Post on 18-Feb-2022
transcript
2015-2016
Citrus
Sandra Himmel, Superintendent
Suzanne Swain, Coordinator of Certification
and Professional Standards
School Administrator Evaluation System
Rule 6A-5.030 Form AEST-2015 Effective Date: ______ 2015
Citrus Page 1 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Table of Contents
1. Performance of Students
2. Instructional Leadership
3. Other Indicators of Performance
4. Summative Evaluation Score
5. Additional Requirements
6. District Evaluation Procedures
7. District Self-Monitoring
8. Appendix A – Checklist for Approval
9. Appendix B – Self-Reflection Tool
10. Appendix C – Observation Instrument
11. Appendix D – Administrator Summative Evaluation
12. Appendix E – Developing Rubric for Deliberate Practice Plan
13. Appendix F – Rating Rubric for Deliberate Practice Plan
14. Appendix G – Deliberate Practice Plan Template
Directions:
This document has been provided in Microsoft Word format for the convenience of the district.
The order of the template shall not be rearranged. Each section offers specific directions, but does
not limit the amount of space or information that can be added to fit the needs of the district. All
submitted documents shall be titled and paginated. Where documentation or evidence is required,
copies of the source document(s) (for example, rubrics, policies and procedures, observation
instruments) shall be provided. Upon completion, the district shall email the template and required
supporting documentation for submission to the address DistrictEvalSysEQ@fldoe.org.
**Modifications to an approved evaluation system may be made by the district at any
time. A revised evaluation system shall be submitted for approval, in accordance with Rule
6A-5.030(3), F.A.C. The entire template shall be sent for the approval process.
Citrus Page 2 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
1. Performance of Students
Directions:
The district shall provide:
For all school administrators, the percentage of the evaluation that is based on the
performance of students criterion as outlined in s. 1012.34(3)(a)1., F.S., along with an
explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined [Rule
6A-5.030(2)(a)1., F.A.C.].
For all school administrators, confirmation of including student performance data
for at least three years, including the current year and the two years immediately
preceding the current year, when available. If less than the three most recent years
of data are available, those years for which data are available must be used. If more
than three years of student performance data are used, specify the years that will
be used [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)3., F.A.C.].
For school administrators, the district-determined student performance measure(s) used
for personnel evaluations [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)7., F.A.C.].
Citrus Page 3 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Student Performance Measures
The district portion (leadership practice) will be 67% and the data portion (student performance)
will be 33% of the school administrator’s overall summative evaluation. All administrative
personnel will include student performance data for at least three years, including the current year
and the two years immediately preceding the current year, when available. If less than the three
most recent years of data are available, those years for which data are available must be used. School
administrators will receive a rating based on their school wide VAM results and the data collected
from district designed assessments. Citrus County will accept the schoolwide VAM (1-4) that the
DOE issues. The weighting of the VAM will be proportional to the teaching assignment at the
school. The state provides ratings based on the cut scores. The ratings issued by the state in
combination with the district data ratings will be averaged to give the administrator (s) a rating for
the data portion of the evaluation system. Instructional personnel receive a rating for the district
designed assessments. Again, all data ratings will be combined and averaged to provide the
administrator(s) with an overall data rating. For example, an administrator has 10 teachers assigned
to him. 5 teachers receive highly effective, 3 receive effective, and 2 receive needs improvement as
the data rating. The ratings are given a value (1-4). The overall total score is 33 points. When
divided by the number of teachers, 10, the average score is 3.3 which is an overall rating of effective.
The rating matrix on page 18 clearly explains how the two ratings will be combined for the overall
evaluation rating.
Below is a chart of the data sources administrators will use to determine the data rating for
instructional staff.
STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS USING VAM DATA CONTENT AREA/TEACHER GRADE Performance
Measure(s) for
Evaluation Purposes
Percentage Associated with Final Summative
Evaluation
English Language Arts & Math 4-8 FSA ELA & Math VAM
33% HE, E, D/NI, U
English Language Arts & Reading 4-10 FSA ELA VAM
Math 4-8 FSA Math VAM
Algebra 1 6-12 FSA EOC VAM
District: TOSA Math PK-12 District FSA, EOC Math VAM
District: TOSA ELA, Program Specialist ELA, Literacy Coach
PK-12 District FSA ELA VAM
Non-Classroom Instructional Personnel (Guidance, Media, ESE Specialist, Speech Pathologist, School TOSA, Technology Specialist, Testing Specialist, Athletic Director, Title I)
PK-12 School-Wide VAM=FSA
ELA and MATH, or FSA ELA, or FSA Math
District: TOSA (ESE, Grant Writer), ESE Specialist, Social Worker, School Psychologist, Teacher Hearing Impaired, Technology
PK-12 District FSA, EOC - ELA & Math VAM
Citrus Page 4 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Specialists, Speech Pathologist, Lead Speech & Language Teacher
CDE 11-12 School-Wide VAM (all 3
high schools)
STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS USING DISTRICT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MODEL (NOT VAM DATA) Geometry, Algebra 2 6-12 FSA EOC: Geometry,
Algebra 2
33% HE, E, D/NI, U
Biology, US History, Civics 6-12 NGSSS EOC: Biology, US History, Civics
Science- 8th grade Science- 5th grade (if only teaches Science)
8 5
NGSSS FCAT 2.0 Science- 8th grade NGSSS FCAT 2.0 Science- 5th grade
District: TOSA Science K-12 District NGSSS FCAT 2.0 Science and Biology EOC
District: TOSA Social Studies K-12 District US History and Civics EOC
Pre-Kindergarten PK VPK Assessment
Advanced Placement Classes 9-12 AP Tests
AP Human Geography 9 AP Tests
International Baccalaureate 9-12 IB Tests
Career and Technical Courses (High School) with Industry Certification
9-12 Industry Certification Exams If 50% of students are not IC tested, then End-of-Term Test will serve as the data source
GED, Adult Education TOSA 9-Adult Industry Certification
WTC Career & Technical Courses of Study 9-Adult Content Specific Certification Exams For instructional staff serving all students; Guidance, Media, Adult ESOL-Career Pathways, etc. – School-wide Industry Certification Exams
Transition Academy 9-Adult Employability Rating Scale
Math, Applied Academics Resource Instructor
9-Adult Industry Certification
Access Points K-12 Florida Standards Alternate Assessment (FSAA)
DISTRICT DESIGNED ASSESSMENTS
Citrus Page 5 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Elementary Art, Music, PE Teachers 2 District Art, Music, PE Assessment
33% HE, E, D/NI, U
Middle School- Non-State Tested subject areas and elective courses
6-8 District End-of-Term Test
High School- Non-State Tested core subject areas (not linked to EOC, AP or IB courses):
Informal Geometry
Liberal Arts Mathematics 2
Pre-Calculus Honors
Calculus Honors
Environmental Science
Earth Space Science
Physical Science and Honors
Marine Science and Honors
Chemistry 1 and Honors
Anatomy and Physiology and Honors
US Government and Honors
World History and Honors
Economics with Financial Lit and Honors
World Cultural Geography
Spanish 1
English III and IV and Honors
9-12 District End-of-Term Test
DISTRICT SELECTED ASSESSMENTS High School- Non-State Tested course and electives not listed above
9-12 Teacher Created-Principal Approved Final Exam/End-of-Term Test
33% HE, E, D/NI, U
Kindergarten, First Grade, Second Grade, Third Grade
K-3 FastBridge aReading
Career and Technical Courses (not linked to Industry Certification Assessments)
9-12 Teacher Created Final Exam/End-of-Term Test
Citrus Page 6 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Below are the Growth Models we use to determine the overall data ratings for instructional
personnel.
Citrus Page 9 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
2. Instructional Leadership
Directions
The district shall provide:
For all school administrators, the percentage of the evaluation system that is based on
the instructional leadership criterion as outlined in s. 1012.34(3)(a)3., F.S., along with
an explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined
[Rule 6A-5.030(2)(c)1., F.A.C.].
Description of the district evaluation framework for school administrators and the
contemporary research basis in effective educational practices [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(c)2.,
F.A.C.].
For all school administrators, a crosswalk from the district’s evaluation framework to
the Principal Leadership Standards [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(c)3., F.A.C.].
Observation or other data collection instrument(s) that include indicators, organized by
domains, based on each of the Principal Leadership Standards, and additional elements
provided in s. 1012.34(3)(a)3., F.S. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(c)4., F.A.C.].
Procedures for observing and collecting data and other evidence of instructional
leadership [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(c)5., F.A.C.].
The following optional chart is provided for your convenience to display the crosswalk of the
district’s evaluation framework to the Principal Leadership Standards. Other methods to display
information are acceptable, as long as each standard and descriptor is addressed.
Citrus Page 10 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Instructional Leadership Scoring Method
The district portion (leadership practice) will be 67% and the data portion (student performance)
will be 33% of the school administrator’s overall summative evaluation. The district leadership
portion will include the five standards listed on pages 9-13 and the Deliberate Practice Plan. Each
standard and Deliberate Practice Plan will be 17% of the 67% of the district portion (leadership
practice) rating for the district portion (leadership practice). The administrator will receive a
rating for each standard and a rating for the Deliberate Practice Plan. Those ratings will be added
together and averaged to determine the overall score for the district portion of the summative
evaluation. Once a rating is determined for the district portion (leadership practice), that rating
will be combined with data portion. The chart on page 18 explains how the overall rating is
determined.
