NCE)

(Elementary Schools) .................................................................................................. 59 SAT 10 Math Rubrics (Grades 1-2) (Growth Approach) (Using Percentiles) (Elementary Schools) .................................................................................................. 60 SAT 10 Reading Rubrics (Grades 1-2) (Growth Approach) (Using Percentiles) (Elementary Schools) .................................................................................................. 61

Table of Contents


©EMCS iii Dixie County School District 2014-15

Grade 1 SAT 10 ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Primary 1 Test) (Achievement Approach) ............................................................................................ 62 Grade 1 SAT 10 General Education Rubric Levels (Primary 1 Test) (Including Gifted)

(Achievement Approach) ............................................................................................ 63 Grade 2 SAT 10 ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Primary 2) (Achievement Approach) ............................................................................................ 64 Grade 2 SAT 10 General Education Rubric Levels (Including Gifted) (Primary 2) ................. (Achievement Approach) ............................................................................................ 65 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Calculation Worksheet .......................................... 66

Elementary School Rubrics - Grades 3-5

EMCS Student Performance Indicator Rubric Weighting Form ........................................ 68 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Carry Forward Rubric (Single Year) ....................... 69 Grade 3 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA) ................................................ 70 Grade 3 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA) (Working Papers) ................... 71 Grade 4-11 Growth Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA) ............................. 72 Grade 4-11 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA) (Working Papers) ............. 73 Grade 3 Math General Education Rubric Levels (Including Gifted) (Scale Score)

(Achievement Approach) ............................................................................................ 74 Grade 3 Math ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Excludes Gifted) (Scale Score)

(Achievement Approach) ............................................................................................ 75 Grade 3 Reading General Education Rubric Levels (Including Gifted)(Scale Score)

(Achievement Approach) ............................................................................................ 76 Grade 3 Reading ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Scale Score) (Achievement Approach) ............................................................................................ 77 Grade 3 Math ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Excludes Gifted) (Achievement Approach) ............................................................................................ 78 Grade 3 Math General Education Rubric Levels (Including Gifted) (Achievement Approach) ............................................................................................ 79 Grade 3 Reading ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Achievement Approach) (Percent Proficiency Approach) .................................................................................. 80 Grade 3 Reading General Education Rubric Levels (Achievement Approach) (Including Gifted) (Percent Proficiency Approach) ..................................................... 81 Grade 3 Reading (Growth Approach) (Growth Approach Using a Specific Pre-Measure) ................................................................................................. 82 Grade 3 Math (Growth Approach) (Growth Approach Using a Specific Pre-Measure) ................................................................................................. 83

Table of Contents


©EMCS iv Dixie County School District 2014-15

Grade 3 Math ESE Resource Teacher Rubric .................................................................... 84 Grade 3 Reading ESE Resource Teacher Rubric ................................................................ 85 Individual VAM Reading Rubric Levels Worksheet ........................................................... 86 Individual VAM Math Rubric Levels Worksheet ............................................................... 87 Team Average 1 Year Aggregate VAM Rubric .................................................................. 88 Example Grade 4 Writing Sample Growth Chart .............................................................. 89 Grade 4 Writing Growth Rubric ........................................................................................ 90 Classroom & Final Exam Growth Rubric Levels Worksheet ............................................. 91 Example Grade 5 Science Sample Growth Chart .............................................................. 92 Grade 5 Science Growth Rubric Levels Worksheet ......................................................... 93 Hard to Measure EOC Growth Correlation Rubric ........................................................... 94 Student Learning Objectives Target Rubric Levels (SLO) .................................................. 95 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Calculation Worksheet .......................................... 96

Middle School Rubrics - Grades 6-8

EMCS Student Performance Indicator Rubric Weighting Form ........................................ 98 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Carry Forward Rubric (Single Year) ....................... 99 Grade 4-11 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA)......................................... 100 Grade 4-11 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA) (Working Papers) ...................................................................................................... 101 Team Average 1 Year Aggregate VAM Rubric ................................................................ 102 Individual VAM Reading Rubric Levels Worksheet ......................................................... 103 Individual VAM Math Rubric Levels Worksheet ............................................................. 104 Civics EOC Growth Rubric (Grade 6 Reading as Pre-Measure) ....................................... 105 Grade 8 Civics EOC Growth Rubric (Grade 7 Reading as Pre-Measure) ......................... 106 Example Grade 7 Algebra I EOC Growth Chart .............................................................. 107 Grade 7 Algebra I EOC Growth Rubric ............................................................................ 108 Grade 7 Algebra Achievement Rubric ............................................................................. 109 Individual Grade 8 Algebra I EOC VAM Rubric Levels Worksheet .................................. 110 Example Grade 8 Geometry EOC Growth Chart Using Grade 7 Math ............................ 111

Grade 8 Geometry EOC Growth Rubric (Grade 7 Math as Premeasure) ....................... 112 Example Grade 8 Geometry EOC Growth Chart Using Grade 7 Algebra ........................ 113 Grade 8 Geometry EOC Growth Rubric (Grade 7 Algebra as Premeasure) .................... 115 Classroom & Final Exam Growth Rubric Levels Worksheet ........................................... 116 Hard to Measure EOC Growth Correlation Rubric ......................................................... 117 Student Learning Objectives Target Rubric Levels (SLO) ................................................ 118 Grade 8 Writing Growth Rubric ...................................................................................... 119

Table of Contents


©EMCS v Dixie County School District 2014-15

Example Grade 8 Science Growth Chart ......................................................................... 120

Grade 8 Science Growth Rubric ...................................................................................... 121 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Calculation Worksheet ........................................ 122

High School Rubrics Grades 9-12

EMCS Student Performance Indicator Rubric Weighting Form ...................................... 124 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Carry Forward Rubric (Single Year) ..................... 125 Grade 4-11 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA)......................................... 126 Grade 4-11 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA) (Working Papers) ........... 127 Classroom & Final Exam Growth Rubric Levels Worksheet ........................................... 128 Hard to Measure EOC Growth Correlation Rubric ......................................................... 129 Student Learning Objectives Target Rubric Levels (SLO) ................................................ 130 Team Average 1 Year Aggregate VAM Rubric ................................................................ 131 Individual VAM Reading Rubric Levels Worksheet ......................................................... 132 Individual VAM Grade 9 Algebra EOC Rubric Levels Worksheet .................................... 133 Grade 10 Algebra EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 8 Math as pre-measure) .............. 134 Grade 11 Algebra I EOC Retakes Growth Rubric ............................................................ 135 Grade 9 Geometry EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 8 Algebra EOC as Pre-Measure) .......................................................... 136 Grade 9 Geometry EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 8 Math as pre-measure) ............ 137 Grade 10 Geometry EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 9 Algebra EOC as Pre-Measure) .......................................................... 138 Grade 11 Geometry EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 10 Algebra EOC as Pre-Measure) ........................................................ 139 Retakes Performance Rubric Levels Worksheet (Achievement Approach) ................... 140 Example Fall Reading Retake Growth Chart .................................................................. 141 Grade 11 Reading Retake Growth Rubric ...................................................................... 142 Grade 12 Reading Retake Growth Rubric ...................................................................... 143 Example Grade 10 Writing Growth Chart ....................................................................... 144 Grade 10 Writing Growth Rubric .................................................................................... 145 Example Grade 9 Biology EOC Growth Chart ................................................................. 146 Grade 9 Biology EOC Growth Rubric ............................................................................... 147 Example Grade 10 Biology EOC Growth Chart ............................................................... 148 Grade 10 Biology EOC Growth Rubric ............................................................................. 149 Grade 11 Biology EOC Growth Rubric ............................................................................. 150 HS Biology EOC Grade 11 ESE Student Achievement Rubric: Percent Passing .............. 151 HS Biology EOC Grade 11 ESE Student Achievement Rubric (Mean Scale Score) .......... 152

Table of Contents


©EMCS vi Dixie County School District 2014-15

HS Biology EOC Grade 11 General Education Student Achievement Rubric (Mean Scale Score) ................................................................................................... 153 HS Biology EOC Grade 12 ESE Student Achievement Rubric: Percent Passing .............. 154 HS Biology EOC Grade 12 ESE Student Achievement Rubric (Mean Scale Score) ................................................................................................... 155 HS Biology I EOC Grade 12 General Education Student Achievement Rubric (Mean Scale Score) (Achievement Approach) .......................................................... 156 Grade 10 US History EOC Growth Rubric ........................................................................ 157 Grade 11 US History EOC Growth Rubric ........................................................................ 158 Grade 11 Algebra 2 EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 10 Geometry Pre-Measure) ...... 159 Grade 12 Algebra 2 EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 11 Geometry as Pre-Measure) ............................................................ 160 Advanced Placement Growth Rubric Levels (AP Subject #1) ......................................... 161 IB Student Performance Growth Rubric Levels (IB Subject #1) ...................................... 162 Student Learning Objectives: Music .............................................................................. 163 Performance Task SPI Rubric (Achievement Approach) ................................................. 164 At-Risk Graduation Rate Rubric Levels ........................................................................... 165 Graduation Rate Rubric Levels ........................................................................................ 166 Athletics Performance Rubric ......................................................................................... 167 Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Calculation Worksheet ........................................ 168

© EMCS 1 Dixie County School District 2014-15

Evaluation Committees and Student Performance Indicators

With the implementation of the Student Success Act and Senate Bill 1664, school and district based personnel are now being held accountable to student learning as a portion of their overall evaluations. As new legislation is signed, it is important for school districts to appoint and identify members of an Evaluation Committee to make decisions as necessary. The Evaluation Committee should be comprised of Union membership (Union President should be on this committee) as well as Administrative membership (i.e. Human Resources/Assessment/Accountability). Some examples of decisions that can be made by the Evaluation Committee include the setting/adjustment of K values for VAM models, the approval/adjustment of district wide growth models, the approval/adjustments of cuts for Effective/Highly Effective/Unsatisfactory/Needs Improvement (or Developing for teachers in years 1-2) for district wide growth/achievement models. As agreements are made, a running list should be kept and shared with principals and schools to ensure that fidelity is being maintained throughout this process. Step 1: Identify your Evaluation Committee

Name Title

Step 2: Begin Discussion/Meetings/Start Agreements The county will begin evaluation committee meetings and identify solutions for tying student performance to evaluation results on a regular basis. Cut scores and approaches will be reviewed regularly to ensure equity.


Step 3: Identify assessments to be used for each group (i.e. teachers/media specialists) Learning growth/achievement is typically derived from student results from assessments. Some assessments may be district created. An appropriate list of assessments is being developed by the county to identify which metrics are appropriate for each employee type within the district. (Example: Media Specialist: Reading School Score. Principal: Reading School Score, Math School Score, School Grade, Superintendent Approved Learning Target)

Assessments Used in District for Evaluation Purposes

Employee Type Level or Grade Assessments/Metrics Used Principal Elementary Principal Middle School Principal High School

Assistant Principal Elementary Assistant Principal Middle School Assistant Principal High School

Guidance Counselor Elementary Guidance Counselor Middle School Guidance Counselor High School

Teacher Pre-K Teacher K Teacher 1st Teacher 2nd Teacher 3rd Teacher 4th Teacher 5th Teacher 6th Teacher 7th Teacher 8th Teacher 9th Teacher 10th Teacher 11th Teacher 12th


Step 4: Identify Rubrics/Cuts for Each Assessment The evaluation committee will meet monthly to review cut scores and adjust cuts in a manner so that they are achievable and fair based on typical performance and standards expected for each level. Step 5: Train Administration Administrators will be trained on how multi-measure system works in the Fall of each year. Refresher trainers will be offered by the district as needed. Very similar to how a college G.P.A. is derived, the multi-measure system will allow the principal and teacher to weight certain metrics/courses more heavily based on the teacher’s job responsibilities. Just as your 4 credit hour courses contributed more to your G.P.A. in college than your 1 credit hour courses, a teacher who provides instruction in Math for 5 periods and Science for 2 periods will also have their weights differentiated based on individual job responsibilities (i.e. Math VAM: 70%/Science Final Exam Scores: 30%). Step 6: Present to Faculties The district will plan a roll-out phase where the system is presented to teachers. An example/copy presentation is included in overall project which can be modified from year to year. Step 7: Set Deadline for Administrators to Meet with Teachers to Set Up Rubric Weights A deadline will be provided to administrators to meet with teachers to discuss appropriate rubrics/set rubric weights based on job responsibilities and data available. Step 8: Any/All Growth Data to be Used in the Calculations Will be Pulled and Ready for Principals The district office will pull any/all data used in SPI calculations from its LIIS system (i.e. Performance Matters/Skyward) once all assessments have been administered. The district office will then plan and facilitate a SPI completion session with school administrators to complete the entire evaluation process for each school’s instructional and administrative personnel. Step 9: Roster Verification Similar to the VAM Roster Verification provided by the Florida Department of Education, the district will also set Roster Verification protocols/agreements through its Evaluation Committee to identify which students count in calculations versus which students should be redacted (i.e. students in year-long courses must be enrolled for both Survey 2 and Survey 3 counts. Students in semester/block courses must be enrolled for at least 46 days with the burden of proof lying on the teacher for identifying students to be redacted.)


Step 10: Assessments are Administered/Scores are Calculated After assessments are administered and scores come in, scores will be calculated to demonstrate whether or not students met, exceeded, or fell short of expectations. These files will be provided to schools for the final roster verification process Step 11: Final Roster Verification Files with student results are provided to schools. Teachers and administrators discuss the Roster Verification edits, and remove students who were identified to be redacted from calculations. Step 12: Scores Calculated and Identify SLG Code Based on Metrics Used Each metric used will have an individual rubric scoring process attached to it. A rubric score range can be set in the 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0. For district created models, rubric score ranges will also be creatively set in the range of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. The appropriate SLG code will be identified at this time. Step 13: Weight all Scores/Obtain Final SPI Score Using the Student Performance Indicator Calculator (or manual calculation process), school administrators will enter the rubric scores for each individual metric used. Enter the weighting of each metric/rubric. Assuming that all rubrics add up to 100% (1.0), a score will be calculated on a 4.0 scale. Final scores will not exceed 4.0. Most scores will likely not come out as “nice/even/round numbers” (i.e. 3.27). Step 14: Convert the Weighted SPI Score into a Point Total Example: The SPI calculations max out at 150 points (i.e. 150 points deliberate practice + 150 points Student Performance Indicators = Total 300 points possible in the evaluation)(50% DP and 3rd metric & 50% SPI). On a 150 point scale, a score of 3.27 would equate to 122.625 points. (Can simply multiply 3.27 by 37.5 to equate to 122.625 points). Equation to convert 3.27 = X_ 4.0 150 points 4.0X = 490.5 X = 490.5/4 4 4

X= 122.625 points Equation: Weighted SPI Score/4.0 = X/ Points Possible for Student Performance for Individual District


Simplified Equation X = Weighted SPI * Points Possible for District in this Domain ÷ 4.0 X = Points Equivalent for District for SPI Score Step 15: Add SPI Point Total to Deliberate Practice (Principal Observation) Point Total The SPI point total for the district will be added to the Principal Observation Component and Third Metric to obtain a final evaluation/summative evaluation score. Step 16: Provide Employee with the Final Evaluation Rating and Identify the SLG Code Used Based on the point total cuts used, the employee will be classified as either Highly Effective (Code C), Effective (Code D), Needs Improvement (Code E), Developing (Years 1-2 teachers) (Code: F), or Unsatisfactory (Code G). (Code H is used if the evaluation is incomplete) Note: Needs Improvement (DOE Code E) has significantly different accountability implications than Developing (DOE code F) for teachers who are new to the profession (years 1-2).


Identification of the Appropriate SLG (Student Learning Growth Code) This code should be included on the final/summative evaluation form for the district and will capture which student data was used in the student performance (SPI/VAM) component of the evaluation.

SLG Code Meaning

A

The SPI portion of the evaluation was derived Exclusively (100%) on statewide assessments (i.e. Any State provided VAM score/Any State EOC data or other State exam data) (i.e. State Science in grades 5 & 8 is provided by the department of education, but a VAM score is not provided)

B The SPI portion of the evaluation was derived Exclusively (100%) on district developed end-of-course assessments

C The SPI portion of the evaluation was derived Exclusively (100%) on other standardized assessments (i.e. AP exams, SAT 10, IB exams)

D The SPI portion of the evaluation was derived Exclusively (100%) on industry certification examinations

E The SPI portion of the evaluation was derived Exclusively (100%) on measurable learning targets (F.S. 1012.34(7)(e))

F The SPI portion of the evaluation was derived from a COMBINATION OF ASSESSMENTS, with the state exam data being used as the largest component

G The SPI portion of the evaluation was derived from a COMBINATION OF ASSESSMENTS, with the state exam data NOT being used as the largest component

H The classroom teacher or school administrator was not evaluated/incomplete

Z Not a classroom teacher

Disclaimer: All recommendations and “cut values” for “Highly Effective” and “Effective” provided in this system should be negotiated with local unions and adjusted to meet the unique needs of each district. EMCS is not liable for the use or misuse of any of the rubrics included in this system.


