A few tips!

Leader Evaluation in Floridas Charter Schools

An Overview: FCPCS School-Based Administrator Evaluation Model Name of School

The Leadership and Learning CenterThis presentation is designed for use by charter school leaders to help them inform their governing boards, teachers, and / or parents about the evaluation system principals will be measured by in the coming year. A presenter may choose to use the power point as is, or may pick and choose particular slides to use in his or her presentation. It is suggested that the presenter have copies of the following documents: Senate Bill 736, Florida Principal Leadership Standards (FPLS) Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs), Common Language, High Effect Size Practices, Multiple Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), and most importantly a copy of the approved evaluation plan for the school(s). All state documents listed here are available on the HMH support website.1What do we need to know about educator evaluation in charter schools?

Presenter:Share with your team that both leader and teacher evaluation systems are changing in Floridas charter schools. All evaluations had to meet certain criteria in order to be approved for use. Today you will share that criteria, the law and rules set forth by the state of FL related to educator evaluation.Purpose of Evaluation

For the purpose of increasing 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. Florida Statutes Section 1012.34 (1) (a).This slide makes the point that the purpose for evaluation for leaders and teachers is the same.3This New Approach to EvaluationSupports three processes:

Self-Reflection by the teacher on current proficiencies and growth needs. (What am I good at? What can I do better?)Feedback from the evaluator and others on what needs improvement.An annual summative evaluation that assigns one of the performance levels required by law (i.e., Highly Effective, Effective, Needs Improvement / Developing, or Unsatisfactory).Details on the purpose of evaluation4

Leader & Teacher PerformanceStudent LearningThe underlying purpose of all evaluation systems is to positively impact student learning. When adults get better at their work, students benefit.

Objectives for TodayExamine foundational statutes and rules related to leader evaluation systemsFPLS Florida Principal Leadership StandardsFEAPs Florida Educator Accomplished PracticesCommon LanguageHigh Effect Size PracticesMTSS Multiple Tiered System of Supports Review the requirements in the evaluation system

Presenter-share the objectives for your session. You may edit these to meet your specific needsThe FPLS, FEAPs and Common Language documents may be found on the HMH support website6

Objectives for TodayDiscuss the timelines and logistics for implementation of the system Examine and discuss the additional metric: professional growth Discuss and understand performance metricsValue-added measureLeadership practice

7Todays Agenda Part I: Foundational Information Part II: Rationale & Requirements Part III: Contemporary Research Part IV: The FCPCS School-Based Administrator Evaluation Model Part V: Logistics & SupportFoundational InformationThis section of the presentation will provide participants with foundational information important to understanding why evaluations are changing and the philosophy upon which they are based.9Rewards states leading the way in comprehensive, coherent, statewide education reform across four key areas:Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplaceBuilding data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals how to improve instruction Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed mostTurning around their lowest-performing schools.

The state of FL received $700 million in RtTT money the most of any state in the nation. As part of their application, revised evaluation systems for both leaders and teachers is required. The FL legislature deemed that charter schools would be included in the revised evaluation procedures.

Florida worked diligently to bring together broad statewide support from superintendents, school board members, teachers and teacher associations for the Race to the Top application.

Senate Bill 736: Student Success Act Presenter - the full text of the bill is available on the HMH support website. Participants may not know the full extent of what is actually required by law in re to evaluation systems.The following slides provide the details from SB 736 most pertinent to leader evaluation.

SB 736 Requires

DOE approve school district evaluation systems & monitor for complianceDOE provide requirements and criteria for evaluation systemsCharter schools comply with provisions related to performance evaluationsSource: p. 1-4 SB 736

SB 736 RequiresDistrict evaluation systemsSupport effective instruction & student learning growthProvide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous improvementUse data from multiple sources including input from parentsSource: P. 4-5 SB 736

SB 736 RequiresFour levels of performance (highly effective, effective, *needs improvement, unsatisfactory)At least **50% of the evaluation is based on student learning growthBased on contemporary researchIndicators based on each of the FEAPS Source: P. 6-9 SB 736* Can use a developing rating for teachers with less than 3 years experience - this rating is NOT to be used for new leaders**40% if less than 3 years of data is available

SB 736 RequiresDOE annual reports to the public on performance ratings including the percent of teachers and leaders receiving each ratingSchool reports to parents when their childs teacher or principal has received unsatisfactory ratings for two consecutive years Source: P. 31 SB 736

SB 736 RequiresThe state Board of Education shall adopt rules to establish uniform procedures for the submission and approval of evaluations of teachers and leaders.Source: P. 9- SB 736

SBE Rule 6A-5.065 The Educator Accomplished PracticesFlorida's core standards for effective educators. The Educator Accomplished Practices are based upon three (3) foundational principles; high expectations, knowledge of subject matter and the standards of the profession.