Observing and Collecting Data for Instructional Leadership
The administrator’s supervisor will collect artifacts and observe at the school site throughout the year.
The supervisor of the administrator will complete school-wide walkthroughs which will allow the
supervisor to collect data. Examples of data collected include, but are limited to, charts documenting
student performance, walkthrough notes documenting effective classroom instruction, accomplishing
strategies listed in the school improvement plan, and evidence demonstrating highly effective/effective
leadership practices.
Contemporary Research in Effective Educational Practices
The underlying research base of this evaluation system combines many of the concepts of
"reflective practices,” "collaborative action,” "learning communities" and "quality management”
into the “Working on the Work" concepts of Dr. Phillip C. Schlechty and his organization, The
Center for Leadership in School Reform. Our new process includes the research and principles
that support the Florida Principal Leadership Standards which is the framework for the entire
assessment system. The foundation of the evaluative processes is based on the research from the
practices of Douglas Reeves and The Leadership and Learning Center. Other research utilized in
the revision of our appraisal system includes the six (6) design standards from The New Teacher
Project as well as the extensive research information provided through Robert J. Marzano and his
organization Learning Sciences International. Also integrated into this evaluation system are high
impact teaching strategies developed by Max Thompson and the high effect size strategies by John
Hattie.
School Administrator Professional Standards and Florida Principal Leadership Indicators
Citrus Page 11 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
To support this end, CCS has clearly defined a set of standards-based expectations for school
administrators and has established a set of processes and procedures to assist school administrators
in meeting these standards. To clarify these expectations, five (5) Citrus County Standards have
been developed to guide the work of school administrators. The five (5) Standards encompass
Florida Principal Leadership Indicators (FPLI), which are based on essential foundational
principles. The appraisal committee matched the FPLIs descriptors to the five (5) Standards. As
the FPLIs provide a common language and statewide understanding of the expectations of quality
instruction, the descriptors serve as indicators of effectiveness within each Citrus County Standard
in our revised evaluation system
Standard: 1
The school administrator supports the beliefs, shared vision, and mission adopted by the district.
1.2.A Enables faculty and staff to work as a system focused on student learning.
1.2.B Maintains a school climate that supports student engagement in learning.
1.2.C Generates high expectations for learning growth by all students.
2.5.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.
2.5.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.
2.5.C Promotes school and classroom practices that validate and value similarities and
differences among students.
3.7.E Develops sustainable and supportive relationships between school leaders, parents,
community, higher education and business leaders.
3.9.A Actively listens to and learns from students, staff, parents, and community stakeholders.
3.9.C Communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents,
and community.
4.10.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.
4.10.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.
4.10.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.
Citrus Page 12 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Standard: 2
The school administrator designs and delivers knowledge work that meets the needs of staff, students,
parents, school system, and community.
1.1.A Develops the school's learning goals based on the states adopted student academic
standards and the districts adopted curricula.
2.3.A Implements the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices as described in Rule 6A-5.065,
F.A.C. through a common language of instruction.
2.3.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.
2.4.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.
2.4.E Implements professional learning that enables faculty to deliver culturally relevant and
differentiated instruction.
2.5.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.
Standard: 3
The school administrator manages the resources of time, people, space, information and technology
in order to enhance the qualities of the work provided to the staff and students.
2.4.C Employs a faculty with the instructional proficiencies needed for the school population
served.
2.4.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.
2.4.F Provides resources and time and engages faculty in effective individual and collaborative
professional learning throughout the school year.
3.6.E Uses effective technology integration to enhance decision making and efficiency
throughout the school.
3.8.A Organizes time, tasks and projects effectively with clear objectives and coherent plans.
Citrus Page 13 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
3.8.B Establishes appropriate deadlines for him/herself and the entire organization.
3.8.C Manages schedules, delegates, and allocates resources to promote collegial efforts in
school improvement and faculty development.
3.8.D Is fiscally responsible and maximizes the impact of fiscal resources on instructional
priorities.
3.9.E Creates opportunities within the school to engage students, faculty, parents, and
community stakeholders in constructive conversations about important school issues.
3.9.F Utilizes appropriate technologies for communication and collaboration.
3.9.G Ensures faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements, academic
standards, and all other local state and federal administrative requirements and decisions.
Standard: 4
The school administrator continuously monitors and communicates the extent to which staff and
students are engaging the work, persisting with the work, experiencing satisfaction in the products
of the work, and modifies the work accordingly.
1.1.B Analyzes student learning results which 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.
1.2.D Engages faculty and staff in efforts to close learning performance gaps among student
subgroups within the school.