Timeline for SPI Deadlines & Implementation

Status (pending/complete) Action

Student Performance Indicator (SPI) System Review

Student Performance Indicator (SPI) System Union Approval

Creation of Evaluation Committee with District, School Leadership,

and Teacher Representation

Adoption of Growth Rubric Formulas & Appropriate Tests to be

used in SPI system

Presentation of SPI System to Schools/Administrators/Teachers

Evaluation Committee Agreements Complete (i.e. Survey 2/3

match, etc.; agreement of K values used/cut values used.)

Principal & Teacher/Employee Meetings to set up SPI Weightings to Reflect Employee Work Load (Sign SPI Weighting Agreement Form)

Preliminary Growth Models pulled for teachers/employees

Fall Roster Verification Tool FDOE (VAM FDOE Models)

Fall Roster Verification (in-house) (using form provided to teacher,

school administration, and school MIS) (Non-VAM courses based on Evaluation Committee Agreements)

Fall Student Assessments Administered

Fall Student Assessment Data Returned

Fall Block Schedule SPI Scores Calculated

Spring Student Assessments Administered

Spring Student Assessment Data Returned

Spring Student SPI Scores Calculated

Summer: Local SPI Calculations

(Data Analyzed at school and district level) (Scores Provided)

Late Summer/Fall: VAM Scores returned from state

Late Summer/Fall: Final SPI Scores Provided to teacher with

Appropriate Student Learning Growth Code

Fall: Analysis of SPI Distribution

Fall/Winter: Adjustment of SPI Cut Values if appropriate


District Management


Annual District Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Analysis

Target Value: The distribution of scores (Highly Effective/Effective/Needs Improvement/Unsatisfactory should be similar across grade levels). In the event where there are significant disparities, the evaluation committee shall reconvene to evaluate cuts for each rating. In severe instances, the evaluation committee may review and possibly adjust cuts where disparities in average ratings are significant.

Grade Level/Group % Highly Effective

% Effective

% Needs Improvement/

Developing

% Unsatisfactory

% Effective/ Highly

Effective Combined

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Guidance

Principals/AP’s/Dean

Coaches

Resource Teachers

Special Area Teachers

Other


Comparison of Deliberate Practice with VAM/SPI

Target Value: The distribution of Deliberate Practice Ratings should mirror the VAM/SPI ratings. The intent of this analysis performed each year is to determine the alignment of deliberate practice scores with VAM/SPI scores. It will also allow the district to determine if there are any inequities that may exist in specific grade levels with regards to cut scores implemented from one exam to the next or one grade level to the next.

Grade Level/Group % HE

Deliberate Practice

% HE VAM/SPI

% E Deliberate

Practice

% E

VAM/SPI

% U/NI Deliberate

Practice

% U/NI VAM/SPI

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Guidance

Principals/AP’s/Dean

Coaches

Resource Teachers

Special Area Teachers

Other


Evaluation Committee

Name of Employee Teacher or Administrator

(other) Grade Level Representing


Evaluation Committee Agreements - Dixie County

1. Rubric weightings should be reflective of the teacher course load. As with other agreements/weights, if an agreement can’t be reached, the principal shall make the final decision.

2. For any SPI calculation OTHER THAN VAM, 1st Year ELL students should be removed

from the calculation (burden of proof lies on the teacher to indicate these removals to administration, in writing, via the roster verification removal process for Non-VAM courses.)

3. For Wheel teachers, only students who are present AT THE SCHOOL for both Survey 2

and Survey 3 will count in any calculations. 4. For the purposes of calculating VAM/SPI scores for yearlong courses, only students

who are assigned to a teacher in a course for BOTH Survey 2 and Survey 3 will be used. If there are students that the teacher feels should be added or removed from their roster due to extenuating circumstances, a collaborative decision shall be made between the teacher and their evaluating administrator and/or building principal. The principal shall make the final decision to approve such deletions.

5. For Guidance Counselors, it is appropriate to use the School Score (Math/Reading

Combined) as a portion OR all of the student performance component of their evaluation (based on conversation.)

6. For Media Specialists, the Reading School Score shall be used as this portion of the

evaluation. 7. For wheel teachers, a student must be present in the teacher’s class for 51% of the

course (regardless of whether or not the course is on a 2 week, 4 week, or other rotation). Students who are “pulled-out” for interventions where their participation in the class falls below 51% shall be removed from any calculations. Teachers must provide documentation for removing students from any calculations and notify administration to remove these students from calculations when calculating SPI. (Example: email notifications from administrators that the student will be removed on such/such day).

8. "Mid-Year Teachers" A VAM/SPI score of "Incomplete" will be given to those teachers who have not provided

instruction to a group of students during both Survey 2 and Survey 3 for yearlong courses or 70% of the class for block/semester classes. If the teacher enters their new job position at the very beginning of a semester/block course, and provides instruction for the entire semester/block, data will only be used from the semester/block that the teacher was present for at least 70% of class. If the teacher has 1-2 previous year(s) of data, that data/score will be utilized in place of a three year average. If the teacher is


new to the county, the overall VAM/SPI score will be "Incomplete" and the teacher will not be eligible for performance pay for that year.

9. “SPI: Carry Forward Scores” Teachers who have SPI/Student Performance Indicator Scores from prior years shall

carry forward those scores as a portion of their evaluation that is an appropriate reflection of their instruction. For example, if the teacher is a year 3 teacher, the teacher shall carry forward the SPI score from the prior two years in addition to the specific rubrics (growth achievement targets) for the current year. The three years of data utilized should be divided in thirds. If a teacher is a year 2 teacher, the teacher shall carry forward the SPI score from the prior year in addition to the specific rubrics (growth/achievement targets) for the current year. The two years of data utilized should be divided in halves. If the teacher is a first year teacher, there is no SPI Carry Forward option. For first year teachers, all data used in calculations will be from the current year. If the teacher and principal believe that it is inappropriate to carry forward any SPI scores from prior years (must cite specific legitimate reasons), they may agree to utilize the current year’s SPI score only for this calculation.

10. Standardized Assessments For courses that are associated with a standardized exam (state or nationally

recognized), those courses shall use the results of this standardized assessment for some portion of the student performance indicators portion of the teacher evaluation.

11. For resource teachers who do not provide direct instruction to students (i.e. MTSS/RTI

coaches, MTSS/Character Education Teachers, Push in/Pull out intervention teachers, ESE Resource teachers/Inclusion Specialists), the VAM score for the current year will be derived based on the average VAM scores of the team of teachers/groups of classes that the teacher provides services in/to. Principals and/or teacher shall provide the name(s) of the teacher(s) who constitute the "team" whose scores will be averaged to develop said teacher's VAM score. This must be done prior to VAM scores being calculated. Furthermore, weighting may be added to a particular class or classes where the resource teacher provides more support (I.e. Resource teacher, Mr. Smith, provides support for Mrs. VAM on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but only provides support into Mr. DOE's class on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Mrs. VAM's score would be weighted more than Mr. DOE's when calculating Mr. Smith’s SPI/VAM score.)

If the teacher and administrator believe that an individual VAM measurement for the

teacher is a more appropriate measure, and the teacher has a record in the FDOE Roster Verification tool, the teacher may also use the VAM data from those students assigned to them as all or part of the Student Performance Indicators. If this option is used, the teacher must include the scores of all students assigned to them. Based upon state statute, F.S.1012.34(7)(e), this paragraph shall expire on July 1, 2015.


12. Teachers Out on Leave If a teacher is out on leave (FMLA, maternity, etc) for a minimum of 30 consecutive

days prior to the administration of the assessment, the teacher's score for that year will be "incomplete." If a teacher has 1-2 years of prior SPI/VAM scores, those scores will be utilized to calculate a score for the current year. If the teacher is in their first year with the county, their score will be "incomplete." Teachers shall have the option of utilizing the scores from the current year (year that leave occurs). If a teacher chooses to utilize the current year's scores, the teacher shall communicate this choice to their evaluating administrator prior to the end of the school year.

13. Credit Recovery Teachers Credit Recovery Teachers' SPI score shall be calculate based upon the percentage of

students who successfully complete their credit recovery courses (using the appropriate SPI rubric). Additional rubrics may be used if the teacher and administrator feel it is appropriate.

14. Behavior Specialists/Staffing Specialists/School Psychologists Behavior Specialists, Staffing Specialists, and School Psychologists will use the AMO

Growth Rubrics based on the SWD population (1 measure for Math/1 measure for Reading) for each school the individual services. Example: If the individual services 2 schools, a total of 4 rubrics will be used.

15. State Adopted Models For growth models that are approved/adopted by the state, Dixie County shall use

those models as required by law. The following “state-created” growth models are currently being used by Dixie County.

VAM Reading (Grades 4-10) VAM Math (Grades 4-8) VAM Grade 9 Algebra 16. Itemized Approach to Evaluations Beginning with the 2014-15 school year, the county will implement an “itemized

approach” to its evaluation system involving student data. Three years of data will still be used if available. If three years of data is unavailable, two years of data will be used. If two years of data is unavailable, one year of data will be used. Each year will be itemized on its own line. In a 3-year calculation, each year shall constitute one-third of the teacher’s/employee’s total points earned for student performance indicators. In a 2-year calculation, each year shall constitute one-half of the teacher’s/employee’s total points earned for student performance indicators. In a single year calculation, the year used shall constitute 100% of the teacher’s/employee’s total points earned for student performance indicators. For VAM, the employee shall now receive year-by-year scores reflective of only the students served for that year. For example, a 3 year veteran teacher will receive 3 individual VAM scores (1 for the current year, 1 for the prior year, and 1 for two year’s prior).


District & School Management Forms


District Roster Verification Removal Form for Non-VAM Courses Teacher _____________________ Class _______________________ Grade Level ________

Instructions: Teachers shall be provided with the opportunity to submit requests for student removals from calculations in SPI Points. Teachers shall return this form to their MIS/Administration for review and approval before final exams are administered. MIS/Administration shall keep this form in the teacher SPI folder for final calculations. Examples of Reasons for Removal include (adjusted for each district):

A. Students are not present at the school for both Survey 2 and 3 (to be verified by MIS/Admin)for year-long courses

B. Students are 1st Year ELL students (to be verified by Admin/ELL Specialist) C. For “wheel” teachers, student must be present in the teacher’s class for 51% of the course (regardless of

whether or not the course is on a 2 week, 4 week, or other rotation). Students who are “pulled-out” for interventions where their participation in the class falls below 51% shall be removed from any calculations. Teachers must provide documentation for removing students from any calculations and notify administration to remove these students from calculations when calculating SPI. (Example: email notifications from administrators that the student will be removed on such/such day).

Name of Student Requesting

Removal For Reason for Removal Approval (Yes or No)

(or Signature by Admin/MIS)


EMCS Student Performance Indicator Rubric Weighting Form Teacher/Employee Name _______________________________ School __________________________________________ Evaluating Administrator ________________________________ School Year ____________________________________ Years Teaching in County ________________________________ Years of Data Used ____________________________ Note: The current year and previous 2 years (3 years total) of data should be used, if available. (Student Success Act)

1. What grade level does the teacher provide instruction for this year? __________________________ 2. What subject(s)? ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3. What grade level did the teacher provide instruction for last year? _____________________________ 4. What subject(s)? ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5. What grade level did the teacher provide instruction for two years ago? ______________________ 6. What subject(s)? ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Complete the chart below after collaborating with teacher and choosing appropriate

rubrics. a. Note: It is the district recommendation to choose rubric weightings as close as possible

to what data is available for the teacher (including applicable prior year data, if available).

b. Note: 3 year VAM rubric scores are re-calculated each year.

School Year Data Point Was Derived

From/Will be Derived From

Rubric Title/Description/Subject (i.e. VAM Reading 3 year aggregate)

Rubric Weight/ Percentage

Rubric Score (1 minimum- 4 max)

Sum of rubric weights (should equal 100%) -------------------------

Final/Weighted Rubric Score =

Teacher Signature ________________________________________________________________ Date ____________________ Administrator Signature _________________________________________________________ Date ____________________


EXAMPLE: Student Performance Indicator Rubric Weighting Form Teacher/Employee Name MR. SMITH School ANYWHERE ELEMENTARY Evaluating Administrator MR. JONES School Year Years Teaching in County 3 YEARS Years of Data Used 1 YEAR Note: The current year and previous 2 years (3 years total) of data should be used, if available. (Student Success Act)

1. What grade level does the teacher provide instruction for this year? 3rd Grade 2. What subject(s)? Reading/Math 3. What grade level did the teacher provide instruction for last year? 3rd Grade 4. What subject(s)? Reading/Math (School Score was used in past, but can’t be carried

forward) 5. What grade level did the teacher provide instruction for two years ago? 3rd Grade 6. What subject(s)? Reading/Math (School Score was used in past, but can’t be carried

forward) 7. Complete the chart below after collaborating with teacher and choosing appropriate

rubrics. a. Note: It is the district recommendation to choose rubric weightings as close as

possible to what data is available for the teacher (including applicable prior year data, if available).

b. Note: For teachers of Reading in Grades 4-10, Math Grades 4-8, or Algebra (grades 8/9), the 3 year VAM rubric scores are re-calculated each year with the oldest year dropping off of calculations.

School Year Data

Point Was Derived From/Will be Derived From




2014-15 Grade 3 Reading (General Education Students including Gifted) 31 Pending scores

2014-15 Grade 3 Math (General Education Students including Gifted) 31 Pending scores

2014-15 Grade 3 Reading (ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3) 14 Pending scores

2014-15 Grade 3 Math (ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3) 14 Pending scores

2014-15 Student Learning Objective (SLO) 10 Pending Measurable data

Sum of rubric weights (should

equal 100%) ------------------------- 100




Teacher/Employee Name _____________________ School Year ___________ Rubric Weight _____

Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Calculation Worksheet

**After utilizing the previous rubric sheets, administrators should have set weights to each teacher’s student performance indicators (i.e. VAM scores, AP Scores, Classroom Scores, IB Scores, etc) and obtained

a Weighted Rubric Value for each of the sheets/parameters used in the evaluation. Instructions Step 1: Add all weighted rubric values for this teacher to obtain a Final Weighted Rubric Value for this teacher. Step 2: Multiply the Final Weighted Rubric Value by _______ (District Weighting). Should equate to the 50% minimum for student growth/performance/achievement. Example: Mr. Jones (teacher) has 110 students in his VAM file and earned a VAM score of 2.81818. However, Mr. Jones also taught one Advanced Placement (AP) class and earned a rubric score of 3.0 based on his students’ performance. As Mr. Jones’s principal chose to weight the VAM score at 0.75 (75%) and the AP rubric score at 0.25 (25%), Mr. Jones obtained the following Final Weighted Rubric Value:

VAM Weighted Rubric Value (2.0 X 0.75)

Classroom & Final Exam Achievement

Weighted Rubric Value

(0.0 X 0.0)

Advanced Placement


(3.0 X 0.25)

IB Weighted Rubric Value

(0.0 X 0.0)

Final Weighted Rubric Value (= Sum of all

WEIGHTED Rubric Values)

1.5 0.0 0.75 0.0 2.25

Student Performance Indicator Points = Final Weighted Rubric Value X 100 (Example Weighting) Example: Mr. Jones = 2.25 X 100 = 225 Student Performance Indicator Points (400 points max.) Example: Mr. Jones = 2.25 X 37.5 = 84.375 Student Performance Indicator Points (150 points max.)

VAM Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

Final Weighted Rubric Value

(= Sum of all WEIGHTED Rubric Values)

X ____ (Weighting)

= SPI Points _____________


District Level Rubrics

















Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Carry Forward Rubric (Single Year)

• The SPI “Carry Forward” rubric is for management purposes. In instances where each individual year has a score that is calculated using multiple rubrics, those scores may be carried forward for the following two years for inclusion into the teachers total “SPI Score”

• General Aspects of the Data should be included below School Year SPI Score Being Carried Forward FROM ___________________________________

Components of Score Being Carried Forward

(Circle Any/All That Apply)

Growth or Achievement (Circle One) Other Notes

VAM Data Growth

Final Exam Data Growth/Achievement (circle one)

Growth/Achievement (circle one)











Rubric Equivalent of Carry Forward Score

Rubric Weight (decimal)

Weighted Rubric Value (Rubric Equivalent X Rubric Weight)

**Note: Rubric Weights MUST add up to 1.00 (100%) when combining all Rubric Sheets.



District _____________________

VAM District Score (Reading and Math Combined) VAM Score Used: 1 Year Aggregate/2 Year Aggregate/or 3 Year Aggregate

**Evaluating administrator should use evaluation committee agreements and weighting guidelines to determine how much this score weights in the total SPI score. (If weighting at 10%, multiply VAM by 0.10. If weighting at 25%, multiply VAM by 0.25)

Reading Score Math Score Combined Score or

Average

Notes _______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Rubric Equivalent (Obtained after using State Data and applying Union Approved K values)






District _____________________

VAM District Score (Reading Only) VAM Score Used: 1 Year Aggregate/2 Year Aggregate/or 3 Year Aggregate


VAM Reading is based on student performance in grades 4-10 on statewide assessment.

