A few tips!

Teacher Evaluation System for Floridas Charter Schools

An Overview: The State ModelName of School

The Leadership and Learning CenterThis presentation is based on the State Model for Teacher Evaluation and is designed for use by Charter school leaders to help them inform their teachers about the evaluation system the school will use in the coming year. A leader 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 leader make copies of the school teacher evaluation system and have them accompany the slides here. State Department documents including Common Language, FEAPs, High Effect Size, Research Frameworks and others related to teacher evaluation are also available on the HMH support website to be used with the slides should a leader desire to share them with the staff.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 teacher evaluation systems.FEAPs Florida Educator Accomplished PracticesCommon LanguageHigh Effect Size PracticesReview the requirements in the evaluation system. Discuss the timelines and logistics for implementation of the system.

Presenter-share the objectives for your session. You may edit thee to meet your specific needsFEAPs, Common Language, and High Effect Size documents may be found on the HMH support website6

Objectives for TodayExamine and discuss the additional metric: deliberate practice Discuss and understand performance metricsValue-added measureInstructional practice

7Todays Agenda Part I: Foundational Information Part II: Requirements Part III: Contemporary Research Part IV: The State Model Part V: Logistics & SupportFoundational InformationThis section of the presentation will provide participants with foundational information important to understanding whey 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 - you 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 736 most pertinent to teacher 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% is 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 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.

Teacher Evaluation Requirements

Part II provides teachers with the requirements upon which your evaluation system was built.19

Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (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- you may want to have the full document available for teachers and create a learning activity around for deep understanding. 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 InstructionClearly stated in FEAPs is the desire to have a common language of instruction throughout the state of Florida. The next four slides address the common language content and goal. The full Common Language document is available on the HMH support website. You may want to have copies available and engage teachers in an activity which requires that they dig into the document.

21Common 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.Causal Instructional Strategies

Key strategies revealed by research to have the highest probability of impacting student learning when used appropriately and in appropriate instructional contexts. These are the controllable actions in a school that impact student learning. DOE Form No. EQEVAL-2012-4

ADMR TM (p.40)

Examples of Common Language Causal instructional strategies is a term pulled from the common language document. It is a term that is used often in both leader and teacher evaluation systems.

23Learning Goal(s)

A learning goal is a statement of what learners will know and/or be able to do. In teaching situations, effective teachers state learning goals in a rubric (or scale) format where ascending levels of proficiency of the goal are specified. The rubric form guides learners in self-assessment of progress toward mastery of the goal and guides teachers in tracking student progress and providing feedback on progress toward accomplishing the goal.

DOE Form No. EQEVAL-2012-4

ADMR TM (p.40)Examples of Common Language

Another term from the common language document appears on this slide. Learning goals with scales are a large part of the state model for teacher evaluation and it also has a significant presence in the leader evaluation. It is important for all teachers and leaders to become familiar with the terms in the common language document so that everyone understands what is expected of them.

Presenter- you may choose additional or different words to focus on based on your context and work as a school.

24High-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 training. It is suggested that some time be spent on high effect size practices in multiple trainings throughout the year. In addition to the state document, Robert Marzanos Art and Science of Teaching, and John Hatties Visible Learning 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.High-Effect Size Practices

Classroom teachers need a repertoire of strategies with a positive effect size so that what they are able to do instructionally, after adapting to classroom conditions, has a reasonable chance of getting positive results. The quote here is pulled directly from the state document on high effect size practices. The visual is from Hatties Visible Learning. The barometer on the screen illustrates the various effect sizes and impact they have on student learning. Negative ES means that students actually loose ground in their learning when these practices are used. For example- summer vacation has a negative impact on student learning. They actually loose ground when they go home for the summer. It is highly suggested that all schools have a copy of this groundbreaking book.

What works BEST?

Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning. Rutledge. New YorkThe zone of desired effects, in the blue, illustrates the impact of high effect size practices when used consistently and with fidelity. A 0.40 ES will give you better than average results. A 0.60 ES and higher will give you 2-3 years of learning in one years time. The research on high effect size practices helps us maximize the effects of our teaching. We are not seeking what works, rather, we are seeking what works BEST. More info on this can be found in Hatties book

Contemporary Research on Teacher Evaluation

Part III explores what research forms the foundation for teacher evaluation in Florida. The next 6 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 development, growth and learning of teachers through evaluation systems. The primary sources of information come from research from Marzanos Lab and Charlotte Danielsons Framework for Teaching. The state of FL took parts of both to create a comprehensive system. The Research Framework document is available on the HMH support website. The following slides provide more detail on this.