2.3.B Engages in data analysis for instructional planning and improvement.
2.3.C Communicates the relationships among academic standards, effective instruction, and
student performance.
2.3.E Ensures the appropriate use of high quality formative and interim assessments aligned with
the adopted standards and curricula.
2.4.B Evaluates, monitors, and provides timely feedback to faculty on the effectiveness of
instruction.
2.5.D Provides recurring monitoring and feedback on the quality of the learning environment.
2.5.E Initiates and supports continuous improvement processes focused on the students'
opportunities for success and well-being.
Citrus Page 14 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
4.10.F Demonstrates explicit improvement in specific performance areas based on previous
evaluations and formative feedback.
Standard: 5
The school administrator is a leader.
3.6.A Gives priority attention to decisions that impact the quality of student learning and teacher
proficiency.
3.6.B Uses critical thinking and problem solving techniques to define problems and identify
solutions.
3.6.C Evaluates decisions for effectiveness, equity, intended and actual outcome; implements
follow-up actions; and revises as needed.
3.6.D Empowers others and distributes leadership when appropriate.
3.7.A Identifies and cultivates potential and emerging leaders.
3.7.B Provides evidence of delegation and trust in subordinate leaders.
3.7.C Plans for succession management in key positions.
3.7.D Promotes teacher—leadership functions focused on instructional proficiency and student
learning.
3.9.B Recognizes individuals for effective performance.
3.9.D Maintains high visibility at school and in the community and regularly engages
stakeholders in the work of the school.
4.10.D Engages in professional learning that improves professional practice in alignment with the
needs of the school system.
4.10.E Demonstrates willingness to admit error and learn from it.
Observation Form
The observation form (Appendix C) will be used by the supervisor to show proficiency levels for
all administrators. The observation instrument was developed by integrating the FPLS indicators
into the five Citrus County standards. Proficiency levels on the observation instrument will
follow the guidelines established by Florida Statute 1012.34 with feedback provided by the
Citrus Page 15 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
supervisor conducting the formal or informal observation. This evaluation process, including
feedback, begins with an initial conference with the administrator, on-going informal
observations, formal and informal feedback, and concludes with a summative evaluation infusing
data outcomes with principal competencies.
3. Other Indicators of Performance
Directions:
The district shall provide:
The additional performance indicators, if the district chooses to include such additional
indicators pursuant to s. 1012.34(3)(a)4., F.S.;
The percentage of the final evaluation that is based upon the additional indicators; and
The scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(d),
F.A.C.].
Examples include the following:
Deliberate Practice - the selection of indicators or practices, improvement on which is
measured during an evaluation period
Peer Reviews
Objectively reliable survey information from students and parents based on teaching
practices that are consistently associated with higher student achievement
Individual Professional Leadership Plan
Other indicators, as selected by the district
Citrus Page 16 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Deliberate Practice Plan
School administrators are required to complete a Deliberate Practice Plan (Appendix G) every
year. School administrators will use the Developing Rubric (Appendix E) when writing the
Deliberate Practice Plan. School administrators will implement the Deliberate Practice Plan
throughout the school year. A rating of HE, E, D, NI, U will be given based on successful
implementation of the plan. The Rating Rubric (Appendix F) will be used by the administrator to
determine the rating. The rating will be under the Professional Standards and Florida Principal
Leadership Indicators. The Deliberate Practice Plan will be 17% of the rating for the district
portion of the evaluation system. The district portion will be combined with the data portion which
will determine the overall evaluation rating.
Citrus Page 17 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
4. Summative Evaluation Score
Directions:
The district shall provide:
The summative evaluation form(s); and
The scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined; and
The performance standards used to determine the summative evaluation rating.
Districts shall use the four performance levels provided in s. 1012.34(2)(e), F.S.,
[Rule 6A-5.030(2)(e), F.A.C.].