Each effective educator applies the foundational principles through six (6) Educator Accomplished Practices. Each of the practices is clearly defined to promote a common language and statewide understanding of the expectations for the quality of instruction and professional responsibility.

Presenter- the full text of FEAPS is on the HMH support website.The FCPCS Teacher Evaluation Model is based on FEAPs. FEAPs is foundational for the school-based administrator model and the Florida Principal Leadership Standards.

The Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs) are Florida's core standards for effective educators and provide valuable guidance to Florida's public school educators and educator preparation programs throughout the state on what educators are expected know and be able to do. The Educator Accomplished Practices are based upon three (3) foundational principles. Those principles focus on high expectations, knowledge of subject matter, and the standards of the profession. Each effective educator applies the foundational principles through six (6) Educator Accomplished Practices. Each of the practices is clearly defined to promote a common language and statewide understanding of the expectations for the quality of instruction and professional responsibility.

Rationale & Requirements

Part II provides participants with the rationale and requirements upon which the evaluation system was built.19

What all school leaders need to know about the FPLS The following slides provide information on the rationale for changing the leadership standards in FL and the research upon which they are based.

SBE Rule 6A-5.080 Florida Principal Leadership StandardsFloridas core expectations for effective school administrators

They represent skill sets and knowledge bases needed in effective schoolsAt the core of the performance expectations for school leaders are the Florida Principal Leadership Standards. Regardless of the plan for evaluation, the standards establish very clearly the what principals and assistant principals should know and be able to do. A copy of the standards should accompany the presentation.

21

Why NewTwo of the most comprehensive studies on educational leadership were completed in the last three years 2009-2011Significant aspects of this contemporary research were absent within the 2005 FPLS (e.g., instructional leadership, feedback, cause and effect)Core expectations for what effective school leaders know and are able to do are considerably different than in 2005 when Florida adopted the previous standards

Reasons for the change in standards22

Development of theCollaborative statewide process engaging a broad cross-section of stakeholdersExtensive opportunities for public review and input2005 FPLS informed by historical patterns of what principals jobs entailed2011 FPLS informed by gap analyses comparing issues in the 2005 standards to contemporary leadership research and practitioners input on best practice2011 FPLS are modeled after the 2010 FEAPs adding clarifying and defining descriptors to address gaps in the 2005 standardsProcess used to develop the standards23

The 10Florida Principal Leadership StandardsThe FPLS document is provided on the HMH support site. It is important to provide leaders with the standards as you discuss them. The 10 standards of performance are based on contemporary research.

The FPLS:Sample Standard

Examine how the standards are written they contain a standard number, a general area of focus, a performance statement related to the focus, and then multiple descriptive statements which provide a picture of what is included in the effective work on this standard.The next slide will help you dig deeper by unwrapping each standard for better understanding.Unwrapping Example

To demonstrate how to unwrap the standards- walk the group through this example of circled skills or verbs and underlining content/knowledge. Presenter- you can complete this activity by assigning the participants to unwrap and discuss the remaining 9 standards. Lead a group sharing after the groups are finished.The Florida Principal Leadership Standards

Form the foundation for school leader:

Personnel evaluations Professional developmentPreparation programs Certification requirementsThe purpose and multiple uses of the 10 standards- FPLS27

Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPS)Embedded in the FPLS and the evaluation system is FEAPs. In this slide, the apple represents education in general, and the orange represents education in FL. There are specific understandings about effective educator practice that the state of FL requires all educators to know and follow. Understanding these practice as described in FEAPs in critical to the success of all teachers and leaders. Presenter- the full FEAPs document available on the HMH support website. The Common Language Project is a process to refine conversations in ways that increase the clarity of exchanges and deepen common understanding of the work in progress. ADMR TM (p.40)

Common Language of InstructionThe language in FEAPs specifically addresses a common language of instruction, see below

Each effective educator applies the foundational principles through six (6) Educator Accomplished Practices. Each of the practices is clearly defined to promote a common language and statewide understanding of the expectations for the quality of instruction and professional responsibility.