29

Research frameworks pre-approved by the Department are:Based on contemporary researchAligned with the Student Success Act, 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. Research Frameworks for Instructional Evaluation

Behavioral Framework

Based on research and meta-analyses by Dr. Robert Marzano, Dr. John Hattie, and other research findings that identify instructional strategies or behaviors that, done correctly and in appropriate circumstances, have a positive probability of improving student learning.

This information was pulled from the Departments document on Research Frameworks which is available for your use. This slide provides just an overview of the approach FL is taking with their eval systems. More on the framework can be found on Marzanos website.Constructivist Framework

Based on research and meta-analyses by Dr. Charlotte Danielson, Dr. Albert Miller, and other research findings that focus on principles and methods of instruction designed to generate knowledge and meaning from an interaction between their experiences and their ideas.

Another approach is known as the Constructivist approach. More info is available on Danielsons website.Based on a merger of both Behavioral and Constructivist insights into quality instruction. Relies on Behavioral Framework strategies to establish a core repertoire of teaching competencies and Constructivist methods for planning instructional units, collegial work on adapting core strategies to local conditions, and deliberate practice work for deepening expertise.

Comprehensive Framework

This model represents a effective blend of the two models and defines the approach FL decided to in re to teacher evaluation. The evidence and current literature supports this decision.

The Florida state model relies on:

Behavioral Framework strategies to establish a core repertoire of teaching competencies.Constructivist methods for planning instructional units, collegial work on adapting core strategies to local conditions, and deliberate practice work for deepening expertise.

Presenter you may want to go deeper into this topic in which case you could ask for your teachers to engage in reflection and group discussion____ Charter School Evaluation ModelFlorida State ModelPart IV- Your Model. In this case, the slides are based on the state model, which you have adopted for your school. Put your school name on the slide. This begins the discussion about the evaluation model you are using.35The Model is Based on Contemporary Research New research conducted in 2012 by Learning Sciences International and the Marzano Research Laboratory has examined the reliability of classroom observations using the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model. The results of four studies demonstrated positive correlations between the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model and student learning, with the first three focusing on state test scores.

Presenter: Below is some of the current research supporting the use of this model for teacher evaluation in FL.According to a Marzano Center white paper entitled, Contemporary Research Based for the Marzano Casual Teacher Evaluation Model, 2012, the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model is used in whole or in part in 50 states, Canada, Australia, and in countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. The research has yielded more than 1,000 effect sizes for specific strategies associated with Domain 1 of the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model. A synthesis of more than 300 studies indicates that on average, the strategies addressed were associated with an effect size of .42, with some studies reporting effect sizes of 2.0 and higher. An effect size of .42 is associated with a 16 percentile point gain in student achievement (Haystead and Marzano, 2009). Other studies have correlated those same specific strategies, used by individual teachers, with student achievement growth as measured by state test scores. Finally, new research conducted in 2012 by Learning Sciences International and the Marzano Research Laboratory has examined the reliability of classroom observations using the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model. This report summarizes four recent studies: What Works in Oklahoma Schools (Marzano Research Laboratory, 2011), The Adams 50 Instructional Model Study (Marzano Research Laboratory, 2011), Report on Professional Development (Marzano Research Laboratory, 2010), and Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement (Marzano Research Laboratory, 2009), each of which examined the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model in working classrooms. These four studies all demonstrated positive correlations between the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model and student learning, with the first three focusing on state test scores. Additionally, this report summarizes the meta-analytic synthesis of more than 300 experimental/control studies conducted by practicing teachers in the classroom. Finally, this report details a series of studies on the reliability of observations using research from Marzano as the basis for the State Teacher Evaluation Model.

The Florida State Model for Evaluation for Teachers Reflects teacher performance across all elements (4 domains)Accounts for teachers experience levelsAssigns weight to the domain with greatest impact on student achievement (Domain 1)Acknowledges deliberate practice by measuring teacher improvement over time on specific elements within the frameworkThese are the non-negotiables for teacher evaluation they are required by the state.Florida State ModelFramework for Teacher EvaluationDomain 1: Classroom Strategies & Behaviors

Routine segmentsContent segmentsOn the spot segments

41 elementsDomain 2: Planning & Preparation

Lesson and unitsUse of materials & technologySpecial needs of students

8 elementsDomain 3: Reflecting on Teaching

Evaluating personal performanceProfessional growth plan

5 elementsDomain 4: Collegiality & Professionalism

Promoting positive environmentPromoting exchange of ideasPromoting district and school development6 elementsTotal 60 Elementswww.stlucie.k12.fl.us/The state model contains 4 domains and 60 elements. Discuss the four domains and the weighting on Domain 1 which by nature of the number of elements in Domain 1 makes it the most heavily weighted. Have copies of your model on hand for the participants and direct them to the appropriate sections as you discuss the model.Using your Domain 1 as a model - Point out the 3 segments, design questions, and elements to the participants