Citrus Page 18 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Summative Evaluation
Each administrator will receive a rating of Highly Effective, Effective, Needs Improvement, or
Unsatisfactory based on his/her performance on the district portion of the administrator summative
evaluation (Appendix D). School administrators will receive a rating for the data portion based on
school-wide VAM. The district portion of the summative evaluation will be 67% of the overall
evaluation. The data portion of the evaluation will be 33% of the overall evaluation. The rating
matrix in this section will be used to determine the overall rating. The assistant superintendent
and principals will schedule an end of the year meeting with each administrator to complete a
summative evaluation. During this meeting, administrators will share data related to his/her student
performance data/achievement documented in his/her professional development plan/deliberate
practice, discuss the strategies implemented throughout the year, and participate in conversation
about performance related to the five (5) Citrus County Standards based on the Self-Reflection
Tool. After reviewing the evidences of effectiveness gathered throughout the year via
informal/formal walkthroughs and classroom observations, the administrator’s supervisor will
assign a rating of Highly Effective, Effective, Needs Improvement, or Unsatisfactory for the six
components of the district portion of the evaluation system. Each component is weighted as 17%
of the 67% of the district portion. Once the rating for the district portion is determined by
combining the six components, that rating is weighted at 67% of the final evaluation rating. The
rating for the student performance portion of the evaluation will be based on the growth model
rating provided by the state or the district model for teachers of subjects and grades not assessed
by statewide assessments. School administrators will receive a rating based on their school wide
VAM results and the data collected from district designed assessments. Citrus County will accept
the schoolwide VAM (1-4) that the DOE issues. The weighting of the VAM will be proportional to
the teaching assignment at the school. The state provides ratings based on the cut scores. The
ratings issued by the state in combination with the district data ratings will be averaged to give the
administrator (s) a rating for the data portion of the evaluation system. Instructional personnel
receive a rating for the district designed assessments. Again, all data ratings will be combined and
averaged to provide the administrator(s) with an overall data rating. For example, an administrator
has 10 teachers assigned to him. 5 teachers receive highly effective, 3 receive effective, and 2
receive needs improvement as the data rating. The ratings are given a value (1-4). The overall total
score is 33 points. When divided by the number of teachers, 10, the average score is 3.3 which is
an overall rating of effective. The rating matrix on page 18 clearly explains how the two ratings
will be combined for the overall evaluation rating.
Summative Evaluation Ratings
Highly Effective
Performance and results relative to CCS and the Accomplished Practices are consistently at
the highly effective level.
Citrus Page 19 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
CCS and the Accomplished Practices should exceed effective levels and constitute models of
proficiency for other teachers.
This level of CCS and the Accomplished Practices reflect extraordinary effort and superior
capabilities.
Effective
Performance and results relative to CCS and the Accomplished Practices are consistently
effective.
The level of CCS and the Accomplished Practices reflect efforts and capabilities that
consistently meet expectations.
Developing (instructional personnel in the first 3 years of employment)
Needs Improvement (4+ years)
Performance and results relative to CCS and the Accomplished Practices are developing or
need improvement
Efforts and capabilities show growth towards meeting CCS and the Accomplished Practices.
Continued support will be provided.
Unsatisfactory *
Performance and results relative to CCS and the Accomplished Practices do not meet expected
level of performance expectations.
Efforts and capabilities do not meet the level of performance required by the CCS and the
Accomplished Practices.
Substantial assistance, monitoring, and training is required.
*An assistance plan is required if rated as Unsatisfactory.
Rating Matrix
Rating Areas
Range Average Overall Rating Options
Florida
Principal
Leadership
Standards
67%
Student
Data
33%
H H 4.00 4.00 Highly Effective
H E 3.12-3.81 3.67 Highly Effective, Effective
H D/NI 2.78-3.48 3.33 Highly Effective, Effective
H U 2.30-3.15 3.00 Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement
E H 2.78-3.63 3.33 Highly Effective, Effective
E E 2.45-3.44 3.00 Effective
Citrus Page 20 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
E D/NI 2.12-3.11 2.67 Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement
E U 1.97-2.77 2.33 Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement
D/NI H 2.12-2.96 2.67 Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement
D/NI E 1.78-2.77 2.33 Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement
D/NI D/NI 1.45-2.44 2.00 Developing/Needs Improvement
D/NI U 1.30-2.11 1.67 Developing/Needs Improvement, Unsatisfactory
U H 1.82-2.29 2.00 Developing/Needs Improvement
U E 1.48-2.11 1.67 Developing/Needs Improvement
U D/NI 1.15-1.77 1.33 Developing/Needs Improvement, Unsatisfactory
U U 1.00 1.00 Unsatisfactory
Citrus Page 21 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
5. Additional Requirements
Directions:
The district shall provide:
Documentation that the evaluator is the individual who is responsible for supervising
the employee. An evaluator may consider input from other personnel trained in
evaluation practices. If input is provided by other personnel, identify the additional
positions or persons. Examples include assistant principals, peers, district staff,
department heads, grade level chairpersons, or team leaders [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)2.,
F.A.C.].
Description of training programs and processes to ensure that all employees subject
to an evaluation system are informed on evaluation criteria, data sources,
methodologies, and procedures associated with the evaluation before the evaluation
takes place, and that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities and those who
provide input toward evaluation understand the proper use of the evaluation criteria
and procedures [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)3., F.A.C.].
Description of the processes for providing timely feedback to the individual being
evaluated [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)4., F.A.C.].
Description of how results from the evaluation system will be used for professional
development [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)5., F.A.C.].