Leaders must be aware of and use effectively the common language of instruction known throughout the state of Florida. The next few slides address the common language content and goal. The full common language document is available on the HMH support website. It is important for school leaders to know and use the common language.

29Common Languagea tool of master practitioners in any profession that is used to facilitate effective communications about the essential concepts and practices of the profession.

From the Common Language doc

Common language" is a tool of master practitioners in any profession that is used to facilitate effective communications about the essential concepts and practices of the profession. Consensus within a group of practitioners on the specific meaning of terms and expressions is used to provide feedback for improvement of proficiency on important job functions and in deepening understanding of the priority practices, standards, and goals of the profession. There are over 200 terms defined and clarified in the Common Language document.High-Effect Size PracticesContemporary research reveals a core of instructional and leadership strategies that have a higher probability than most of positively impacting student learning in significant ways.

Florida also has an focus on instructional staff using high effect size practices. This document applies equally to leaders and teachers. Using contemporary research, the state defines high effect size practices and provides suggestions for what these practices include.This state document is also available on the HMH support website for your use in your training. School leaders are expected to know and be able to apply high effect size practices in their schools. They are also expected to help teachers learn and effectively use the practices in their classrooms. The principal is expected to lead the effort on the use of high effect size practices. That being the case, all leaders should be very familiar with Robert Marzanos Art and Science of Teaching, and John Hatties Visible Learning . These are two great sources of information on the topic. High-Effect Size Strategies

Are components within the core standards and expectations described in the FEAPs (Rule 6A-5.065, F.A.C.) and FPLS (Rule 6A-5.080, F.A.C.) and Constitute priority issues for faculty development and deliberate practice. A listing of these high effect size strategies will be posted for district use on www.fldoe.org/profdev/pa.asp.

According to the DOE High effect size is defined as seen on the screen. Source: PPT presented in Orlando Jan. 2012 by John Moore on completing the state checklist.Contemporary Research

Part III explores what research forms the foundation for leader evaluation in Florida. The next few slides have excerpts from the state document to illustrate the research base for the evaluation structure and requirements. Contemporary research is defined as research from 2000 to the present. Much has been learned from numerous studies on the practices of effective principals. The primary sources of information comes from research from Robert Marzano, Vivianne Robinson, John Hattie, Leithwood, Seashore-Lewis et.al. and Kouses and Posner. The following slides provide more detail on this.

33

Research frameworks pre-approved by the Department are:Based on contemporary researchAligned with the Senate Bill 736, the FEAPs or FPLS, as appropriate

Presenter: The key word here is pre-approved. If schools opted to create their own models, they would need to provide the research framework like the one provided by the state to support the system and show the alignment to SB 736, FEAPs and FPLS. Marzano was pre-approved for leader evaluation in FL.The FPLS Reflected In Contemporary Research

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge. Horng, E., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principals time use and school effectiveness. Stanford University.Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2010). The truth about leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. The Wallace Foundation.Robinson, V. M. J. (2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Where the state requires that evaluation systems be grounded in contemporary research, this research meets that definition and requirement.___Charter School Evaluation ModelFCPCS School-Based Administrator Evaluation ModelPart IV- Your Model. In this case, the slides are based on the FCPCS Model which you have adopted for leader evaluation. Put your school name on the slide. This begins the discussion about the evaluation model you are using.36

Structure of the ModelProfessional GrowthPresenter- have a full copy of your evaluation plan to refer to during the rest of the presentation. Use the document as you discuss the various sections and take questions from the participants as they become familiar with the document.We will be looking at the structure and design of the FCPCS School-Based Administrator Evaluation Model

FCPCS School-Based Administrator Evaluation Model4 Domains10 Standards50 IndicatorsThe FCPCS Model is organized into 4 domains with the 10 FPLS standards and 50 indicators of school leaders behavior that link to contemporary research-based strategies to student achievement.