Raw VAM Reading Score Standard Error (if applicable)

Rubric Equivalent (typically reported on a

1.0-4.0 scale)

Notes _______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________







District _____________________

VAM District Score (Math Only) VAM Score Used: 1 Year Aggregate/2 Year Aggregate/or 3 Year Aggregate


VAM Math is based on student performance in grades 4-8 on statewide assessment.

Raw VAM Math Score Standard Error (if applicable)

Rubric Equivalent (typically reported on a

1.0-4.0 scale)

Notes _______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________







AMO Ranking Growth Rubric (Math) Rubric Value _______________ (select from below) Subgroup for Rubric _______________ District Overall AMO Ranking Last Year (Total Students in Math) ________ District’s AMO Rank with ____________ (subgroup) Students Last Year (Math Only) ________ Gap Differential (Using Ranks) _______ (Negative if the AMO Subgroup Ranking was Lower than “Total” Ranking) District’s __________ (subgroup) Population % Proficient in MATH Using Last Year’s AMO Data ______ Data can be pulled from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/ District’s _________ (subgroup) Population % Proficient in MATH Using Current Year’s AMO Data ____ Did % Proficient Increase OR Decrease (circle one) Actual Change in % Proficient ________

Student Performance Indicator Gap

Differential +20 or more

Gap Differential

+10-+19

Gap Differential

0-+9

Gap Differential

-1--10

Gap Differential -11 or more

District improves its % proficient for targeted subgroup by 4% or more based on AMO data. 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0



District maintains or improves its % proficient for targeted subgroup based on AMO data. 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5

District’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is within 3% points of last year’s % proficient. 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0



District’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is BEYOND 8-9.9% points of last year’s % proficient. 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0

District’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is BEYOND 10-11.9% points of last year’s % proficient.

2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0


1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

District’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is BEYOND 14% points of last year’s % proficient. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/�



AMO Ranking Growth Rubric (Reading)

Rubric Value _______________ (select from below) Subgroup for Rubric _______________

District Overall AMO Ranking Last Year (Total Students in READING) ________ District’s AMO Rank with ____________ (subgroup) Students Last Year (READING Only) ________ Gap Differential (Using Ranks) _______ (Negative if the AMO Subgroup Ranking was Lower than “Total” Ranking) District’s __________ (subgroup) Population % Proficient in READING Using Last Year’s AMO Data ______ Data can be pulled from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/ District’s _________ (subgroup) Population % Proficient in READING Using Current Year’s AMO Data ____ Did % Proficient Increase OR Decrease (circle one) Actual Change in % Proficient ________



Gap Differential

+10-+19

Gap Differential

0-+9

Gap Differential

-1--10





District maintains or improves its % proficient for targeted subgroup based on AMO data. 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5




District’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is BEYOND 8-9.9% points of last year’s % proficient. 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0


2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0


1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

District’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is BEYOND 14% points of last year’s % proficient. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0




District Grades Rubric Levels

Student Performance/District Grades Indicator Rubric

Equivalent

District earned an “A” grade. 4.0

District improved its grade, and earned at least an “A” or “B” rating 3.5

District earned a “B” grade. 3.0

District improved its grade, and earned at least a “C” rating 2.5

District earned a “C” grade or improved its grade by a letter grade. 2.0

District earned a “D” grade. 1.5

District earned a grade of “F” 1.0

Rubric Equivalent Rubric Weight (decimal)





District Rankings Rubric Levels

Choose one Metric: Total Ranking/Reading/Writing/Science/Math

Student Performance/District Ranking Indicator Rubric

Equivalent

District improved its ranking by 5 or more spots or is in the top 10 in state 4.0



District maintained its ranking or is in the top 40 in the state 2.5

District ranking fell in this area and is at least 50th in the state 2.0

District ranking fell in this area and is at least 55th in the state 1.5

District ranking fell in this area and is BEYOND 55th in the state 1.0






Superintendent Approved Learning Target/Objective Target Value ___________________________________________________________________ Actual Value for Principal (measured at the end of the year) _____________________________ Difference between Target & Actual Value (measured when data returns) _________________

Student Performance Indicator (Superintendent sets “Cut Values” for each respective Rubric Equivalent)

Rubric Equivalent

Class average is ABOVE the target by _____ points 4.0

Class average is ABOVE the target 3.5

Class average is within ____ points of the target 3.0




Class average is BEYOND ____ points of the target 1.0







** After utilizing the previous rubric sheets, administrators should have set weights to each teacher’s student performance indicators (i.e. VAM scores, AP Scores, Classroom Scores, IB Scores, etc) and obtained





(0.0 X 0.0)

Advanced Placement


(3.0 X 0.25)


(0.0 X 0.0)



1.5 0.0 0.75 0.0 2.25


VAM Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value



X ____ (Weighting)

= SPI Points _____________


School Administrator Level Rubrics























VAM Data Growth
















**Note: Rubric Weights MUST add up to 1.00 (100%) when combining all Rubric Sheets



School ______________________________ School Score ___________

VAM School Score (Reading and Math Combined) VAM Score Used: 1 Year Aggregate/2 Year Aggregate/or 3 Year Aggregate

**Evaluating administrator should use evaluation committee agreements and weighting guidelines to determine how much this score weights in the total SPI score. (If weighting at 10%, multiply VAM by 0.10. If weighting at 25%, multiply VAM by 0.25) **VAM SCHOOL SCORE (READING AND MATH COMBINED) is derived from the statistical analysis of all students counted in the roster verification process for both the Fall and Spring FTE counts who also have either a VAM Reading and/or a VAM Math score. Example: Mrs. Anderson is an Assistant Principal at Anywhere Elementary School. Her district and evaluating administrator decide that the VAM School Score (combining Reading & Math performance of students) is appropriate as 75% of the SPI points for her. The other 25% of the score will be derived from another rubric. The school score comes back at 3.0 (effective). When weighted at 75% (0.75), this contributes 2.25 weighted points towards Mrs. Anderson’s total SPI score. (Note: This means that 75% of the student performance indicators portion of Mr. Jones’s evaluation will be based on his VAM score alone.)

Sample Rubric Equivalent

Sample Rubric Weight

(decimal)

Sample Weighted Rubric Value

(Rubric Equivalent X Rubric Weight)

3.0 (effective) 0.75

(represents 75%of SPI points)

2.25 weighted points (pending other 25% of SPI points)

Rubric Equivalent (School Score)

(Obtained after using State Data and applying Union Approved K values)






School ______________________________ School Score ___________

VAM School Score (Reading Only) VAM Score Used: 1 Year Aggregate/2 Year Aggregate/or 3 Year Aggregate

VAM Value: _________ VAM SE: ___________

**Evaluating administrator should use evaluation committee agreements and weighting guidelines to determine how much this score weights in the total SPI score. (If weighting at 10%, multiply VAM by 0.10. If weighting at 25%, multiply VAM by 0.25) **VAM SCHOOL SCORE (READING ONLY) is derived from the statistical analysis of all students counted in the roster verification process for both the Fall and Spring FTE counts who also have a VAM Reading score from the state approved/adopted model. Example: Mrs. Anderson is a Reading Coach at Anywhere Elementary School. Her district and evaluating administrator decide that the VAM Reading school Score (based on student performance in grades 4 and up) is appropriate as 75% of the SPI points for her. The other 25% of the score will be derived from another rubric for Reading performance in other grade levels. The school score comes back at 4.0 (Highly effective). When weighted at 75% (0.75), this contributes 3.0 weighted points towards Mrs. Anderson’s total SPI score. (Note: This means that 75% of the student performance indicators portion of Mr. Jones’s evaluation will be based on his VAM score alone.)



(decimal)



4.0 (Highly Effective) 0.75

(represents 75% of SPI points)









School ______________________________

VAM School Score (Math Only) Important: Choose One: (1 Year Aggregate/2 Year Aggregate/3 Year Aggregate)

VAM Value: ______________ VAM SE: ___________

**Evaluating administrator should use evaluation committee agreements and weighting guidelines to determine how much this score weights in the total SPI score. (If weighting at 10%, multiply VAM by 0.10. If weighting at 25%, multiply VAM by 0.25) **VAM SCHOOL SCORE (Math ONLY) is derived from the statistical analysis of all students counted in the roster verification process for both the Fall and Spring FTE counts who also have a VAM Math score from the state approved/adopted model. **All students present at the school for both FTE counts who also take the State assessment in Math AND have a prior year’s Math score will qualify for contributing to this calculation. Example Below: Mr. Jones is the Math Coach at Anywhere Middle School. He and his evaluating administrator decide that the Math School Score is appropriate as 75% of his evaluation. The school score comes back at a 3.0 (effective) (Note: This means that 75% of the student performance indicators portion of Mr. Jones’s evaluation will be based on his VAM Math School score alone.)



(decimal)













Superintendent Approved Learning Target/Objective Target Value ___________________________________________________________________ Actual Value for Principal (measured at the end of the year) _____________________________ Difference between Target & Actual Value (measured when data returns) _________________

Student Performance Indicator (Superintendent sets “Cut Values” for each respective Rubric Equivalent)

Rubric Equivalent













School Grades Rubric Levels

Student Performance/School Grades Indicator Rubric

Equivalent

School earned an “A” grade. 4.0

School improved its grade, and earned at least an “A” or “B” rating 3.5

School earned a “B” grade. 3.0

School improved its grade, and earned at least a “C” rating 2.5

School earned a “C” grade or improved its grade by one letter grade. 2.0

School earned a “D” grade. 1.5

School earned a grade of “F” 1.0






AMO Ranking Growth Rubric (Math) Rubric Value _______________ (select from below) Subgroup for Rubric _______________ District Overall AMO Ranking Last Year (Total Students in Math) ________ District’s AMO Rank with ____________ (subgroup) Students Last Year (Math Only) ________ Gap Differential (Using Ranks) _______ (Negative if the AMO Subgroup Ranking was Lower than “Total” Ranking) School’s __________ (subgroup) Population % Proficient in MATH Using Last Year’s AMO Data ______ Data can be pulled from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/ School’s _________ (subgroup) Population % Proficient in MATH Using Current Year’s AMO Data ____ Did % Proficient Increase OR Decrease (circle one) Actual Change in % Proficient ________



Gap Differential

+10-+19

Gap Differential

0-+9

Gap Differential

-1--10


School improves its % proficient for targeted subgroup by 4% or more based on AMO data. 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0



School maintains or improves its % proficient for targeted subgroup based on AMO data. 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5

School’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is within 3% points of last year’s % proficient. 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0



School’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is BEYOND 8-9.9% points of last year’s % proficient. 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0

School’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is BEYOND 10-11.9% points of last year’s % proficient.

2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0


1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

School’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is BEYOND 14% points of last year’s % proficient. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0




AMO Ranking Growth Rubric (Reading)

Rubric Value _______________ (select from below) Subgroup for Rubric _______________

District Overall AMO Ranking Last Year (Total Students in READING) ________ District’s AMO Rank with ____________ (subgroup) Students Last Year (READING Only) ________ Gap Differential (Using Ranks) _____ (Negative if the AMO Subgroup Ranking was Lower than “Total” Ranking) School’s ________ (subgroup) Population % Proficient in READING Using Last Year’s AMO Data ______ Data can be pulled from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/ School’s _______ (subgroup) Population % Proficient in READING Using Current Year’s AMO Data ____ Did % Proficient Increase OR Decrease (circle one) Actual Change in % Proficient ________



Gap Differential

+10-+19

Gap Differential

0-+9

Gap Differential

-1--10





School maintains or improves its % proficient for targeted subgroup based on AMO data. 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5




School’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is BEYOND 8-9.9% points of last year’s % proficient. 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0


2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0


1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

School’s % proficient for targeted subgroup is BEYOND 14% points of last year’s % proficient. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0










(0.0 X 0.0)

Advanced Placement


(3.0 X 0.25)


(0.0 X 0.0)



1.5 0.0 0.75 0.0 2.25


VAM Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value



X ____ (Weighting)

= SPI Points _____________


Elementary School Rubrics PreK-2























VAM Data Growth



















Pre-K ESE BDI (Batelle Developmental Inventory) Student Performance Rubric

School’s Average BDI End of Year (3 Domains): (Provided by ESE Director) D1: Social Emotional Skills _____ D2: Communication Skills _____ D3: Adaptive Behaviors _____

Teacher’s Average BDI End of Year (3 Domains): (Provided by ESE Director/Principal)

D1: Social Emotional Skills _____ D2: Communication Skills _____ D3: Adaptive Behaviors _____

Average % of students meeting BDI Indicators Rubric

Equivalent Domain 1

Rubric Equivalent Domain 2

Rubric Equivalent Domain 3

Average BDI for domain is above the school average BDI for this domain

4.0 4.0 4.0

Average BDI for domain is within 2% points of the school average BDI for this domain

3.5 3.5 3.5


3.0 3.0 3.0


2.5 2.5 2.5


2.0 2.0 2.0


1.5 1.5 1.5

Average BDI for domain is BEYOND 15% points of the school average BDI for this domain

1.0 1.0 1.0

Domain 1 Score _____ Domain 2 Score _____ Domain 3 Score _____ SUM OF 3 DOMAINS _____

Rubric Equivalent/Average Rubric Score for all 3 domains combined ________ = (SUM of 3 Domains Divided by 3) Example (D1) 4 + (D2) 3.5 + (D3) 2.5 = (Sum) 10; 10/3 = 3.333 Suggested Weight for this rubric for Pre-K ESE teachers is 1.0 (100%) (**Unless teacher provides instruction to other grade levels within the calculation of VAM) (i.e. Teacher has a VAM score from last year and is now teaching Pre-K ESE) Weighted Rubric Value= Rubric Equivalent X Rubric Weight (Decimal) (100% = 1.0; 90% = 0.9, etc.)

Rubric Equivalent (Average Rubric Score of all BDI’s)


(Recommended at 1.0)


**Note: Rubric Weights MUST add up to 1.00 (100%) when combining all Rubric Sheets Used



Principal/Director Approved Learning Target Rubric Levels Target Value ___________________________________________________________________ Actual Value for Principal (measured at the end of the year) _____________________________ Difference between Target & Actual Value (measured when data returns) _________________

Fl. Statute: 1012.34(7)(e): Measurement of Student Learning Growth: For purposes of this section and only for the 2014-15 school year, a school district may use measurable learning targets on local assessments administered under s. 1008.22 (6) to evaluate the performance of students portion of a classroom teacher’s evaluation for courses that are not assessed by statewide, standardized assessments. Learning targets must be approved by the school principal.

Student Performance Indicator (Principal or Director is required to set “Cut Values” for each respective Rubric Equivalent)

Rubric Equivalent













Student Learning Objectives Target Rubric Levels (SLO) Instructions: For courses without appropriate rubrics, a Student Learning Objective which utilizes the results of an assessment shall be used. Objectives will be set in collaboration with the principal or evaluating administrator. Target Value ___________________________________________________________________ Actual Value for Employee’s class/group ____________________________________________ Difference between Target & Actual Value +/- (choose one) _____________________________

Student Achievement/Growth Indicator

Rubric Equivalent













Kindergarten SAT 10 General Education Rubric Levels (Achievement Approach) Norm Referenced Exam: ______________________________

Includes Gifted in calculations. Excludes Tier 3 MTSS students

Subject (Circle One) Reading/Math

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation. Burden of proof on teacher.

School General Education Average Percentile ________ Difference between Teacher Value and School Average for this Group: ________________

Student Performance Indicator

Rubric Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average percentile of the entire school for this grade level/exam by 4 or more points. 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average percentile of the entire school for this grade level/exam. 3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average percentile of the entire school for this grade level/exam. 3.0

Teacher’s students scored within 8 points of the average percentile of the entire school for this grade level/exam.