Confirmation that the district will require participation in specific professional
development programs by those who have been evaluated as less than effective as
required by s. 1012.98(10), F.S. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)6., F.A.C.].
Documentation that all school administrators must be evaluated at least once a year
[Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)7., F.A.C.].
Documentation that the evaluation system for school administrators includes
opportunities for parents to provide input into performance evaluations when the
district determines such input is appropriate, and a description of the criteria for
inclusion, and the manner of inclusion of parental input [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)9.,
F.A.C.].
Description of the district’s peer assistance process, if any, for school administrators.
Peer assistance may be part of the regular evaluation system, or used to assist
personnel who are placed on performance probation, or who request assistance [Rule
6A-5.030(2)(f)11., F.A.C.].
If included by a district, a description of the opportunity for instructional personnel to
provide input into a school administrator’s performance evaluation [Rule 6A-
5.030(2)(f)12., F.A.C.].
Citrus Page 22 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Personnel Completing Evaluations
The Assistant Superintendent for School Operations will complete the evaluations for all
Principals and the Principals for each school site will complete the evaluations of his/her Assistant
Principals. These evaluations will be completed utilizing the Citrus County Administrator
Summative Assessment.
Training Programs and Processes
All Principals and the Assistant Superintendent for School Operations who supervise
administrative personnel participate in an administrator evaluation overview meeting in July each
year. A PowerPoint presentation with voiceover was created to explain the essential components
of the system and is shared with the above mentioned staff, assuring that all participants heard and
saw the same information. An additional training takes place in the summer of each of the
following years with all administrators to clarify the processes and procedures for conducting
evaluations. School based administrators who are responsible for conducting evaluations will
collaborate with each other during district administrator meetings to ensure inter-rated reliability
of the system. After the initial training period, subsequent training sessions will be provided for
new personnel who move into evaluator roles.
Annual Evaluation (Timely Feedback)
All school administrators will be evaluated at least once per year. School principals will be
evaluated by the Assistant Superintendent. Assistant Principals will be evaluated by the school’s
Principal. Annual evaluations will take place at the end of the school year for all school
administrators. School administrators and the Assistant Superintendent will schedule an end of
the year meeting with the administrators that they oversee to complete a summative evaluation.
During this meeting, school administrators will share data related to student performance
/achievement documented in his/her deliberate practice plan, discuss the strategies implemented
throughout the year, reflect on the impact of professional development, and participate in
conversation about performance related to the five (5) Citrus County Standards and the Florida
Principal Leadership Standards based on the Self-Reflection Tool. After reviewing evidence of
effectiveness gathered throughout the year via midyear review and data, the administrator will
assign a rating of highly effective, effective, developing/needs improvement, or unsatisfactory
for the district portion of the evaluation system. The rating for the student performance portion
of the evaluation will be based on the VAM scores provided by the state. If statewide assessment
data is not available prior to the end of the year, the administrator will receive a rating on the
district portion. Subsequently, the summative evaluation rating will be assigned the following
school year during the beginning of the year conference with the administrator. In discussing the
Citrus Page 23 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
previous year’s data at the beginning of the year meeting, a true cyclical improvement process
will evolve. Administrators will submit the Summative Evaluation Form to the Human
Resources Department
Professional Development
Evaluation results and data are currently used in the reflective cycle of establishing Deliberate
Practice Plans. The Deliberate Practice Plan is 17% of the district portion of the evaluation system.
Each educator will use their individual results to identify professional development needs which
must be implemented to increase student achievement. The school administration through the
school improvement process will identify professional development needs via school based data
relative to teacher performance and student growth measures. The district will provide professional
development activities based upon the culmination of the global results received in regards to
student growth measures and teacher evaluation results. Data collected by Research and
Accountability and individual schools will assist each level in determining the types of
professional development options that are needed throughout the district. This process will
continue in the coming years with a more systematic and defined examination of the researched-
based strategies being utilized in our schools. If an administrator receives a less than effective
rating, he/she will be placed on an assistance plan and assigned a mentor administrator to provide
assistance with his/her professional growth. The administrator’s supervisor will provide and
monitor professional development opportunities through the assistance plan. Specific professional
development is required for administrators that received a rating of less than effective on their
evaluations.
Parent Input
Parental input will be provided via yearly school improvement surveys and through School
Advisory Enhancement Council meetings. Parental input into an administrator’s performance
evaluation will be sought if/when a school receives a grade of D or F by the Department of
Education and is deemed to be in an “Intervene Status” according to the No Child Left Behind
legislation.