Sample Evidence to Support RatingDomain 1: Classroom Strategies & BehaviorsDomain 2: Planning & PreparingDomain 3: Reflecting on Teaching

Formal observation(s)Informal ObservationsStudent Interviews/SurveysVideos of classroom practiceArtifacts (e.g. student work, letters from parents)Pre-observation conferenceLesson Planning DocumentsEvidence of differentiationArtifacts (e.g. student work samples, assessments, scales, rubrics)Self-assessmentPost-observation conferenceIndividual Professional Development Plan (IPDP)ConferencesStudent Work SamplesProfessional Learning Community AgendasParticipation in School Activities LogLesson Study AgendasDocumentation of Parent Involvement/CommunicationLeading Professional DevelopmentDomain 4: Collegiality & ProfessionalismSource: St. Lucie County School District Teacher Performance Appraisal System Documents, 2012The scores on the domains and elements must be based on evidence, not conjecture or opinion. This chart shows sample evidence that is used in St. Lucie County to support the ratings and scores for their teachers. Presenter, it is suggested that you replace the evidence shown here with evidence that will be relevant to your teachers work.

Schools have some choice is the types of acceptable evidence they encourage teachers and leaders to collect for each of the domains. Let staff know what evidence you are looking for as they are evaluated on the 60 elements and 4 domains.43210Formative Ratings Used for Each Domain ElementInnovatingApplyingDevelopingBeginningNot UsingConverting Formative to Summative Ratings4321Required Ratings for Each Domain ElementHighly EffectiveEffectiveNeeds Improvement/ Developing UnsatisfactoryFormative RatingsState Required RatingsThe state model formative ratings for the elements are seen on the slide. The observation forms and tools all contain this language, as well as rubrics on how to distinguish one rating from another. In the end, the observer must convert the formative ratings into the state required summative ratings of highly effective, effective, needs improvement / developing or unsatisfactory.

Schools using the state model should use the Marzano rating system, as it is an intrical part of the system. But, the ratings must be converted on the summative evaluation in order to be in compliance with S.B. 736.Data Collection for Status ScoreRatingsDomain 1Domain 2Domain 3Domain 4Highly Effective //// (4)/// (3)// (2)/ // (3)

Effective //////////////// (16)//// (5)/////// (7)//// (4)

Needs Improvement/Developing

/////// (7)////// (6)// (2)// (2)

Unsatisfactory

Weights (0)

X 68% (0)

X 13% (0)

X 8% (0)

x 10%Totals

12

32

17

0

61Presenter- this is an example of how data can be collected and scored throughout the year.Data points collected across the course of the year are charted by domain and performance rating. Multiple data points can be generated by one observation. For example, one observation might generate 15 data points in any of the 4 domains or practice elements. The performance or behavior of the teacher on each of the elements is rated and converted to the required 4 ratings from the state. This data is charted by domain and rating to illustrate where the majority of the ratings are falling. In this example, there are a total of 61 data points. 10 of the teacher behaviors were rated highly effective in domains 1-4 and are plotted accordingly. 29 of the data point have the teacher at effective in all four domains and so on. An important reminder is that the domains are not equally weighted. Marzano recommends the weighting on the bottom of the slide based on the % of items from the total in each domain, however, charter schools may use a different weighting system as long as the instructional strategies domain carries more weight than the others.Presenter, explain how your weighting system works using your documents, if different from the example on the slide.

These calculations can be done by hand, however, most districts are using some type of electronic calculating system. I Observations, truenorthlogic, and others are just a few. So we have to add the weights to the equation.

Proficiency Scales by ExperienceDomainsHighly Effective (4)Effective (3)Needs Improvement (2)Unsatisfactory (1)Combined1 - 4At least 65% and 0% at Levels 1 or 065% or higherLess than 65% at Level 3 or higher and less than 50% at Level 1 or 0Greater than 50% at Level 1 or 0Category 1 Teachers: 1-3 years experienceDomainsHighly Effective (4)Effective (3)Needs Improvement (2)Unsatisfactory (1)Combined1 - 4At least 75% and 0% at Levels 1 or 065% or higherLess than 65% at Level 3 or higher and less than 50% at Level 1 or 0Greater than 50% at Level 1 or 0DomainsHighly Effective (4)Effective (3)Needs Improvement (2)Unsatisfactory (1)Combined1 - 4At least 85% and 0% at Levels 1 or 085% or higherLess than 85% at Level 3 or higher and less than 50% at Level 2, 1 or 0Greater than 50% at Level 2, 1 or 0Category 2 Teachers: 4 or more yearsCategory 3 Teachers: 10 or more years (optional)Source: SB 763, 2011/St. Lucie County School District Teacher Performance Appraisal System Documents, 2012

Per the SB 736 and RtTT, the teacher evaluation system must honor and recognize teacher experience levels in the rating and scoring system. This chart shows that recognition. To be an effective new teacher, with 1-3 years experience, at least 65% of the behavior ratings must fall in the effective range.