2.5



Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average percentile of the entire school for this grade level/exam. 1.0






Kindergarten SAT 10 ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Achievement Approach) Norm Referenced Exam: ______________________________

Includes Tier 3 (MTSS)/Excludes Gifted

Subject (Circle One) Reading/Math Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation. Burden of proof on teacher. School ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Average Percentile ________ Difference between Teacher Value and School Average for this Group: ________________


Rubric Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average percentile of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/tier 3 population for this grade level/exam by 4 or more points.

4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average percentile of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/tier 3 population for this grade level/exam. 3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average percentile of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/tier 3 population for this grade level/exam. 3.0




Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average percentile of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/tier 3 population for this grade level/exam.

1.0






Classroom & Final Exam Achievement Rubric Levels Worksheet

% of students earning a 75% or above on a district/principal approved Final Exam

Achievement Rubric

Equivalent

75%-100% 4.0

70%-74.9% 3.5

65%-69.9% 3.0

60%-64.9% 2.5

50%-59.9% 2.0

40%-49.9% 1.5

Less than 40% of students 1.0

Weighted Rubric Value= Rubric Equivalent X Rubric Weight (Decimal) Example: Mr. Smith (principal) & Mr. Jones (teacher) agree that this component of their evaluation should only comprise 25% of the student performance score. Mr. Jones has 67% of his students earn a 75% of above on the final exam. This equates to a rubric value of 3.0 Weighted Rubric Value = 3.0 (rubric equivalent) X 0.25 (25% of student performance score) Weighted Rubric Value = 0.75 (Important Note in This Example: Since this page only counts as 25% (0.25) of this portion of the teacher’s evaluation, the other pages used should add up to 75% (0.75) of the remainder of this portion of the evaluation.)






I-Ready Average Scale Score Gain Rubric (Math Only) Instructions: For courses using I-Ready as a measure of student growth, the “Average Scale Score Gain” may be used as a growth measure. Grade Level ________ Average Scale Score Gain for School in MATH for this grade _________ Average Scale Score Gain for Teacher in this grade level (MATH) _________________________ Difference between Teacher Average Gain and School Average Gain: ___________________

Student Performance Indicator (Growth Approach) Growth Rubric

Equivalent

Average Scale Score Gain for teacher for this grade level/subject is ABOVE the school’s average gain by 3 or more points. 4.0

Average Scale Score Gain for teacher for this grade level/subject is ABOVE the school’s average gain for this grade level/subject. 3.5

Average Scale Score Gain for teacher for this grade level/subject is within 6 points of the school’s average gain for this grade level/subject. 3.0




Average Scale Score Gain for teacher for this grade level/subject is BEYOND 15 points of the school’s average gain for this grade level/subject. 1.0






I-Ready Average Scale Score Gain Rubric (Reading Only) Instructions: For courses using I-Ready as a measure of student growth, the “Average Scale Score Gain” may be used as a growth measure. Grade Level ________ Average Scale Score Gain for School in READING for this grade _______ Average Scale Score Gain for Teacher in this grade level (READING) ______________________ Difference between Teacher Average Gain and School Average Gain: ___________________


Equivalent

Average Scale Score Gain for teacher for this grade level/subject is ABOVE the school’s average gain by 3 or more points. 4.0

Average Scale Score Gain for teacher for this grade level/subject is ABOVE the school’s average gain for this grade level/subject. 3.5





Average Scale Score Gain for teacher for this grade level/subject is BEYOND 15 points of the school’s average gain for this grade level/subject. 1.0






I-Ready % of Students Achieving Target (Math Only)

Instructions: For courses using I-Ready as a measure of student growth, the “% of Students Achieving Target” may be used as a growth measure. (USING MATH DATA ONLY) Actual Value for Employee’s class/group ________

Student Performance Indicator (Achievement Approach) Achievement

Rubric Equivalent

% of students achieving target on final window exam used is between 80-100% 4.0












I-Ready % of Students Achieving Target (Reading Only) Instructions: For courses using I-Ready as a measure of student growth, the “% of Students Achieving Target” may be used as a growth measure. (USING READING DATA ONLY) Actual Value for Employee’s class/group ________

Student Performance Indicator (Achievement Approach) Achievement

Rubric Equivalent













Principal Approved Learning Target: Grades K-2 Self Contained Percent of IEP Goals Met

(To be verified by Principal & Staffing Specialist)

Target Value: Students will meet at least 70% of their IEP goals as verified by Staffing Specialist. (Based on average % of IEP goals met of students serviced.) Actual Value for Teacher’s class/group ________ Fl. Statute 1012.34(7)(e): For classroom teachers of courses for which the district has not implemented appropriate assessments under s. 1008.22(8) or for which the school district has not adopted an equally appropriate measure of student learning growth under paragraphs (b)-(d), student learning growth must be measured by the growth in learning of the classroom teacher’s students on statewide assessments, or, for courses in which enrolled students do not take the statewide assessments, measurable learning targets must be established based upon the goals of the school improvement plan and approved by the school principal.


Rubric Equivalent

Students in teacher’s self-contained K-2 class have met 70-100% of their I.E.P. Goals 4.0

Students in teacher’s self-contained K-2 class have met between 60-69% of their I.E.P. Goals 3.5





Students in teacher’s self-contained K-2 class have met less than 20% of their I.E.P. Goals 1.0





Working Papers

Student Name % of measurable I.E.P. Goals Met

Notation of any Goals Not Met

AVERAGE FOR CLASS (CALCULATE IN NEXT BOX) AVE =

Principal Verification (Printed Name) ________________________________________________ Principal Verification (Signature) ___________________________________________________ Date ____________________ Staffing Specialist or ESE Director Verification (Printed Name) ____________________________ Staffing Specialist/ESE Director Verification (Signature) _________________________________ Date ____________________



SAT 10 Math Growth Rubrics (Grades 1-2) (Using NCE) (Elementary Schools)

Target Value: Students will score at/above the same average NCE when compared to the previous year’s NCE on SAT 10 Math (NCE: Normal Curve Equivalent) Pre-Measure: Student Average NCE in SAT 10 Math for previous year ________ Post-Measure: Student’s Average NCE in SAT 10 Math for current year ________ Difference between Pre-Measure and Post-Measure: ________________ (increase/decrease) Note: Only students with a previous year’s NCE should be used in the calculation for the current year average NCE.

Student Performance Indicator Growth Rubric

Equivalent

On average, students (with NCE scores from the previous year) scored at least 4 NCE points ABOVE their NCE from the previous grade level. 4.0


On average, students (with NCE scores from the previous year) scored within 4 NCE point of their NCE from the previous grade level. 3.0

On average, students (with percentile scores from the previous year) scored within 6 NCE point of their NCE from the previous grade level. 2.5

On average, students (with NCE scores from the previous year) scored within 8 NCE point of their NCE from the previous grade level.

2.0


On average, students (with NCE scores from the previous year) scored BEYOND 10 NCE points below their NCEfrom the previous grade level. 1.0






SAT 10 Reading Growth Rubrics (Grades 1-2) (Using NCE) (Elementary Schools)

Target Value: Students will score at/above the same average NCE when compared to the previous year’s NCE on SAT 10 Reading. (NCE: Normal Curve Equivalent) Student Average NCE in SAT 10 READING for previous year ________ Student’s Average NCE in SAT 10 READING for current year ________ Difference between Pre-Measure and Post-Measure: ________________ (increase/decrease) Note: Only students with a previous year’s NCE should be used in the calculation for the current year average NCE.


Equivalent




On average, students (with NCE scores from the previous year) scored within 6 NCE points of their NCE from the previous grade level. 2.5

On average, students (with NCE scores from the previous year) scored within 8 NCE points of their NCE from the previous grade level.

2.0


On average, students (with NCE scores from the previous year) scored BEYOND 10 NCE points below their NCE from the previous grade level. 1.0






SAT 10 Math Rubrics (Grades 1-2) (Growth Approach) (Using Percentiles) (Elementary Schools)

Target Value: Students will score at/above the same average percentile when compared to the previous year’s percentiles on SAT 10 Math Pre-Measure: Student Average Percentile in SAT 10 Math for previous year ________ Post-Measure: Student’s Average Percentile in SAT 10 Math for current year ________ Difference between Pre-Measure and Post-Measure: __________________(increase/decrease) Note: Only students with a previous year’s percentile should be used in the calculation for the current year average percentile.


Equivalent

On average, students (with percentile scores from the previous year) scored at least 4 percentile points ABOVE their percentiles from the previous grade level. 4.0


On average, students (with percentile scores from the previous year) scored within 4 percentile point of their percentiles from the previous grade level. 3.0




On average, students (with percentile scores from the previous year) scored BEYOND 10 percentile points below their percentiles from the previous grade level. 1.0






SAT 10 Reading Rubrics (Grades 1-2) (Growth Approach) (Using Percentiles) (Elementary Schools)

Target Value: Students will score at/above the same average percentile when compared to the previous year’s percentiles on SAT 10 Reading Student Average Percentile in SAT 10 for previous year ________ Student’s Average Percentile in SAT 10 for current year ________ Difference between Pre-Measure and Post-Measure: __________________(increase/decrease) Note: Only students with a previous year’s percentile should be used in the calculation for the current year average percentile.


Equivalent







On average, students (with percentile scores from the previous year) scored BEYOND 10 percentile points below their percentiles from the previous grade level. 1.0






Grade 1 SAT 10 ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Primary 1 Test) (Achievement Approach)

*SAT 10 Reading includes Average Percentile Scores for BOTH Word Reading/Sentence Reading & Reading Comprehension (2 sub-scores) **SAT 10 Math includes Average Percentile Scores for BOTH Mathematics Problem Solving & Mathematics Procedures (2 sub-scores)

Includes Tier 3 (MTSS)/Excludes Gifted Subject (Circle One) Reading/Math

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation. Burden of proof on teacher.

School ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Average Percentile ________ Difference between Teacher’s value and School’s value: ______________ (above/below school ave.)

Student Performance Indicator (Achievement Approach)

Rubric Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average combined percentile of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/tier 3 population for this grade level/exam by 4 or more points. 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average combined percentile of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/tier 3 population for this grade level/exam. 3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average combined percentile of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/tier 3 population for this grade level/exam. 3.0




Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average combined percentile of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/tier 3 population for this grade level/exam. 1.0






Grade 1 SAT 10 General Education Rubric Levels (Primary 1 Test) (Including gifted) (Achievement Approach)

*SAT 10 Reading includes Average Percentile Scores for BOTH Word Reading/Sentence Reading & Reading Comprehension (2 sub-scores) **SAT 10 Math includes Average Percentile Scores for BOTH Mathematics Problem Solving & Mathematics Procedures (2 sub-scores)

Excludes Tier 3 MTSS students/Includes Gifted in calculation

Subject (Circle One) Reading/Math Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation. Burden of proof on teacher.

School General Education Average Percentile ________ Difference between Teacher’s value and School’s value: ______________ (above/below school ave.)


Rubric Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average combined percentile of the entire school for this grade level/exam by 4 or more points. 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average combined percentile of the entire school for this grade level/exam. 3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average combined percentile of the entire school for this grade level/exam.

3.0

Teacher’s students scored within 8 points of the average combined percentile of the entire school for this grade level/exam. 2.5



Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average combined percentile of the entire school for this grade level/exam. 1.0






Grade 2 SAT 10 ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Primary 2)

(Achievement Approach) *SAT 10 Total Reading includes Scores for BOTH Word Study Skills/Reading Vocabulary AND Reading Comprehension

**SAT 10 Math includes Scores for BOTH Mathematics Problem Solving & Mathematics Procedures (2 sub-scores)

Grade Level: 2nd (Tier 3 MTSS students included in this calculation) (Excludes Gifted students)

Subject (Circle One) Reading/Math Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation. Burden of proof on teacher.

School ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Average Percentile ________ Difference between Teacher’s value and School’s value: ______________ (above/below school ave.)


Rubric Equivalent













Grade 2 SAT 10 General Education Rubric Levels (Including Gifted) (Primary 2) (Achievement Approach)

*SAT 10 Reading includes Scores for BOTH Word Study Skills/Reading Vocabulary AND Reading Comprehension (2 sub-scores)

**SAT 10 Math includes Scores for BOTH Mathematics Problem Solving & Mathematics Procedures (2 sub-scores)

Grade Level: 2nd (Includes Gifted students)


Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation. Burden of proof on teacher. School ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Average Percentile ________ Difference between Teacher’s value and School’s value: ______________ (above/below school ave.)

Student Performance Indicator (Achievement Approach) Rubric

Equivalent














**After utilizing the previous rubric sheets, administrators should have set weights to each teacher’s student performance indicators (i.e. VAM scores, AP Scores, Classroom Scores, IB Scores, etc) and obtained





(0.0 X 0.0)

Advanced Placement


(3.0 X 0.25)


(0.0 X 0.0)



1.5 0.0 0.75 0.0 2.25


VAM Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value



X ____ (Weighting)

= SPI Points _____________


Elementary School Rubrics Grades 3-5























VAM Data Growth



















Grade 3 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA)

FAA Subject for this Rubric (Choose One) Reading/Mathematics/Writing/Science Percentage of classroom makeup as non-responsive students ________ Target Value: Class average of students on FAA will be 4.25 or greater Student Average Performance Level (FAA) for Current year ________

Rubric Targets

% of Non-Responsive Students is

0-15%


16-30%


31-45%


46-60%


61-75%

The class average Performance Level on grade 3 FAA is 4.25 or greater

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

The class average Performance Level on grade 3 FAA is between 3.26 and 4.24

3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0


3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0


2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0


2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0


1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0


1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0


1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5





Grade 3 Proposed Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA) CONTINUED (WORKING PAPERS)

Student Name (Grade 3 only) Student Total Score Current Year FAA

Level

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Average Performance Level (Current Year) ________ (calculated at the end of the year) (Post-Measure)



Grade 4-11 Growth Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA)

FAA Subject for this Rubric (Choose One) Reading/Mathematics/Writing/Science Target Value: Students will score at/above the same average FAA Performance Level when compared to the previous year’s FAA performance levels from the earlier grade level. Student Average Performance Level (FAA) for Previous Year ________ Student Average Performance Level (FAA) for Current Year ________ Did the Average Performance Level Increase or Decrease (Circle One) By How Much ________


Equivalent

The class average Performance Level on FAA increased (year-over-year) by 0.5 or more 4.0


The class average Performance Level on FAA is within 0.5 points of the previous year’s average Performance Level for this group of students. 3.0

The class average Performance Level on FAA is within 0.7 points of the previous year’s average Performance Level for this group of students.

2.5



The class average Performance Level on FAA is BEYOND 1.0 points of the previous year’s average Performance Level for this group of students. 1.0





Grade 4-11 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA) CONTINUED…. (WORKING PAPERS)

Student Name

Student Most Recent FAA

Performance Level

Student Total Score

Current Year FAA

Level

Student Total Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Average Performance Level (Previous Year) ________ (calculated at the beginning of the year) (Pre-Measure) Average Performance Level (Current Year) ________ (calculated at the end of the year) (Post-Measure) Verification from ESE Director or Staffing Specialist __________________________________________



Grade 3 Math General Education Rubric Levels (Including gifted)(Scale Score) (Achievement Approach)

Excludes Tier 3 MTSS Students/Includes Gifted in Calculation

Subject (Circle One) Reading/Math Post-Measure: Actual Value for Teacher’s Class ________ Average Scale Score Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation.

School GENERAL EDUCATION ________ Average Scale Score on Grade 3 Math Difference between Class Average and School average for Group: ____________

Student Performance Indicator Rubric

Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average scale score of the entire school’s general education population for the Grade 3 MATH exam by 4 or more points. 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average scale score of the entire school’s general education population for the Grade 3 MATH exam. 3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average scale score of the entire school’s general education population for the Grade 3 MATH exam. 3.0




Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average scale score of the entire school’s general education population for the Grade 3 MATH Exam. 1.0






Grade 3 Math ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Excludes gifted) (Scale Score) (Achievement Approach)

Grade Level: 3rd (Tier 3 MTSS students included in this calculation) (Excludes Gifted students)

Post-Measure: Actual Value for Teacher’s Class: ________ Average Scale Score Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation. Burden of proof on teacher. School ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 ________ Average Scale Score on Grade 3 Math Difference between Class Average and School average for Group: ____________


Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average scale score of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 MATH exam by 4 or more points. 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average scale score of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 MATH exam. 3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average scale score of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 MATH exam. 3.0




Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average scale score of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 MATH Exam. 1.0






Grade 3 Reading General Education Rubric Levels (Includes Gifted)(Scale Score) (Achievement Approach)

Excludes Tier 3 MTSS Students/Includes Gifted in Calculation

Subject (Circle One) Reading/Math Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ Average Scale Score

Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation. Burden of proof on teacher.