Citrus Page 24 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
6. District Evaluation Procedures
Directions:
The district shall provide evidence that its evaluation policies and procedures comply with
the following statutory requirements:
In accordance with s. 1012.34(3)(c), F.S., the evaluator must:
submit a written report of the evaluation to the district school superintendent
for the purpose of reviewing the employee’s contract [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(g)1.,
F.A.C.].
submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the
evaluation takes place [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(g)2., F.A.C.].
discuss the written evaluation report with the employee [Rule 6A-
5.030(2)(g)3.,F.A.C.].
The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the
evaluation and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or
her personnel file [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(g)4., F.A.C.].
Documentation the district has complied with the requirement that the district school
superintendent shall annually notify the Department of any school administrators who
receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and shall notify the Department of
any school administrators who are given written notice by the district of intent to
terminate or not renew their employment, as outlined in s. 1012.34(5), F.S. [Rule 6A-
5.030(2)(i), F.A.C.].
Citrus Page 26 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Summative Evaluation Meeting
The supervisor of the administrator will schedule a time to meet with the administrator to review
all of the data collected that was used to determine the final rating. The ratings for each of the
five standards as well as the Deliberate Practice Plan will be shared. The supervisor will explain
how each rating was determined based on data that the supervisor collected as well as artifacts
that the administrator provided.
Unsatisfactory Summative Evaluations
Schools and cost centers will submit all administrative evaluations to the Human Resources
Department once the overall rating is assigned. The superintendent will review all of the data
collected regarding administrative evaluations. The superintendent will receive copies of
evaluations for administrative personnel that receive an overall rating of unsatisfactory for the
purpose of reviewing the employee’s contract. A written report will be provided to the employee
no later than 10 days after the superintendent reviews the evaluation. The employee may provide
a written response to the evaluation and it shall become a permanent attachment to the personnel
file. If an employee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations the superintendent will
notify, in writing, the Department of Education stating district’s intent to terminate or non-renew
the employment.
Citrus Page 27 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
7. District Self-Monitoring
Directions:
The district shall provide a description of its process for annually monitoring its evaluation
system. The district monitoring shall determine, at a minimum, the following:
Evaluators’ understanding of the proper use of evaluation criteria and procedures,
including evaluator accuracy and inter-rater reliability; [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)1.,
F.A.C.]
Evaluators provide necessary and timely feedback to employees being evaluated;
[Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)2., F.A.C.]
Evaluators follow district policies and procedures in the implementation of evaluation
system(s); [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)3., F.A.C.]
Use of evaluation data to identify individual professional development; and [Rule 6A-
5.030(2)(j)4., F.A.C.]
Use of evaluation data to inform school and district improvement plans [Rule 6A-
5.030(2)(j)5., F.A.C.].
Citrus Page 28 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Monitoring
Citrus County Schools will follow Deming’s Plan-Do-Check-Act Model as the process for
evaluating the effectiveness of the revised administrative evaluation system. Summative student
performance data and comparative teacher/administrator evaluation ratings will be reviewed and
analyzed for consistency. Revisions to the components and/or processes related to the evaluation
system will be made to ensure continued improvements in instruction and student learning. In
addition, we will continue to study the results of the researched-based instructional practices being
utilized in our schools and provide professional development resources to support full
implementation of those practices strongly linked to increased student achievement. Supervisors
will complete a midyear review for all administrators in January of each school year. The rating
for the district portion of the evaluation system will be completed by June of each year and the
rating for the data portion of the evaluation system will be completed by October of each year. The
overall evaluation for the previous year will be completed by October.
School and District Improvement Plans
After examining the results of school-based evaluations based on specific student growth and
achievement data and reviewing the use of instructional strategies that have a high probability of
increasing student achievement, school improvement plans will be developed based on identified
areas. The results of evaluations will assist in defining plausible causal information relating to
deficit areas. Professional development will be linked to address these needs. Similarly, district
improvement plans will be able to follow the same process as the schools. The district will
Citrus Page 29 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
identify global areas of need and the district improvement plan will be designed to provide
resources and support to address deficit areas.
Appendix A – Checklist for Approval
Performance of Students
The district has provided and meets the following criteria:
For all school administrators:
The percentage of the evaluation that is based on the performance of students
criterion.
An explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and
combined.
At least one-third of the evaluation is based on performance of students.
For all school administrators confirmed the inclusion of student performance:
Data for at least three years, including the current year and the two years
immediately preceding the current year, when available.
If less than the three most recent years of data are available, those years for
which data are available must be used.
If more than three years of student performance data are used, specified the
years that will be used.
For all school administrators:
The district-determined student performance measure(s) used for personnel
evaluations.
Instructional Leadership
The district has provided and meets the following criteria:
For all school administrators:
The percentage of the evaluation system that is based on the instructional
leadership criterion.
At least one-third of the evaluation is based on instructional leadership.
An explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and
combined.
The district evaluation framework for school administrators is based on
contemporary research in effective educational practices.