38Florida Performance RatingsPerformance levels for summative rating must conform to the requirements of Section 1012.34, F.S.

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

No developing for administrators

The final performance ratings required for educator evaluation in FL are on the screen. This is in the statute.School-Based Administrator Evaluation Rubric Unsatisfactory1Needs Improvement 2Effective3Highly Effective4

Presenter- explain how these ratings are defined in the Consortium Model using your document.

40Performance Ratings and Associated ScoresTotal Score Performance Rating 3.6 4.0 Highly Effective 3.0 3.5 Effective 2.0 2.9 Needs Improvement 1.0 1.9 Unsatisfactory Presenter- explain the scoring system as it relates to the ratings in the Consortium Model4180%Domains 1-3Leadership Practice Score FormulaNow that we see the major components and structure of the system - this is how a Leadership Practice score is determined. Leadership Practice counts for 50% of the summative or final evaluation score.Summative Performance ScoreNext, the Leadership Practice score is added to the other 50% of the final performance score. Student growth must account for the other 50%. Charter schools will adopt the school districts scoring system and cut points that will apply to student performance results on statewide assessments. Charter schools will submit the data from the school-based administrator evaluations (on leadership practices and professional and job responsibilities) to the school district. Value-added scores will be provided by the Florida Department of Education to the school district. The leadership practices and professional and job responsibilities score and the student growth score will be combined to generate an overall score.

Charter Schools will request that their school districts calculate the weighting and combining of the administrators scores using the model and criteria adopted by the charter schools. The charter school will rely on the districts expertise and technological capabilities to accurately convert scores to a final summative administrator evaluation rating. Performance Assessment PlanningInterim review dates with evaluators are decided and will consist of discussion and reflection to monitor progress toward the goal using formal and/or informal data.

Administrators meet with their evaluators at the beginning of the year to analyze data and develop a plan with annual measurable performance goals.At the end of the year, a final review is held to examine student data, evidence of attainment on the goals, and areas for continued growth are also discussed.Presenter- this process is recommended by the Consortium44

Student Growth Measure?The Student Success Act requires the inclusion of student learning growth measures in teacher evaluations, and it tasks the education commissioner with identifying and implementing student growth models.

Student growth measure accounts for the remaining 50% of the evaluation and is required in the law. The law tasked the DOE with coming up with a model which would fairly evaluate the impact of teachers and principals on student learning.

The Department put together a work group which including researchers from American Institute of Research (AIR), researchers and psychomatricians from Pearson, as well as DOE staff, teacher unions and other stakeholders.

They decided on a Value-added Model. (VAM) This model uses a co-variant process to separate or isolate the impact of the teacher from the other influences on student achievement.

See next slide

The Value-Added Model (VAM)Value-added is a statistical model that uses student-level growth scores to differentiate a leaders performance in the area of student learning growth.

The model takes into account other factors that may impact the learning process. These covariates include: prior achievement scores, disability status, mobility, ELL status, attendance, class size, number of subject relevant courses taken, and others. Prior years achievement is the strongest predictor among them. The prior achievement data is combined with other measured student characteristics- the covariates- to form the predicted performance of the student.

The Value-Added Model (VAM)A students predicted performance serves as the target. A student who meets or exceeds his target has a positive impact on the leaders evaluation, and a student not making his target has a negative impact.

The listed covariates are run through the statistical model to establish a predicted, or expected performance level for each student. The model is substantially different than other models that may evaluate leaders based on a single year of student performance or evaluate teachers and leaders based on simple comparisons of student growth from one year to the next. Some of the covariates lower the students expected performance level while others raise it.

The Value-Added Model (VAM)The percent of students whose performance is equal to or higher than predicted forms the foundation for the student growth score in the evaluation system.

How a teacher or leader scores is determined is based on the % of students meeting or exceeding their predicted score. A student who meets their expected performance level has a VAM score of 0. When the student exceeds their predicted performance, their score is a positive over 0. When a student scores below their predicted performance, their VAM is a negative below 0.VAM Scores

Students who meet their expected performance levelStudents who fall below their expected performance levelStudents who exceed their expected performance levelHow a leader scores is determined is based on the % of students meeting or exceeding their predicted score. A student who meets their expected performance level has a VAM score of 0. When the student exceeds their predicted performance, their score is a positive over 0. When a student scores below their predicted performance, their VAM is a negative below 0.The final VAM score for a principal is the combined average score based on all students.