School General Education ________ Average Scale Score ON Grade 3 Reading


Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average scale score of the entire school’s General Education population for the Grade 3 Reading exam by 4 or more points. 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average scale score of the entire school’s General Education population for the Grade 3 Reading exam. 3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average scale score of the entire school’s General Education population for the Grade 3 Reading exam. 3.0



Teacher’s students scored within 15 points of the average scale score of the entire school’s General Education population for the Grade 3 Reading exam.

1.5

Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average scale score of the entire school’s General Education population for the Grade 3 Reading Exam. 1.0






Grade 3 Reading ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Scale Score) (Achievement Approach)



Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ Average Scale Score Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation.

Burden of proof on teacher.

School ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 ________ Average Scale Score on Grade 3 Reading


Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average scale score of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 Reading exam by 4 or more points. 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the average scale score of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 Reading exam.

3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average scale score of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 Reading exam. 3.0




Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average scale score of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 Reading Exam. 1.0






Grade 3 Math ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Excludes gifted) (Achievement Approach)


Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ % 3 AND ABOVE

Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation. Burden of proof on teacher.

School ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 ________ Average Scale Score on Grade 3 Math


Rubric Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the % 3 and above of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 MATH exam by 4 or more points. 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the % 3 and above of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 MATH exam. 3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average % 3 and above of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 MATH exam. 3.0




Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average % 3 and above of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 MATH Exam. 1.0






Grade 3 Math General Education Rubric Levels (Including gifted) (Achievement Approach)

Excludes Tier 3 MTSS Students/Includes Gifted in calculation


Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ % 3 AND ABOVE Note: Only students who are matched for BOTH Survey 2 AND 3 should be counted in this calculation.


School GENERAL EDUCATION ________ % 3 AND ABOVE ON GRADE 3 MATH


Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the % 3 and above of the entire school’s general education population for the Grade 3 MATH exam by 4 or more points. 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the % 3 and above of the entire school’s general education population for the Grade 3 MATH exam. 3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average % 3 and above of the entire school’s general education population for the Grade 3 exam. 3.0




Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average % 3 and above of the entire school’s general education population for the Grade 3 Exam. 1.0






Grade 3 Reading ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 Rubric Levels (Achievement Approach) (Percent Proficiency Approach)





School ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 ________ % 3 AND ABOVE ON GRADE 3 READING


Rubric Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the % 3 and above of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 Reading exam by 4 or more points. 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the % 3 and above of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 Reading exam. 3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average % 3 and above of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 Reading exam. 3.0




Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average % 3 and above of the entire school’s ESE/ELL/504/Tier 3 population for the Grade 3 Reading Exam. 1.0






Grade 3 Reading General Education Rubric Levels (Achievement Approach) (Including gifted) (Percent Proficiency Approach)

Excludes Tier 3 MTSS Students/Includes Gifted in calculation




School General Education ________ % 3 AND ABOVE ON GRADE 3 READING


Rubric Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the % 3 and above of the entire school’s General Education population for the Grade 3 Reading exam by 4 or more points. 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the % 3 and above of the entire school’s General Education population for the Grade 3 Reading exam. 3.5

Teacher’s students scored within 6 points of the average % 3 and above of the entire school’s General Education population for the Grade 3 Reading exam. 3.0




Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 15 points of the average % 3 and above of the entire school’s General Education population for the Grade 3 Reading Exam. 1.0






Grade 3 Reading (Growth Approach) (Growth Approach Using a Specific Pre-Measure)

Pre-Measure used: ______________________ Formula: __________________________ Target Value: ____________________________ average scale score on Grade 3 Reading Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ Average Scale Score Difference between Target Value and Actual Value: ___________________________ (above/below target)

Student Performance Indicator (Growth Approach)

Rubric Equivalent

Class average Grade 3 Reading Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average Grade 3 Reading Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 1 or more scale score points 3.5

Class average Grade 3 Reading Scale Score is within 3 points of the target 3.0




Class average Grade 3 Reading Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of the target 1.0






Grade 3 Math (Growth Approach) (Growth Approach Using a Specific Pre-Measure)

Pre-Measure used: ______________________ Formula: __________________________ Target Value: ____________________________ average scale score on Grade 3 Math Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ Average Scale Score Difference between Target Value and Actual Value: ___________________________ (above/below target)


Rubric Equivalent

Class average Grade 3 Math Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average Grade 3 Math Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 1 or more scale score points 3.5

Class average Grade 3 Math Scale Score is within 3 points of the target 3.0




Class average Grade 3 Math Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of the target 1.0






Grade 3 Math ESE Resource Teacher Rubric Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ MEAN DSS State Mean DSS Score for Grade 3 ESE MATH ________ (was _____ in prior year) District Mean DSS Score for Grade 3 ESE MATH ________ (was ____ in prior year) School Mean DSS Score for Grade 3 ESE MATH ________ (was ____ in prior year) Range of Mean DSS Scores in prior year in County (_____-_______) Prior Year SCORES for each school School A ________ School B ________ School C ________ *School averages can be found via: https://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/


Rubric Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the state’s mean DSS Average for ESE students on the Grade 3 Math exam by 3 or more points OR improved last year’s by 3 or more points.

4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the state’s mean DSS Average for ESE students on the Grade 3 Math exam by 1 or more points OR improved last year’s by 1 or more points.

3.5

Teacher’s ESE students scored within 2 DSS points of the average DSS at the SCHOOL LAST YEAR (ESE ONLY)for this grade level and subject. 3.0

Teacher’s ESE students scored within 4 DSS points of the average DSS AT THE SCHOOL LAST YEAR (ESE ONLY) for this grade level and subject. 2.5



Teacher’s ESE students scored BEYOND 9 DSS points of the average DSS AT THE SCHOOL LAST YEAR (ESE ONLY) for this grade level and subject. 1.0




https://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/�



Grade 3 Reading ESE Resource Teacher Rubric Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (to be calculated at the end of the year) ________ MEAN DSS State Mean DSS Score for Grade 3 ESE Reading ________ (was _____ in prior year) District Mean DSS Score for Grade 3 ESE Reading ________ (was ____ in prior year) School Mean DSS Score for Grade 3 ESE Reading ________ (was ____ in prior year) Range of Mean DSS Scores in prior year in County (_____-_______) Prior Year SCORES for each school School A ________ School B ________ School C ________ *School averages can be found via: https://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/


Rubric Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the state’s mean DSS Average for ESE students on the Grade 3 Reading exam by 3 or more points OR improved last year’s by 3 or more points.

4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the state’s mean DSS Average for ESE students on the Grade 3 Reading exam by 1 or more points OR improved last year’s by 1 or more points.

3.5

Teacher’s ESE students scored within 2 DSS points of the average DSS at the SCHOOL LAST YEAR (ESE ONLY)

3.0

Teacher’s ESE students scored within 4 DSS points of the average DSS AT THE SCHOOL LAST YEAR (ESE ONLY)

2.5


2.0


1.5

Teacher’s ESE students scored BEYOND 9 DSS points of the average DSS AT THE SCHOOL LAST YEAR (ESE ONLY)

1.0




https://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/�



Individual VAM Reading Rubric Levels Worksheet 1 year aggregate/2 year aggregate/3 year aggregate

Aggregate VAM Score: __________ Standard Error: _____________

**Evaluating administrator should use evaluation committee agreements and weighting guidelines to determine how much this score weights in the total SPI score. (If weighting at 10%, multiply VAM by 0.10. If weighting at 25%, multiply VAM by 0.25) **VAM Score must be included in student performance calculations if available for an individual. Example Below: Mr. Jones (teacher) has 110 students in his VAM file. He has a VAM score of 3.0 (Effective). Based on the “VAM Weighting Guidelines”, Mr. Smith (principal) and Mr. Jones (teacher) together decide that the 110 students in the file are enough to weight this portion of Mr. Jones evaluation at 75% (0.75) (Note: This means that 75% of the student performance indicators portion of Mr. Jones’s evaluation will be based on his VAM score alone.) (Note: In this instance, the remaining rubrics must add up to 25%)



(decimal)












Individual VAM Math Rubric Levels Worksheet 1 year aggregate/2 year aggregate/ 3 year aggregate


**Evaluating administrator should use evaluation committee agreements and weighting guidelines to determine how much this score weights in the total SPI score. (If weighting at 10%, multiply VAM by 0.10. If weighting at 25%, multiply VAM by 0.25) **VAM Score must be included in student performance calculations if available for an individual. Example Below: Mr. Jones (teacher) has 110 students in his VAM file. He has a VAM score of 2.0. Based on the “VAM Weighting Guidelines”, Mr. Smith (principal) and Mr. Jones (teacher) together decide that the 110 students in the file are enough to weight this portion of Mr. Jones evaluation at 75%. (Note: This means that 75% of the student performance indicators portion of Mr. Jones’s evaluation will be based on his VAM score alone.) (Note: In this instance, the remaining rubrics must add up to 25%)



(decimal)



2.0 0.75 1.5 in total weighted score







TEAM Average 1 Year Aggregate VAM Rubric Note: 1 Year Aggregate VAM Score to be used in these calculations as teacher may not have been

assigned to the same team last year.

Subjects to be used (Circle One) Reading/Math/Both Step 1: Principals and/or teacher shall provide the name(s) of the teacher(s) who will be attributed to the team that the push-in/pull-out teacher before VAM scores are calculated. Appropriate subject and grade level links should also be provided by the school administrator overseeing the Student Performance Indicators (SPI). Step 2: This spreadsheet should be returned to the District Accountability Coordinator at the conclusion of the school year. When VAM data is calculated, the 1 year aggregate VAM score will be calculated separately for each individual teacher. The average VAM score will be calculated for this team and attributed to the push-in/pull-out teacher. This approach will expire for these teachers in July 2015. Note: If the teacher and administrator believe that an individual VAM measurement for the push-in inclusion teacher is a more appropriate measure, and the teacher has a record in the FDOE Roster Verification tool, the teacher may also use the VAM data as all or part of the Student Performance Indicators.” Statute 1012.34 (7)(e) - A district school superintendent may assign to instructional personnel in an instructional team the student learning growth of the instructional team’s students on statewide assessments. This paragraph expires July 1, 2015

Teacher Name in Team Grade Level Subject Teacher 1 Year Aggregate

VAM Rubric score

Score = average VAM score of all teachers in team combined Push in Inclusion Teacher Average VAM Score of Team





Example: Grade 4 Writing Sample Growth Chart (May be used as data for years in which writing was measured separately) (3 years of data may be used)

(To Be Used with Grade 4 Students ONLY) (Each District would need to develop its own growth chart) • Growth dependent on class average grade 3 entering DSS score. Upon analysis, there was a direct

correlation between grade 3 reading DSS and Grade 4 Writing AL. (Y = 0.0246X – 1.4247) Grade 3 Reading

DSS

Expected Grade 4

Writing AL

Grade 3 Reading

DSS

Expected Grade 4

Writing AL

Grade 3 Reading

DSS

Expected Grade 4

Writing AL 140 2.02 181 3.02 222 4.03 141 2.04 182 3.05 223 4.06 142 2.068 183 3.07 224 4.08 143 2.09 184 3.10 225 4.11 144 2.11 185 3.12 226 4.13 145 2.14 186 3.15 227 4.15 146 2.17 187 3.17 228 4.18 147 2.19 188 3.20 229 4.20 148 2.21 189 3.22 230 4.23 149 2.24 190 3.24 231 4.25 150 2.26 191 3.27 232 4.28 151 2.28 192 3.29 233 4.30 152 2.31 193 3.32 234 4.33 153 2.33 194 3.34 235 4.35 154 2.36 195 3.37 236 4.38 155 2.38 196 3.39 237 4.40 156 2.41 197 3.42 238 4.43 157 2.43 198 3.44 239 4.45 158 2.46 199 3.47 240 4.47 159 2.48 200 3.49 241 4.50 160 2.51 201 3.51 242 4.52 161 2.53 202 3.54 243 4.55 162 2.56 203 3.56 244 4.57 163 2.58 204 3.59 245 4.60 164 2.60 205 3.61 246 4.62 165 2.63 206 3.64 247 4.65 166 2.65 207 3.66 248 4.67 167 2.68 208 3.69 249 4.70 168 2.70 209 3.71 250 4.72 169 2.73 210 3.74 251 4.74 170 2.75 211 3.76 252 4.77 171 2.78 212 3.79 253 4.79 172 2.80 213 3.81 254 4.82 173 2.83 214 3.83 255 4.84 174 2.85 215 3.86 256 4.87 175 2.88 216 3.88 257 4.89 176 2.90 217 3.91 258 4.92 177 2.92 218 3.93 259 4.94 178 2.95 219 3.96 260 4.97 179 2.97 220 3.98 180 3.00 221 4.01



Grade 4 Writing Growth Rubric (Spring 2014 was last year of data for use)

TEACHER’S CLASS ENTRY DATA: AVERAGE DSS FROM GRADE 3 READING ________

Target Value: Based on the teacher’s students average DSS Grade 3 Reading Score, in order to earn a value of Effective (3.0), the class average Writing Achievement Level must be at or above __________

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________ # of students in calculation ______

Difference Between Target/Actual __________________ (above/below target)


Rubric Equivalent

Class average Writing AL is ABOVE target value by .2 or more 4.0


Class average Writing AL is within 0.25 points of target 3.0




Class average Writing AL is BEYOND 0.55 points of target 1.0






Classroom & Final Exam Growth Rubric Levels Worksheet

Pre-Measure: *Class’s average Achievement Level of most recent State Exam _________ Target: ______________________ (see table below)

Post Measure: % of students meeting standard selected below _________ Difference between Target/Actual: _______________________ (above/below)

*Principal & Teacher shall determine if most recent Reading, Math, Writing, EOC, and/or other exam are appropriate for determining this average.

Exam Used to Determine Pre-Measure: Average Achievement Level of Most Recent Exam

Reading / Math / Writing / Science / EOC

Check One Row

Pre-Measure (Average Achievement Level of Most Recent

Exam for Class)

Expected Outcome **Rubric

Equivalent

1.0-1.49 70% of students will earn a 55% or above on

approved final exam 3.0















** Rubric Level for teacher will be increased by 0.1 increments for every 1% points above expected outcome. (Max. score of 4)

** Rubric Level for teacher will be decreased by 0.05 increments for every 1% points below expected outcome. (Min. score of 1)





Example: Grade 5 Science Sample Growth Chart (To Be Used with Grade 5 Students ONLY)

• Growth dependent on class average grade 4 entering DSS score. Upon analysis, there was a direct correlation between grade 4 reading DSS and Grade 5 Science Scale Score. (R2 = 0.5397)(Y = 0.7392X + 39.985) Grade 4 Reading

DSS

Expected Grade 5

Science Scale

Grade 4 Reading

DSS

Expected Grade 5

Science Scale

Grade 4 Reading

DSS

Expected Grade 5

Science Scale 154 153.82 195 184.12 234 212.95 155 154.56 196 184.86 235 213.69 156 155.30 197 185.60 236 214.43 157 156.03 198 186.34 237 215.17 158 156.77 199 187.08 238 215.91 159 157.51 200 187.82 239 216.65 160 158.25 201 188.56 240 217.39 161 158.99 202 189.30 241 218.13 162 159.73 201 188.56 242 218.87 163 160.47 202 189.30 243 219.61 164 161.21 203 190.04 244 220.34 165 161.95 204 190.78 245 221.08 166 162.69 205 191.52 246 221.82 167 163.43 206 192.26 247 222.56 168 164.17 207 192.99 248 223.30 169 164.90 208 193.73 249 224.04 170 165.64 209 194.47 250 224.78 171 166.38 210 195.21 251 225.52 172 167.12 211 195.95 252 226.26 173 167.86 212 196.69 253 227.00 174 168.60 213 197.43 254 227.74 175 169.34 214 198.17 255 228.48 176 170.08 215 198.91 256 229.22 177 170.82 216 199.65 257 229.95 178 171.56 217 200.39 258 230.69 179 172.30 218 201.13 259 231.43 180 173.04 219 201.86 260 232.17 181 173.78 220 202.60 261 232.91 182 174.51 221 203.34 262 233.65 183 175.25 222 204.08 263 234.39 184 175.99 223 204.82 264 235.13 185 176.73 224 205.56 265 235.87 186 177.47 225 206.30 266 236.61 187 178.21 226 207.04 267 237.35 188 178.95 227 207.78 268 238.09 189 179.69 228 208.52 269 238.82 190 180.43 229 209.26 191 181.17 230 210.00 192 181.91 231 210.74 193 182.65 232 211.47 194 183.38 233 212.21



Grade 5 Science Growth Rubric Levels Worksheet

Pre-Measure: *Class’s prior year Reading Grade 4 DSS __________ Target: Teacher’s students will score, as a class, an average Grade 5 Scale Score of _____

Post Measure: Class Average Grade 5 Science Scale Score __________ Difference between Target and Post-Measure: _________________(above/below)

Check One Row

Student Performance Indicator (Growth Approach) **Growth

Rubric Equivalent

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the target by 3 or more Scale Score Points 4.0

Teacher’s students scored ABOVE the target by 1 or more Scale Score Points 3.5

Teacher’s students scored WITHIN the target by 3 or more Scale Score Points 3.0




Teacher’s students scored BEYOND 10 Scale Score Points of the target. 1.0






Hard to Measure EOC Growth Correlation Rubric

Level of EOC: Elementary School/Middle School/High School (circle one) Grade: K/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12 (circle one)

Name of EOC ____________________________________________

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS _____________ District Growth Formula: _______________________________________ Target Value: Based on the class average entering Reading DSS from the pre-measure above, the class average on the respective district EOC should be _________ for students in this grade level. Actual Value for Teacher’s Class: __________________ # of students in calculation: ______ Difference between Target & Actual: ________ (below/above target)

Student Performance Indicator (Growth Approach) Rubric

Equivalent

Class average on District EOC is ABOVE the target value by 4 or more points 4.0


Class average on District EOC is within the target value by 4 or more points 3.0




Class average on District EOC is BEYOND the target value by 12 or more points 1.0







Student Achievement/Growth Indicator (Principal or Director is required to set appropriate “Cut Values” for each respective Rubric

Equivalent)

Rubric Equivalent
















VAM Weighted Rubric Value

(2 X 0.75)



(0.0 X 0.0)

Advanced Placement


(3.0 X 0.25)


(0.0 X 0.0)



1.5 0.0 0.75 0.0 2.25


VAM Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value



X ____ (Weighting)

= SPI Points _____________


Middle School Rubrics Grades 6-8























VAM Data Growth



















Grade 4-11 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA)

FAA Subject for this Rubric (Choose One) Reading/Mathematics/Writing/Science Target Value: Students will score at/above the same average FAA Performance Level when compared to the previous year’s FAA performance levels from the earlier grade level. Student Average Performance Level (FAA) for Previous Year ________ Student Average Performance Level (FAA) for Current Year ________ Did the Average Performance Level Increase or Decrease (Circle One) By How Much ________

Previous Grade Level Percentile Average Growth Rubric

Equivalent




The class average Performance Level on FAA is within 0.7 points of the previous year’s average Performance Level for this group of students.