For all school administrators:
A crosswalk from the district's evaluation framework to the Principal
Citrus Page 30 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Leadership Standards demonstrating that the district’s evaluation contains
indicators based upon each of the Principal Leadership Standards.
For all school administrators:
Procedures for conducting observations and collecting data and other evidence
of instructional leadership.
Other Indicators of Performance
The district has provided and meets the following criteria:
Described the additional performance indicators, if any.
The percentage of the final evaluation that is based upon the additional indicators.
The scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined.
Summative Evaluation Score
The district has provided and meets the following criteria:
Summative evaluation form(s).
Scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined.
The performance standards used to determine the summative evaluation rating
(the four performance levels: highly effective, effective, needs
improvement/developing, unsatisfactory).
Additional Requirements
The district has provided and meets the following criteria:
Documented that the evaluator is the individual who is responsible for
supervising the employee.
Identified additional positions or persons who provide input toward the
evaluation, if any.
Description of training programs:
Processes to ensure that all employees subject to an evaluation system are
informed on evaluation criteria, data sources, methodologies, and procedures
associated with the evaluation before the evaluation takes place.
Processes to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities and
those who provide input toward evaluation understand the proper use of the
evaluation criteria and procedures.
Documented:
Processes for providing timely feedback to the individual being evaluated.
Description of how results from the evaluation system will be used for
professional development.
Requirement for participation in specific professional development programs
Citrus Page 31 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
by those who have been evaluated as less than effective.
All school administrators must be evaluated at least once a year.
For school administrators:
Inclusion of opportunities for parents to provide input into performance
evaluations when the district determines such input is appropriate.
Description of the district’s criteria for inclusion of parental input.
Description of manner of inclusion of parental input.
Description of the district’s peer assistance process, if any.
Description of an opportunity for instructional personnel to provide input into
a school administrator’s evaluation, if any.
District Evaluation Procedures
The district has provided and meets the following criteria:
That it’s evaluation procedures comply with s. 1012.34(3)(c), F.S., including:
That the evaluator must submit a written report of the evaluation to the
district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee’s
contract.
That the evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later
than 10 days after the evaluation takes place.
That the evaluator must discuss the written evaluation report with the
employee.
That the employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the
evaluation and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his
or her personnel file.
That district evaluation procedures require the district school superintendent to
annually notify the Department of any school administrators who receive two
consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and to notify the Department of any
school administrators who are given written notice by the district of intent to
terminate or not renew their employment, as outlined in s. 1012.34, F.S.
District Self-Monitoring
The district self-monitoring includes processes to determine the following:
Evaluators’ understanding of the proper use of evaluation criteria and
procedures, including evaluator accuracy and inter-rater reliability.
Evaluators provide necessary and timely feedback to employees being
evaluated.
Evaluators follow district policies and procedures in evaluation system(s).
The use of evaluation data to identify individual professional development.
The use of evaluation data to inform school and district improvement plans.
Citrus Page 59 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Appendix C – Observation Instrument
Citrus Page 60 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Appendix D – Administrator Summative Evaluation
Citrus Page 61 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Appendix E – Developing Rubric for Deliberate Practice Plan
Citrus Page 62 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Appendix F – Rating Rubric for Deliberate Practice Plan
Citrus Page 63 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)
Appendix G – Deliberate Practice Plan Template
Eileen L. McDaniel Bureau Chief, Educator Recruitment, Development & Retention
www.fldoe.org
325 W. Gaines Street | Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 | 850-245-0562 © 2014, Florida Department of Education. All Rights Reserved.
<Start Text Here>
August 11, 2016 Sandra C. Himmel, Superintendent Citrus County Schools 1007 West Main Street Inverness, Florida 34450-4625 Dear Superintendent Himmel: Thank you for submitting amendments to your district’s School Administrator Evaluation System. Your amendments to the Citrus County Schools’ evaluation system for school administrators have been approved for 2015-16. The department appreciates your continued leadership in your district and throughout the state for the benefit of all of our students. At your earliest convenience, please ensure that district staff update your district’s website with the 2015-16 revised School Administrator Evaluation System that was approved by the department and send the URL link to DistrictEvalSysEQ@fldoe.org. For questions or concerns, please contact Eileen McDaniel Eileen.McDaniel@fldoe.org (850-245-0562) or Jason Graham Jason.Graham@fldoe.org (850-245-0546). Sincerely,
Eileen L. McDaniel ELM/jgd cc: Suzanne Swain, Director of Human Resources
State Board of Education Marva Johnson, Chair John R. Padget, Vice Chair Members Gary Chartrand Tom Grady Rebecca Fishman Lipsey Michael Olenick Andy Tuck
Pam Stewart Commissioner of Education