The higher % of the VAM scores at 0 or higher, the higher score for the principal on the student growth portion of the evaluation system.

The Value-Added Model (VAM)This overall percent is transferred to a scale which provides a rating for the administrator at highly effective, effective, needs improvement, or unsatisfactory.

Each district creates their own scale ranges based on scores in the positive and scores in the negative and relates those ranges to a rating of highly effective, effective, needs improvement or unsatisfactory. That may be changing, as the state is considering creating VAM score ranges and their ratings equivalency that will be the same for all schools. Escambia County has a good scale on their E3 website.Recorded Webinar for Charter Schools with Kathy Hebda, Deputy Chancellor for Education Quality, and Adam Miller, Charter Schools Director, on the Florida Value-Added Model (VAM) is available at http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/Charter_Schools/ (bottom of page). This presentation provides an overview of Floridas Value-Added Model and how it should be used for teacher evaluations.

FloridasValue Added Model

Presenter- you may want to have your staff watch the DOE webinar which was created specifically for charter schools. This might clear up some f the questions and confusion around how they are scored. It is suggested that all leaders watch the webinar before they present VAM to their teams.51LogisticsHow will the system work?Part V- this section of the presentation is intended for the presenter to share the nuts and bolts on how the evaluation system will work. Who will do what by when? What will evaluators do at various points in the year? What should a principal expect from the evaluators in the way of support? How will principals receive feedback? What forms will be used? And so on. Presenters should share all of this information using their approved plan as a basis for the discussion. 52

The charter school governing board facilitates the administrator evaluation process.

FCPCS School-Based Administrator Evaluation ModelThe governing board is responsible for facilitating the school-based administrator evaluation process. The governing board has the overall responsibility for collecting and maintaining documentation, scheduling evaluation-related meetings, providing feedback on performance throughout the year, making summative ratings, and submitting documentation to the appropriate district office. 53The School Site Monitoring Tool

According to the FCPCS School-Based Administrator Evaluation:The School-Site Tool assists the governing board in monitoring administrators' compliance with the FPLS throughout the school year and, in doing so, provides opportunities for administrators to receive feedback on the domains, standards, and indicators by which they will be formally evaluated. The Tool ensures that administrators are provided with assistance and support in addressing "areas in need of improvement," prior to the end of year evaluation.

54Recommendations for Evaluators Using the ToolRecord observations during school visits and provide meaningful feedback in post-observation conferencesConduct a minimum of one site visit per grading period, but as many as possible are suggestedUse the tool to assess all domains, or assess specific targeted domains during each visitAfter each visit, discuss positive practices and areas that need improvement. Share suggestions and support Conduct a follow-up visit to review areas for improvementAfter each visit, school-based administrator and evaluator sign the tool

Recommendations for Using the School-Site Monitoring Tool 1. Prior to using the School-Site Monitoring Tool, conduct a training session for administrators on the rationale and method for utilizing the Tool.

2. Use the Tool to record observations made during each school visit in order to provide specific, meaningful feedback to administrators in post-observation conferences.

3. Conduct as many school visits as possible throughout the year. At a minimum, personnel responsible for evaluating the school-site administrator should conduct a site visit during each grading period and complete the School-Site Monitoring Tool.

4. Use the Tool to assess all domains during a visit, or assess specific targeted domains during each visit.

5. Meet with the administrator following each school-site visit; discuss both the positive practices observed, as well as the areas in which there is a need for improvement; offer suggestions and support; explain that a follow-up visit will be conducted to review areas for improvement; obtain the administrator's signature on the Tool to indicate that a feedback session was conducted. 55Evaluation Process OverviewImproved LeadershipPerformanceThis is a graphic of a sample process for your model. Your school should have assigned dates to each of these steps as part of your plan. Use this slide and your plan as the basis for this part of the presentation. Let principals and other leaders being evaluated by this model know the due dates and when they can expect to go over it with their evaluators.

Once all of the prior information has been shared, principals will want to know what comes next. They should also have some indication when conferences will be held with their supervisor(s).57Questions & Reflection