However, in order to be an effective veteran teacher of 4 or more years, 75% of the behavior ratings must fall in the effective column. And if a school chooses to rate teacher with 10 or more years experience, it will take 85% of the behavior rating in the effective column to earn an effective ratings. Category 3 level is optional.Presenter, use your documents and process if different from the one shown on the slide.

Give participants a few minutes to digest and discuss the varying requirements for teachers if differing levels of experience.State Model Evaluation MetricsInstructional Practice 50%The teachers performance on the 4 domains and 60 elements result in what the state calls a Status Score. The Status Scores counts 30% of the overall summative evaluation. The Status Score gets added to the Deliberate Practice score, and combined becomes the Instructional Practice score which accounts for 50%, or half, of the summative score at the end. The remaining 50% comes from student growth.

In the next few slides we will learn about deliberate practice and how it will work in our school.Deliberate Practice for TeachersTeachers take the leadCollaborate with the principal to identify personal growth goalsLeaders provide structure, resources, and feedback for ongoing practice

The end result is year to year development of instructional expertise giving rise to improved student achievement year to year.

Deliberate practice is a term from contemporary research which indicates practice on a very specific skill which will make the overall performance much more effective. Many writers such as Fullan, Marzano, Dan Pink, Geoff Colvin, Doug Reeves and others define deliberate practice as thin slices of work that help a person become a master at their craft. They say it takes 10,000 hours to become a master! In the state of FL, deliberate practice goals serve as an additional metric in the evaluation system. It fulfills that constructivist piece of the comprehensive evaluation system. As we work to learn more about deliberate practice, it is important to keep a few things at the forefront of our thinking. These things are on the slide. DP is similar to the professional growth plans we have done in the past, but DP goes deeper and is monitored more closely for success on stated targets.Deliberate Practice ProtocolThe process of deliberate practice, as intended, is an ongoing process, with multiple interactions between teachers and evaluators. Presenter- show teachers the DP process you will be using at your school. Explain your process of DP, how it will be scored and the timeline associated with the implementation.Presenter: you might ask teachers this question: What if anything distinguishes this approach from the typical professional development plan?State Model Evaluation MetricsInstructional Practice 50%Source: SB 763, 2011So on the slide, you see again that DP accounts for 20% of the Instructional Practice score which counts 50% in the overall summative score at the end of the year.

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 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 teacher 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 teachers 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 teachers based on a single year of student performance or evaluate teachers 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 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.

The higher % of the VAM scores at 0 or higher, the higher score for the teacher on the student growth portion of the evaluation system.The final VAM number given to a teacher will be the combined scores of all of the students by which he or she is measured.

The Value-Added Model (VAM)This overall percent is transferred to a scale which provides a rating for the teacher at highly effective, effective, needs improvement / developing, 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. Presenter- show the teachers your score range.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 of 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.53State Model Evaluation MetricsInstructional Practice 50%Source: SB 763, 2011This graph depicts the student growth metric at 50% of the overall summative rating. It is added to the Instructional Practice score for a total of 100%. This formula is to be used for all instructional staff in the school including the leaders, library/media specialists, counselors, coaches, etc. Presenter: you might ask the group how this scoring process is similar or different from practices in the past. Lead a discussion using their comments. LogisticsHow will our system work?Part V- this section of the presentation is intended for leaders to share the nuts and bolts on how their system will work. Who will do what by when? What will teachers do at various points in the year? What should they expect from the leader in the way of support? How will they receive feedback? What forms will be used? And so on. Presenters should share all of the information in their approved model, and should share the details at this point in the presentation with the staff. 55Implementation Components & TimelinesDuring the summer or early fallThroughout the YearEnd of first semesterEnd of YearThis graphic is a basic depiction of the 7 step evaluation process on an annual basis. It is suggested that specific dates be added to the graphic and details unique to your system be shared.56Our Plan to Support Teacher Learning and Development

This slide is intended to prompt presenters to lay out the professional development plan for the year which will build capacity of the staff to perform well on the evaluation domains and elements. Each schools plan will be different, based on their current status, needs, challenges and focus. Presenters should add slides here to highlight major components of the plan.57

Once all of the prior information has been shared, teachers will be curious about what comes next. What is the first thing they should do and what will be the first thing their leader will do to implement the cycle. One of the first steps after this orientation session, should be the completion of the self-assessment. Teachers should be given instructions on how to complete the self-assessment, by when, and submitted to whom? They should also have some indication when conferences will be held to go over the results with their supervisor.58Questions & Reflection