2.5



The class average Performance Level on FAA is BEYOND 1.0 points of the previous year’s average Performance Level for this group of students. 1.0





Grade 4-11 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA) CONTINUED (WORKING PAPERS)

Student Name


Performance Level

Student Total Score

Current Year FAA

Level

Student Total Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30





assigned to the same team last year. (3 years of data to be used in total evaluation if available)


Teacher Name in Team Grade Level Subject Teacher 1 Year

Aggregate VAM score







Individual VAM READING Rubric Levels Worksheet 1 year aggregate/2 year aggregate/ 3 year aggregate





(decimal)













Individual VAM MATH Rubric Levels Worksheet 1 year aggregate/2 year aggregate/3 year aggregate





(decimal)



2.0 0.75 1.5 pts in total weighted score








Civics EOC Growth Rubric (GRADE 6 Reading as Pre-Measure)

Pre-Measure: Teacher’s Class Entry Data Average Scale Score from Grade 6 Reading ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 6 Reading Scale Score, the 7th grade class average Civics EOC Scale Score should be at __________

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________ # of students in calculation ______ Difference between Target Value and Actual Value: _______________ (above/below)


Growth Rubric

Equivalent Class average Civics EOC Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 1 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average Civics EOC Scale Score is within 2 points of target 3.5





Class average Civics EOC Scale Score is BEYOND 12 points of target 1.0






Grade 8 Civics EOC Growth Rubric (Grade 7 Reading as Pre-Measure) (Use for any Grade 8 Students who take Civics EOC)

Pre-Measure: Teacher’s Class Entry Data Average Scale Score from Grade 7 Reading ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 7 Reading Scale Score, the 8th grade class average Civics EOC Scale Score should be at __________



Equivalent Class average Civics EOC Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 1 or more scale score points. 4.0






Class average Civics EOC Scale Score is BEYOND 12 points of target 1.0





Example Grade 7 Algebra I EOC Growth Chart (To Be Used with Grade 7 Students ONLY) (Each District Should create its own growth chart)

• Growth dependent on class average grade 6 Math entering DSS score. Upon analysis, there was a direct correlation between grade 6 Math DSS and Grade 7 Algebra I EOC Scale Score. (Y = 0.7921X +229.8) (Formula based on trend line data from Previous Spring’s data to Current Spring’s data)

Grade 6 Math DSS

Expected Grade 7

Algebra I EOC Scale

Grade 6

Math DSS

Expected Grade 7

Algebra I EOC Scale

Grade 6

Math DSS

Expected Grade 7

Algebra I EOC Scale

170 364.45 211 396.93 252 429.40 171 365.24 212 397.72 253 430.20 172 366.04 213 398.51 254 430.99 173 366.83 214 399.03 255 431.78 174 367.62 215 400.10 256 432.57 175 368.41 216 400.89 257 433.36 176 369.20 217 401.68 258 434.16 177 370.00 218 402.47 259 434.95 178 370.79 219 403.26 260 435.74 179 371.58 220 404.06 261 436.53 180 372.37 221 404.85 262 437.33 181 373.17 222 405.64 263 438.12 182 373.96 223 406.43 264 438.91 183 374.75 224 407.23 265 439.70 184 375.54 225 408.02 266 440.49 185 376.33 226 408.81 267 441.29 186 377.13 227 409.60 268 442.08 187 377.92 228 410.39 269 442.87 188 378.71 229 411.19 270 443.66 189 379.50 230 411.98 271 444.45 190 380.29 231 412.77 272 445.25 191 381.09 232 413.56 273 446.04 192 381.88 233 414.35 274 446.83 193 382.67 234 415.15 275 447.62 194 383.46 235 415.94 276 448.41 195 384.25 236 416.73 277 449.21 196 385.05 237 417.52 278 450.00 197 385.84 238 418.31 279 450.79 198 386.63 239 419.11 280 451.58 199 387.42 240 419.90 281 452.38 200 388.22 241 420.69 282 453.17 201 389.01 242 421.48 283 453.96 202 389.80 243 422.28 284 454.75 203 390.59 244 423.07 204 391.38 245 423.86 205 392.18 246 424.65 206 392.97 247 425.44 207 393.76 248 426.24 208 394.55 249 427.03 209 395.34 250 427.82 210 396.14 251 428.61



Grade 7 Algebra I EOC Growth Rubric

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 6 Math ________

Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 6 Math DSS Score of, the 7th grade class average Algebra I EOC Scale Score should be at __________.

Post-Measure: Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________ # of students in calculation ______

Difference between Target value & actual value: _____________________ (above/below target)


Equivalent Class average Grade 7 Algebra I Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 3.5 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average Grade 7 Algebra I Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 2 or more scale score points 3.5

Class average Grade 7 Algebra I Scale Score is within 2.5 points of target 3.0

Class average Grade 7 Algebra I Scale Score is within 4 points of target 2.5



Class average Grade 7 Algebra I Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0






Grade 7 Algebra Achievement Rubric Target Value: Teacher’s mean scale score of grade 7 Algebra I students will be at or above the state mean scale score for grade 7 students

Fall/Winter/Spring/Summer EOC (Circle One)

Target Value: State Mean Scale Score on Algebra I EOC for Grade 7 Students ________ Difference ________ (Above/Below)

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class (7th graders only) _______ # of students in calculation ______


Equivalent Class average scale score for grade 7 students on Algebra I EOC is ABOVE target value by 3 or more scale score points.

4.0

Class average scale score for grade 7 students is ABOVE target value 3.5

Class average Grade 7 Alg. I Scale Score is within 2.5 points of target 3.0

Class average Grade 7 Alg. I Scale Score is within 4 points of target 2.5



Class average Grade 7 Alg. I Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0

Rubric Equivalent (Use chart above)






Individual Grade 8 Algebra I EOC VAM Rubric Levels Worksheet 1 year aggregate/2 year aggregate/3 year aggregate

Aggregate VAM Score: __________________ VAM SE: ________________ **Evaluating administrator should use evaluation committee agreements and weighting guidelines to determine how much this score weights in the total SPI score. (If weighting at 10%, multiply VAM by 0.10. If weighting at 25%, multiply VAM by 0.25) **VAM Score must be included in student performance calculations if available for an individual. Example Below: Mr. Jones (teacher) has 110 students in his VAM file. He has a VAM score of 2.0. Based on the “VAM Weighting Guidelines”, Mr. Smith (principal) and Mr. Jones (teacher) together decide that the 110 students in the file are enough to weight this portion of Mr. Jones evaluation at 75%. (Note: This means that 75% of the student performance indicators portion of Mr. Jones’s evaluation will be based on his VAM score alone.) (Note: In this instance, the remaining rubrics must add up to 25%)



(decimal)










Example Grade 8 Geometry EOC Growth Chart Using Grade 7 Math (To Be Used with Grade 8 Students ONLY) (Each District Would Be Required to Make Its Own Chart)

• Growth dependent on class average grade 7 Math entering DSS score. Upon analysis, there was a direct correlation between grade 7 Math DSS (pre-measure) and Grade 8 Geometry EOC Scale Score (post-measure).

• (Y = 0.7162X +251.63) (Formula based on trend line data from previous Spring’s data to Current Spring’s data)

Grade 7 Math DSS

Expected Grade 8

Geometry EOC Scale

Grade 7

Math DSS

Expected Grade 8

Geometry EOC Scale

Grade 7

Math DSS

Expected Grade 8

Geometry EOC Scale

234 419.22 274 447.86 235 419.93 275 448.58 236 420.65 276 449.30 237 421.36 277 450.01 238 422.08 278 450.73 239 422.80 279 451.44 240 423.51 280 452.16 241 424.23 281 452.88 242 424.95 282 453.59 243 425.66 283 454.31 244 426.38 284 455.03 245 427.09 285 455.74 246 427.81 286 456.46 247 428.53 287 457.17 248 429.24 288 457.89 249 429.96 289 458.61 250 430.68 290 459.32 251 431.39 291 460.04 252 432.11 292 460.76 253 432.82 254 433.54 255 434.26 256 434.97 257 435.69 258 436.41 259 437.12 260 437.84 261 438.55 262 439.27 263 439.99 264 440.70 265 441.42 266 442.13 267 442.85 268 443.57 269 444.28 270 445.00 271 445.72 272 446.43 273 447.15



Grade 8 Geometry EOC Growth Rubric (Grade 7 Math as Pre-Measure)

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 7 Math ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 7 Math DSS Score, the 8th grade class average Geometry Scale Score should be at __________

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________ # of students in calculation ______ Difference between Target value and Actual Value: __________(above/below)


Equivalent Class average Geometry EOC Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 1 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average Geometry EOC Scale Score is within 2 points of target 3.5





Class average Geometry EOC Scale Score is BEYOND 12 points of target 1.0





Example Grade 8 Geometry EOC Growth Chart Using Grade 7 Algebra (To Be Used w/Grade 8 Students ONLY) (Each district should adopt its own growth chart/formula)

• Growth dependent on class average grade 7 ALGEBRA entering Scale score. Upon analysis, there was a direct correlation between grade 7 ALGEBRA Scale Score (pre-measure) and Grade 8 Geometry EOC Scale Score (post-measure).

• (Y = 0.7107X +130.84) (R2 = 0.5819)

Grade 7 Algebra

Scale Score

Expected Grade 8

Geometry EOC Scale

Grade 7 Algebra

Scale Score

Expected Grade 8

Geometry EOC Scale

Grade 7 Algebra

Scale Score

Expected Grade 8

Geometry EOC Scale

325 361.8175 375 397.3525 425 432.8875

326 362.5282 376 398.0632 426 433.5982

327 363.2389 377 398.739 427 434.3089

328 363.9496 378 399.4846 428 435.0196

329 364.6603 379 400.1953 429 435.7303

330 365.371 380 400.906 430 436.441

331 366.0817 381 401.6167 431 437.1517

332 366.7924 382 402.3274 432 437.8624

333 367.5031 383 403.0381 433 438.5731

334 368.2138 384 403.7488 434 439.2838

335 368.9245 385 404.4595 435 439.9945

336 369.6352 386 405.1702 436 440.7052

337 370.3459 387 405.8809 437 441.4159

338 371.0566 388 406.5916 438 442.1266

339 371.7673 389 407.3023 439 442.8373

340 372.478 390 408.013 440 443.548

341 373.1887 391 408.7237 441 444.2587

342 373.8994 392 409.4344 442 444.9694

343 374.6101 393 410.1451 443 445.6801

344 375.3208 394 410.8558 444 446.3908

345 376.0315 395 411.5665 445 447.1015

346 376.7422 396 412.2772 446 447.8122

347 377.4529 397 412.9879 447 448.5229

348 378.1636 398 413.6986 448 449.2336

349 378.8743 399 414.4093 449 449.9443

350 379.585 400 415.12 450 450.655

351 380.2957 401 415.8307 451 451.3657

352 381.0064 402 416.5414 452 452.0764

353 381.7171 403 417.2521 453 452.7871

354 382.4278 404 417.9628 454 453.4978

355 383.1385 405 418.6735 455 454.2085

356 383.8492 406 419.3842 456 454.9192

357 384.5599 407 420.0949 457 455.6299


Example Grade 8 Geometry EOC Growth Chart Using Grade 7 Algebra (To Be Used w/Grade 8 Students ONLY) (Each district should make its own growth chart)

• Growth dependent on class average grade 7 ALGEBRA entering Scale score. Upon analysis, there was a direct correlation between grade 7 ALGEBRA Scale Score (pre-measure) and Grade 8 Geometry EOC Scale Score (post-measure).

• (Y = 0.7107X +130.84) (R2 = 0.5819)

Grade 7 Algebra

Scale Score

Expected Grade 8

Geometry EOC Scale

Grade 7 Algebra

Scale Score

Expected Grade 8

Geometry EOC Scale

Grade 7 Algebra

Scale Score

Expected Grade 8

Geometry EOC Scale

358 385.2706 408 420.8056 458 456.3406

359 385.9813 409 421.5163 459 457.0513

360 386.692 410 422.227 460 457.762

361 387.4027 411 422.9377 461 458.4727

362 388.1134 412 423.6484 462 459.1834

363 388.8241 413 424.3591 463 459.8941

364 389.5348 414 425.0698 464 460.6048

365 390.2455 415 425.7805 465 461.3155

366 390.9562 416 426.4912 466 462.0262

367 391.6669 417 427.2019 467 462.7369

368 392.3776 418 427.9126 468 463.4476

369 393.0883 419 428.6233 469 464.1583

370 393.799 420 429.334 470 464.869

371 394.5097 421 430.0447 471 465.5797

372 395.2204 422 430.7554 472 466.2904

373 395.9311 423 431.4661 473 467.0011

374 396.6418 424 432.1768 474 467.7118



Grade 8 Geometry EOC Growth Rubric (Grade 7 Algebra as Premeasure)

Pre-Measure: Teacher’s Class Entry Data Average Scale Score from Grade 7 Algebra ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 7 Algebra Scale Score, the 8th grade class average Geometry Scale Score should be at __________


Student Performance Indicator (Growth approach) Growth Rubric

Equivalent Class average Geometry EOC Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 1 or more scale score points. 4.0












Classroom & Final Exam Growth Rubric Levels Worksheet Pre-Measure: *Class’s average Achievement Level of most recent State Exam _________

Target: ______________________ (see table below) Post Measure: % of students meeting standard selected below _________

Difference between Target/Actual: _______________________ (above/below) *Principal & Teacher shall determine if most recent Reading, Math, Writing, EOC, and/or other exam are

appropriate for determining this average.

Exam Used to Determine Pre-Measure: Average Achievement Level of Most Recent Exam Reading / Math / Writing / Science / EOC

Check One Row


Exam for Class)

Student Performance Indicator: Expected Outcome

**Rubric Equivalent
























Hard to Measure EOC Growth Correlation Rubric

Level of EOC: Elementary School/Middle School/High School (circle one) Grade: K/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12 (circle one)

Name of EOC _________________________________________________

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS _____________ District Growth Formula: _______________________________________ Target Value: Based on the class average entering Reading DSS from the pre-measure above, the class average on the respective district EOC should be _________ for students in this grade level. Actual Value for Teacher’s Class: __________________ # of students in calculation: ______ Difference between Target & Actual: ________ (below/above target)


Equivalent













Student Learning Objectives Target Rubric Levels (SLO)

Instructions: For courses without appropriate rubrics, a Student Learning Objective which utilizes the results of an assessment shall be used. Objectives will be set in collaboration with the principal or evaluating administrator. Target Value ___________________________________________________________________ Actual Value for Employee’s class/group ____________________________________________ Difference between Target & Actual Value +/- (choose one) _____________________________


Equivalent)

Rubric Equivalent













Grade 8 Writing Growth Rubric (Rubric may be used retroactively for years in which Writing was assessed separately)

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 7 Reading ________

Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 7 Reading DSS Score, the 8th grade class average Writing AL should be __________

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________ # of students in calculation ______ Difference between Target Value and Actual Value: ____________________ (above/below target)

Student Performance Indicator (Growth) Rubric

Equivalent












Example: Grade 8 Science Growth Chart (To Be Used with Grade 8 Students ONLY) (Each district should draft its own growth formula)

• Growth dependent on class average grade 7 entering DSS score. Upon analysis, there was a direct correlation between grade 7 reading DSS and Grade 8 Science Scale Score. (Y = 0.7394X + 27.06)

Grade 7 Reading DSS

Expected Grade 8

Science Scale

Grade 7 Reading DSS

Expected Grade 8

Science Scale

Grade 7 Reading DSS

Expected Grade 8

Science Scale 171 153.49 212 183.81 253 214.12 172 154.23 213 184.55 254 214.86 173 154.97 214 185.29 255 215.60 174 155.71 215 186.03 256 216.34 175 156.45 216 186.77 257 217.08 176 157.19 217 187.50 258 217.82 177 157.93 218 188.24 259 218.56 178 158.67 219 188.98 260 219.30 179 159.41 220 189.72 261 220.04 180 160.15 221 190.46 262 220.78 181 160.89 222 191.20 263 221.52 182 161.63 223 191.94 264 222.26 183 162.37 224 192.68 265 223.00 184 163.10 225 193.42 266 223.74 185 163.84 226 194.16 267 224.47 186 164.58 227 194.90 268 225.21 187 165.32 228 195.64 269 225.95 188 166.06 229 196.38 270 226.69 189 166.80 230 197.12 271 227.43 190 167.54 231 197.86 272 228.17 191 168.28 232 198.60 273 228.91 192 169.02 233 199.34 274 229.65 193 169.76 234 200.07 275 230.39 194 170.50 235 200.81 276 231.13 195 171.24 236 201.55 277 231.87 196 171.98 237 202.29 278 232.61 197 172.72 238 203.03 279 233.35 198 173.46 239 203.77 280 234.09 199 174.20 240 204.51 281 234.83 200 174.94 241 205.25 282 235.57 201 175.67 242 205.99 283 236.31 202 176.41 243 206.73 284 237.04 203 177.15 244 207.47 285 237.78 204 177.89 245 208.21 286 238.52 205 178.63 246 208.95 287 239.26 206 179.37 247 209.69 288 240.00 207 180.11 248 210.43 289 240.74 208 180.85 249 211.17 209 181.59 250 211.91 210 182.33 251 212.64 211 183.07 252 213.38



Grade 8 Science Growth Rubric

Pre-Measure: Teacher’s Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 7 Reading ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 7 Reading DSS Score, the 8th grade class average Science Scale Score should be at __________

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________ # of students in calculation ______ Difference between Target and Actual Value: _______________ (above/below)

Student Performance Indicator (Growth) Rubric

Equivalent Class average Grade 8 Science Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average Grade 8 Science Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 1 or more scale score points 3.5

Class average Grade 8 Science Scale Score is within 3 points of target 3.0




Class average Grade 8 Science Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0












(0.0 X 0.0)

Advanced Placement


(3.0 X 0.25)


(0.0 X 0.0)



1.5 0.0 0.75 0.0 2.25


VAM Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value



X ____ (Weighting)

= SPI Points _____________


High School Rubrics Grades 9-12























VAM Data Growth



















Grade 4-11 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA)

FAA Subject for this Rubric (Choose One) Reading/Mathematics/Writing/Science Target Value: Students will score at/above the same average FAA Performance Level when compared to the previous year’s FAA performance levels from the earlier grade level. Student Average Performance Level (FAA) for previous year ________ Student Average Performance Level (FAA) for Current year ________ Did the Average Performance Level Increase or Decrease (Circle One) By How Much ________

Previous Grade Level Percentile Average Growth Rubric

Equivalent The class average Performance Level on FAA increased (year-over-year) by 0.5 or more

4.0






The class average Performance Level on FAA is BEYOND 1.0 points of the previous year’s average Performance Level for this group of students.

1.0





Grade 4-11 Rubric for Florida Alternative Assessment (FAA) CONTINUED (WORKING PAPERS)

Student Name


Performance Level

Student Total Score

Current Year FAA

Level

Student Total Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30




Classroom & Final Exam Growth Rubric Levels Worksheet

Pre-Measure: *Class’s average Achievement Level of most recent State Exam _________ Target: ______________________ (see table below)

Post Measure: % of students meeting standard selected below _________ Difference between Target/Actual: _______________________ (above/below)

*Principal & Teacher shall determine if most recent Reading, Math, Writing, EOC, and/or other exam are appropriate for determining this average.

Exam Used to Determine Pre-Measure: Average Achievement Level of Most Recent Exam

Reading / Math / Writing / Science / EOC

Check One Row


Exam for Class)

Expected Outcome **Rubric

Equivalent
























Hard to Measure EOC Growth Correlation Rubric Level of EOC: Elementary School/Middle School/High School (circle one)

Grade: K/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12 (circle one)

Name of EOC _________________________________________________ Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS _____________ District Growth Formula: _______________________________________ Target Value: Based on the class average entering Reading DSS from the pre-measure above, the class average on the respective district EOC should be _________ for students in this grade level. Actual Value for Teacher’s Class: __________________ # of students in calculation: ______ Difference between Target & Actual: ________ (below/above target)


Equivalent















Equivalent)

Rubric Equivalent














assigned to the same team last year.


Teacher Name in Team Grade Level Subject Teacher 1 Year

Aggregate VAM score







Individual VAM READING Rubric Levels Worksheet 1 year aggregate/2 year aggregate/3 year aggregate





(decimal)






Rubric Equivalent (Obtained after using State Data and applying Union Approved K

values)






Individual VAM Grade 9 Algebra EOC Rubric Levels Worksheet 1 year aggregate/2 year aggregate/ 3 year aggregate





(decimal)




Rubric Equivalent (Obtained after using State Data and applying Union Approved K

values)






Grade 10 Algebra EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 8 Math as pre-measure)

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 8 Math ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 8 Math DSS Score, the 10th grade class average Algebra EOC Scale Score should be at/above __________.

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________ # of students in calculation ______ Difference between Target Value and Actual Value: __________________ (above/below)


Rubric Equivalent

Class average Algebra EOC Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0


Class average Algebra EOC Scale Score is within 3 points of target 3.0




Class average Algebra EOC Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0






Grade 11 Algebra I EOC Retakes Growth Rubric

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average Scale Score from Prior Year Algebra EOC: ________

Target Value: Based on the class average on prior year Algebra I EOC taken in grade 10, the 11th grade class average Algebra EOC Scale Score should be at/above __________.



Rubric Equivalent







Class average Algebra EOC Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0






Grade 9 Geometry EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 8 Algebra EOC as Pre-Measure)

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 8 Algebra EOC ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Algebra I EOC score taken in 8th grade, the 9th grade class average Geometry EOC Scale Score should be at/above __________.



Rubric Equivalent

Class average Geometry EOC Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0












Grade 9 Geometry EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 8 Math as pre-measure)

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 8 Math ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 8 Math DSS Score, the 9th grade class average Geometry EOC Scale Score should be at/above __________.



Rubric Equivalent

















Rubric Equivalent

















Rubric Equivalent













Retakes Performance Rubric Levels Worksheet (Achievement Approach) Retake Subject ____________________ District Average _________ State Average _________

Grade Level of students in calculation _______ # of students in calculation _______


Equivalent Average percentage of students passing the Retake exam AND/OR receiving an SAT/ACT concordant score for this teacher is equal to/greater than both the state AND district average for this subject area & grade level.

4.0

Average percentage of students passing the Retake exam AND/OR receiving an SAT/ACT concordant score for this teacher is equal to/greater than either the state OR district average for this subject area & grade level.

3.5

Average percentage of students passing the Retake exam AND/OR receiving an SAT/ACT concordant score for this teacher is within 5 percentage points below the state OR district average for this subject area & grade level.

3.0

Average percentage of students passing the Retake exam AND/OR receiving an SAT/ACT concordant score for this teacher is within 7.5 percentage points below the state OR district average for this subject area & grade level.

2.5


2.0


1.5

Average percentage of students passing the Retake exam AND/OR receiving an SAT/ACT concordant score for this teacher is beyond 15 percentage points below the state OR district average for this subject area & grade level.

1.0

**Students who receive Waivers may also be removed from this calculation




*Teacher should be able to produce data of class roster and student scores during meeting

with principal to determine rubric equivalent.


Example: Fall Reading Retake Growth Chart (Each district should develop its own growth chart)

• Growth dependent on class average of most recent Reading DSS. Upon analysis, there was a direct correlation between the most recent reading DSS and Reading Retake DSS (R2 = 0.3913). (Y = 0.8425x +38.541)

Most Recent Reading DSS

Expected Reading Retake DSS

Most Recent Reading DSS

Expected Reading Retake DSS

188 196.931 229 231.47 189 197.77 230 232.31 190 198.61 231 233.15 191 199.45 232 234.00 192 200.30 233 234.84 193 201.14 234 235.68 194 201.98 235 236.52 195 202.82 236 237.37 196 203.67 237 238.21 197 204.51 238 239.05 198 205.35 239 239.89 199 206.19 240 240.74 200 207.04 241 241.58 201 207.88 242 242.42 202 208.72 243 243.26 203 209.56 244 244.11 204 210.41 205 211.25 206 212.09 207 212.93 208 213.78 209 214.62 210 215.46 211 216.30 212 217.15 213 217.99 214 218.83 215 219.67 216 220.52 217 221.36 218 222.20 219 223.04 220 223.89 221 224.73 222 225.57 223 226.41 224 227.26 225 228.10 226 228.94 227 229.78 228 230.63



Grade 11 Reading Retake Growth Rubric

Pre-Measure: Teacher’s Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 10 Reading ________

Target Value: Based on the class’s prior year average Grade 10 Reading DSS, the Reading Retake Average DSS for Grade 11 students should be at __________

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________ # of students in calculation ______ Difference between Target Value & Actual Value: ______________________ (above/below)

Student Performance Indicator (Growth approach)

Growth Rubric

Equivalent Class average Reading Retake Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 2 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average Reading Retake Scale Score is ABOVE target value 3.5

Class average Reading Retake Scale Score is within 4 points of target 3.0




Class average Reading Retake Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0






Grade 12 Reading Retake Growth Rubric

Pre-Measure: Teacher’s Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 11 Reading Retake ______

Target Value: Based on the class’s prior year average Grade 11 Reading DSS, the Reading Retake Average DSS for Grade 12 students should be at __________

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________ # of students in calculation ______ Difference between Target Value & Actual Value: ______________________ (above/below)

Student Performance Indicator (Growth approach)

Growth Rubric

Equivalent Class average Reading Retake Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 2 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average Reading Retake Scale Score is ABOVE target value 3.5





Class average Reading Retake Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0





Example: Grade 10 Writing Growth Chart (To Be Used with Grade 10 Students ONLY) (District should create their own growth charts)

• Growth dependent on class average grade 9 entering DSS score. Upon analysis, there was a direct correlation between grade 9 reading DSS and Grade 10 Writing AL. (Y = 0.0196X – 1.315)

Grade 9 Reading DSS

Expected Grade 10

Writing AL

Grade 9 Reading DSS

Expected Grade 10

Writing AL

Grade 9 Reading DSS

Expected Grade 10

Writing AL 178 2.17 220 2.99 262 3.82 179 2.19 221 3.01 263 3.84 180 2.21 222 3.03 264 3.86 181 2.23 223 3.05 265 3.88 182 2.25 224 3.07 266 3.90 183 2.27 225 3.095 267 3.92 184 2.29 226 3.11 268 3.94 185 2.31 227 3.13 269 3.96 186 2.33 228 3.15 270 3.98 187 2.35 229 3.17 271 4.0 188 2.37 230 3.19 272 4.02 189 2.39 231 3.21 273 4.04 190 2.41 232 3.23 274 4.06 191 2.43 233 3.25 275 4.08 192 2.45 234 3.27 276 4.09 193 2.47 235 3.29 277 4.11 194 2.49 236 3.31 278 4.13 195 2.51 237 3.33 279 4.15 196 2.53 238 3.35 280 4.17 197 2.55 239 3.37 281 4.19 198 2.57 240 3.39 282 4.21 199 2.59 241 3.41 283 4.23 200 2.61 242 3.43 284 4.25 201 2.62 243 3.45 285 4.27 202 2.64 244 3.47 286 4.29 203 2.66 245 3.49 287 4.31 204 2.68 246 3.51 288 4.33 205 2.70 247 3.53 289 4.35 206 2.72 248 3.55 290 4.37 207 2.74 249 3.57 291 4.39 208 2.76 250 3.59 292 4.41 209 2.78 251 3.60 293 4.43 210 2.80 252 3.62 294 4.45 211 2.82 253 3.64 295 4.47 212 2.84 254 3.66 296 4.49 213 2.86 255 3.68 297 4.51 214 2.88 256 3.70 298 4.53 215 2.89 257 3.72 299 4.55 216 2.92 258 3.74 300 4.57 217 2.94 259 3.76 301 4.58 218 2.96 260 3.78 302 4.6 219 2.97 261 3.8



Grade 10 Writing Growth Rubric (Rubric may be used retroactively for years in which Writing was assessed separately)

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 9 Reading ________

Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 9 Reading DSS Score, the 10th grade class average Writing AL should be __________

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________ # of students in calculation ______ Difference between Target Value & Actual Value: __________________ (above/below target)


Growth Rubric

Equivalent












Example: Grade 9 Biology EOC Growth Chart (To Be Used with Grade 9 Students ONLY) (Each district should draft its own growth formulas)

• Growth dependent on class average grade 8 entering DSS score. Upon analysis, there was a direct

correlation between grade 8 reading DSS and Grade 9 Biology EOC Scale Score (R2 = 0.5041). (Y = 0.7944X +219.25)

Grade 8 Reading

DSS

Expected Biology Scale

Score

Grade 8 Reading

DSS

Expected Grade 9

Biology Scale Score

Grade 8 Reading

DSS

Expected Grade 9

Biology Scale Score

175 358.27 216 390.84 257 423.41 176 359.06 217 391.63 258 424.20 177 359.85 218 392.42 259 424.99 178 360.65 219 393.22 260 425.79 179 361.45 220 394.01 261 426.58 180 362.24 221 394.81 262 427.38 181 363.03 222 395.61 263 428.17 182 363.83 223 396.40 264 428.97 183 364.62 224 397.19 265 429.76 184 365.41 225 397.99 266 430.56 185 366.21 226 398.78 267 431.35 186 367.01 227 299.57 268 432.14 187 367.8 228 400.37 269 432.94 188 368.59 229 401.16 270 433.73 189 369.39 230 401.96 271 434.53 190 370.18 231 402.75 272 435.32 191 370.98 232 403.55 273 436.12 192 371.77 233 404.34 274 436.91 193 372.56 234 405.13 275 437.71 194 373.36 235 405.93 276 438.50 195 374.15 236 406.72 277 439.29 196 374.95 237 407.52 278 440.09 197 375.74 238 408.31 279 440.88 198 376.54 239 409.11 280 441.68 199 377.33 240 409.91 281 442.47 200 378.13 241 410.70 282 443.27 201 378.92 242 411.49 283 444.06 202 379.72 243 412.28 284 444.85 203 380.51 244 413.08 285 445.65 204 381.30 245 413.87 286 446.44 205 382.10 246 414.67 287 447.24 206 382.89 247 415.46 288 448.03 207 383.69 248 416.26 289 448.83 208 384.48 249 417.05 290 449.63 209 385.27 250 417.85 291 450.42 210 386.07 251 418.64 292 451.21 211 386.86 252 419.43 293 452.00 212 387.66 253 420.23 294 452.80 213 388.45 254 421.02 295 453.59 214 389.25 255 421.82 296 454.39 215 390.04 256 422.61



Grade 9 Biology EOC Growth Rubric

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 8 Reading ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 8 Reading DSS Score, the 9th grade class average Biology Scale Score should be at/above __________

Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________ # of students in calculation ______ Difference between Target Value and Actual Value: ___________________ (above/below)


Rubric Equivalent

Class average Biology EOC Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average Biology EOC Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 1 or more scale score points 3.5

Class average Biology EOC Scale Score is within 3 points of target 3.0




Class average Biology EOC Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0





Example: Grade 10 Biology EOC Growth Chart (To Be Used with Grade 10 Students ONLY) (Each district should create its own growth chart)

• Growth dependent on class average grade 9 entering DSS score. Upon analysis, there was a direct correlation between grade 9 reading DSS and Grade 10 Biology EOC Scale Score (R2 = 0.4583). (Y = 0.9261x + 180.39)

Grade 9 Reading DSS

Expected Grade 10

Biology Scale Score

Grade 9

Reading DSS

Expected Grade 10

Biology Scale Score

Grade 9

Reading DSS

Expected Grade 10

Biology Scale Score

178 345.23 219 383.20 261 422.10 179 346.16 220 384.13 262 423.02 180 347.08 221 385.05 263 423.9 181 348.01 222 385.98 264 424.88 182 348.94 223 386.91 265 425.80 183 349.86 224 387.83 266 426.73 184 350.79 225 388.76 267 427.65 185 351.71 226 389.68 268 428.58 186 352.64 227 390.61 269 429.51 187 353.57 228 391.54 270 430.43 188 354.49 229 392.46 271 431.36 189 355.42 230 393.39 272 432.28 190 356.34 231 394.31 273 433.21 191 357.27 232 395.24 274 434.14 192 358.20 233 396.17 275 435.06 193 359.12 234 397.09 276 435.99 194 360.05 235 398.02 277 436.91 195 360.97 236 398.94 278 437.84 196 361.90 237 399.87 279 438.77 197 362.83 238 400.80 280 439.69 198 363.75 239 401.72 281 440.62 199 364.68 240 402.65 282 441.55 200 365.61 241 403.58 283 442.47 201 366.53 242 404.50 284 443.40 202 367.46 243 405.43 285 444.32 203 368.38 244 406.35 286 445.25 204 369.31 245 407.28 287 446.18 205 370.24 246 408.21 288 447.10 206 371.16 247 409.13 289 448.03 207 372.09 248 410.06 290 448.95 208 373.01 249 410.98 291 449.88 209 373.94 250 411.91 292 450.81 210 374.87 251 412.84 293 451.73 211 375.79 252 413.76 294 452.66 212 376.72 253 414.69 295 453.58 213 377.64 254 415.61 296 454.51 214 378.57 255 416.54 297 455.44 215 379.50 256 417.47 298 456.36 216 380.42 257 418.39 299 457.29 217 381.35 258 419.32 300 458.22 218 382.27 259 420.24 301 459.14

260 421.17 302 460.07




Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 9 Reading ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 9 Reading DSS Score, the 10th grade class average Biology Scale Score should be at/above __________.



Rubric Equivalent














Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 10 Reading ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 10 Reading DSS Score, the 11th grade class average Biology Scale Score should be at/above __________.



Rubric Equivalent













HS Biology EOC Grade 11 ESE STUDENT Achievement Rubric: Percent Passing

Target Value: Teacher’s percentage of Biology GRADE 11 ESE students passing will be at or above the state and district average percent passing for Biology EOC GRADE 11 ESE students.

Important: State Data pulled from http://app1.fldoe.org/FEocDemographics/EOCMenu.aspx

Fall/Winter/Spring/Summer EOC (Circle One) Target Value: State Avg Pct Passing Biology EOC for Grade 11 ESE Students __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) District Average Pct. Passing Grade 11 ESE on Biology EOC __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) Actual Percent Passing for Teacher’s Class (Grade 11 ESE only) __________ # of students in calculation ______

Student Achievement Indicator Rubric

Equivalent Class average percent passing for Grade 11 ESE students on Biology EOC is ABOVE District OR State target value by 4 or more percentage points. 4.0

Class average percent passing for Grade 11 ESE students is ABOVE District OR State 3.5

Class average Grade 11 ESE Bio. passing is within 4 percentage points of either target 3.0




Class average Grade 11 ESE Bio. passing is BEYOND 11 percentage points of either target 1.0




http://app1.fldoe.org/FEocDemographics/EOCMenu.aspx�



HS Biology EOC Grade 11 ESE Student Achievement Rubric (Mean Scale Score) Target Value: Teacher’s mean scale score of Biology GRADE 11 ESE students will be at or above

the state and district mean scale score for Biology GRADE 11 ESE students. Important: State Data pulled from http://app1.fldoe.org/FEocDemographics/EOCMenu.aspx


Target Value: State Mean Scale Score on Biology EOC for Grade 11 ESE Students __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) District Mean Scale Score for Grade 11 ESE on Biology EOC __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) Actual Mean Scale Score for Teacher’s Class (Grade 11 ESE only) __________ # of students in calculation ______


Equivalent Class average scale score for Grade 11 ESE students on Biology EOC is ABOVE District OR State target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average scale score for Grade 11 ESE students is ABOVE District OR State 3.5

Class average Grade 11 ESE Biology Scale Score is within 3 points of either target 3.0




Class average Grade 11 ESE Biology Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of both targets 1.0







HS Biology EOC Grade 11 General Education Student Achievement Rubric (Mean Scale Score)

Target Value: Teacher’s mean scale score of Biology GRADE 11 General Education students will be at or above the state and district mean scale score for Biology GRADE 11 General Education

students (ESE Students removed from calculation). Important: State Data pulled from http://app1.fldoe.org/FEocDemographics/EOCMenu.aspx


Target Value: State Mean Scale Score on Biology EOC for Grade 11 GE Students __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) District Mean Scale Score for Grade 11 GE on Biology EOC __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) Actual Mean Scale Score for Teacher’s Class (Grade 11 GE only) __________ # of students in calculation ______


Equivalent Class average scale score for Grade 11 GE students on Biology EOC is ABOVE District OR State target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average scale score for Grade 11 GE students is ABOVE District OR State 3.5

Class average Grade 11 GE Biology Scale Score is within 3 points of either target 3.0




Class average Grade 11 GE Biology Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of both targets 1.0







HS Biology EOC Grade 12 ESE Student Achievement Rubric: Percent Passing

Target Value: Teacher’s percentage of Biology GRADE 12 ESE students passing will be at or above the state and district average percent passing for Biology EOC GRADE 12 ESE students.


Fall/Winter/Spring/Summer EOC (Circle One) Target Value: State Average Pct. Passing Biology EOC for Grade 12 ESE Students __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) District Average Pct. Passing Grade 12 ESE on Biology EOC __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) Actual Percent Passing for Teacher’s Class (Grade 12 ESE only) __________ # of students in calculation ______


Equivalent Class average percent passing for Grade 12 ESE students on Biology I EOC is ABOVE District OR State target value by 4 or more percentage points. 4.0

Class average percent passing for Grade 12 ESE students is ABOVE District OR State 3.5

Class average Grade 12 ESE Biology passing is within 4 percentage points of either target 3.0




Class average Grade 12 ESE Biology passing is BEYOND 11 percentage points of either target 1.0







HS Biology EOC Grade 12 ESE Student Achievement Rubric (Mean Scale Score)

Target Value: Teacher’s mean scale score of Biology EOC GRADE 12 ESE students will be at or above the state and district mean scale score for Biology EOC GRADE 12 ESE students.


Fall/Winter/Spring/Summer EOC (Circle One) Target Value: State Mean Scale Score on Biology I EOC for Grade 12 ESE Students __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) District Mean Scale Score for Grade 12 ESE on Biology I EOC __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) Actual Mean Scale Score for Teacher’s Class (Grade 12 ESE only) __________ # of students in calculation ______


Equivalent Class average scale score for Grade 12 ESE students on Biology I EOC is ABOVE District OR State target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average scale score for Grade 12 ESE students is ABOVE District OR State 3.5

Class average Grade 12 ESE Bio. I Scale Score is within 3 points of either target 3.0




Class average Grade 12 ESE Bio. I Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of both targets 1.0







HS Biology I EOC Grade 12 General Education Student Achievement Rubric (Mean Scale Score) (Achievement Approach)

Target Value: Teacher’s mean scale score of Biology I EOC GRADE 12 GE students will be at or

above the state and district mean scale score for Biology GRADE 12 GE students. (ESE Students REMOVED in Calculation)


Fall/Winter/Spring/Summer EOC (Circle One) Target Value: State Mean Scale Score on Biology I EOC for Grade 12 GE Students __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) District Mean Scale Score for Grade 12 GE on Biology I EOC __________ Difference __________ (Above/Below) Actual Mean Scale Score for Teacher’s Class (Grade 12 GE only) __________ # of students in calculation ______


Equivalent Class average scale score for Grade 12 GE students on Biology I EOC is ABOVE District OR State target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average scale score for Grade 12 GE students is ABOVE District OR State 3.5

Class average Grade 12 GE Bio. I Scale Score is within 3 points of either target 3.0




Class average Grade 12 GE Bio. I Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of both targets 1.0







Grade 10 US History EOC Growth Rubric

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 9 Reading ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 9 Reading DSS Score, the 10th grade class average US History Scale Score should be at/above __________. Post-Measure: Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________

# of students in calculation ______ Difference between Target Value and Actual Value: __________________ (above/below)


Equivalent Class average US History EOC Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0

Class average US History EOC Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 1 or more scale score points. 3.5

Class average US History EOC Scale Score is within 3 points of target 3.0




Class average US History EOC Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0






Grade 11 US History EOC Growth Rubric

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 10 Reading ________ Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 10 Reading DSS Score, the 11th grade class average US History Scale Score should be at/above __________. Post-Measure: Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________



Rubric Equivalent







Class average US History EOC Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0






Grade 11 Algebra 2 EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 10 Geometry as Pre-Measure)

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 10 Geometry ________

Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 10 Geometry Scale Score, the 11th grade class average Algebra 2 Scale Score should be at/above __________. Post-Measure: Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________



Rubric Equivalent

Class average Algebra 2 EOC Scale Score is ABOVE target value by 3 or more scale score points. 4.0


Class average Algebra 2 EOC Scale Score is within 3 points of target 3.0




Class average Algebra 2 EOC Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0






Grade 12 Algebra 2 EOC Growth Rubric (Using Grade 11 Geometry as Pre-Measure)

Pre-Measure: TEACHER’S Class Entry Data Average DSS from Grade 10 Geometry ________

Target Value: Based on the class average Grade 11 Geometry Scale Score, the 12th grade class average Algebra 2 Scale Score should be at/above __________. Post-Measure: Actual Value for Teacher’s Class __________________



Rubric Equivalent







Class average Algebra 2 EOC Scale Score is BEYOND 10 points of target 1.0






Advanced Placement GROWTH Rubric Levels (AP Subject #1)

Pre-Measure: Class Average Achievement Level (Most Recent State Assessment) __________

AP Subject ___________________ Global Average ________ State Average ________ Notes _________________________________________________________________________

Pre-Measure: Most Recent Achievement Level Class Average State Assessment Used (Circle Which Apply)

Reading/Math/Other ______________

Less than 3.2

3.2-3.59

3.6-3.99

4.0- 4.4

4.41-5.0

Student Achievement Indicator Rubric Value

Rubric Value

Rubric Value

Rubric Value

Rubric Value

Average percentage of students earning scores of 3 or above is greater than both the state AND global average in AP scores of 3 and above for this subject area by at least 6 points.

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Average percentage of students earning scores of 3 or above is greater than both the state AND global average in AP scores of 3 and above for this subject area by at least 4 points.

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5

Average percentage of students earning scores of 3 or above is equal to/greater than both the state AND global average in AP scores of 3 and above for this subject area.

4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0

Average percentage of students earning scores of 3 or above is equal to/greater than either the state or global average in AP scores of 3 and above for this subject area.

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5

Average percentage of students earning scores of 3 or above is within 5 percentage points of the state OR global average (whichever is less).

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0

Average percentage of students earning scores of 3 or above is within 10 percentage points of the state OR global average (whichever is less).

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5

Average percentage of students earning scores of 3 or above are within 15 percentage points of the state OR global average (whichever is less).

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0

Average percentage of students earning scores of 3 or above are within 25 percentage points of the state OR global average (whichever is less).

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0

Average percentage of students earning scores of 3 or above are beyond 25 percentage points of the state OR global average (whichever is less).

2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0

Average percentage of students earning scores of 3 or above are beyond 30 percentage points of the state OR global average (whichever is less).

1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0






IB Student Performance Growth Rubric Levels (IB Subject #1)

Pre-Measure: Class Average Achievement Level (Most Recent State Assessment) __________

AP Subject ______________ Global Average ______ State Average ______ Class Average ______

Pre-measure: Most Recent Achievement Level Class Average

State Assessment Used (Circle Which Apply) Reading/Math/Other ______________

Less than 3.2

3.2-3.59

3.6-3.99

4.0- 4.4

4.41-5.0

Student Performance Indicator Rubric Value

Rubric Value

Rubric Value

Rubric Value

Rubric Value

Average grade of students is 0.45 pts ABOVE the international/ world ave. for subject

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Average grade of students is 0.25 pts ABOVE the international/ world ave. for subject 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.75

Average grade of students is equal to/greater than the international/worldwide average for IB scores in this subject area. 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.75 3.50

Average grade of students is within 0.25 pts of the international/ world ave. for subject 4.0 4.0 3.75 3.50 3.25

Average grade of students is within 0.50 pts of the international/ world ave. for subject 4.0 3.75 3.50 3.25 3







Average grade of students is within 2.25 pts of the international/ world ave. for subject

1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Average grade of students is within 2.50 pts of the international/ world ave. for subject

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0






Student Learning Objectives: Music Target Value ___________________________________________________________________ Actual Value for Teacher’s Class ___________________________________________________

Student Performance Indicator Performing Ensemble receives the overall rating at the Florida School Music Association Music

Performance Assessment using the attached assessment tools. *The below is an average of performing ensembles graded.

Rubric Equivalent

Superior or “A” 4.0

Excellent of “B” 3.5

Good or “C” 2.5

Fair or “D” 1.5

Poor or “E” 1.0






Performance Task SPI Rubric (Achievement Approach) Class _______________________________ Description of Performance Task __________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________


Equivalent

85-100% of students met performance task standard. 4.0







Notes _______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ Administrator Approval/Confirmation of Performance Task ____________________________________ Date Observed _______________________________________________________________________






At-Risk Graduation Rate Rubric Levels

At Risk Rate Current Year ____________ At Risk Rate Prior Year ____________

Change in Rate: ___________________ (increase/decrease)


Equivalent At-Risk Graduation Rate is above 60% OR has increased by at least 4 percentage points. 4.0

At-Risk Graduation Rate is above 58% OR has increased by at least 3 percentage points. 3.5

At-Risk Graduation Rate is above 55% AND has increased by at least 2 percentage points. 3.0


At-Risk Graduation Rate is above 52% AND has increased by at least 1 percentage points. 2.0


At-Risk Graduation Rate does not meet any of the criteria above. 1.0






Graduation Rate Rubric Levels

Graduation Rate Current Year ____________ Graduation Rate Prior Year ____________


Equivalent Graduation Rate is equal to/above 85% OR has increased by at least 3 percentage points. 4.0

Graduation Rate is equal to/above 80% OR has increased by at least 2 percentage points. 3.5

Graduation Rate is equal to/above 78% OR has increased by at least 1 percentage points. 3.0

Graduation Rate is equal to/above 75% AND has maintained its previous graduation rate. 2.5

Graduation Rate is equal to/above 75% OR has maintained its previous graduation rate. 2.0

Graduation Rate is between 68-74% AND has decreased by 1 or more percentage points from previous year. 1.5

Graduation Rate is below 68% AND has decreased by 1 or more percentage points from previous year. 1.0






Athletics Performance Rubric

Sport _________________________________________________________________________ Regular Season win/loss record ________ _______ Did Team Make Playoffs Yes/No Actual Winning Percentage for Team Current Year __________ Winning Percentage for Team (prior year) (if available) ________ Change in winning percentage for team (year-over-year) ________


Equivalent Regular season record is 0.625 or greater, team won district, or win percentage improved by 0.2 or more. 4.0

Regular season record is 0.5 or greater, team made playoffs, or win percentage improved by 0.15 or more. 3.5

Regular season record is 0.35 or greater or win percentage improved by 0.06 or more. 3.0



Regular season record is 0.1 or greater or win percentage improved. 1.5

Regular season record is BELOW 0.1 1.0












(0.0 X 0.0)

Advanced Placement


(3.0 X 0.25)


(0.0 X 0.0)



1.5 0.0 0.75 0.0 2.25


VAM Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value

_________ _________ _________ Weighted

Rubric Value



X ____ (Weighting)

= SPI Points _____________