Florida Department of Education Briefing Kathy Hebda, Deputy Chancellor for Educator Quality Juan Copa, Director of Research and Analysis in Educator Performance John Moore, Director of Educator Retention Programs 1

Topics  Personnel Evaluation Systems Update  Status of District Approvals  Submitting and Amending Evaluation Systems  Rules Pertaining to Student Success Act  Data Reporting and Roster Verification  Upcoming Technical Assistance  Deliberate Practice  Common Core State Standards  Evaluating Professional Development  Learning Targets 2

Personnel Evaluation Systems Update  63 of 65 participating LEAs have fully approved teacher evaluation systems; 70 of all 72 districts/lab schools (yea!!)  All are implementing instructional practice  Expect the last 2 to be approved by next week (double yea!!)  Principal Evaluation Systems due May 1 st for review – all will have feedback from DOE within 30 days  Non-classroom instructional personnel evaluations – FDOE will notice a time span for submission of revised systems this summer  Revisions to teacher evaluation systems – FDOE will notice a time span for submission of revised systems, likely late summer/early fall, based on RTTT Scopes of Work and revisions to state board rules (will discuss further on next slides)  More information:   3

Rules Pertaining to Implementation of Section , F.S. Calculations of Student Learning Growth Using Statewide Assessment Data for Use in School Personnel Evaluations  New Rule 6A  The growth formulas selected by the Commissioner  “Specific, discrete” student learning growth standards for each performance level:  Highly effective and Effective – a standard that must be met in order for an employee to receive each rating, respectively  Unsatisfactory – a standard that if not met will result in the employee receiving an unsatisfactory performance evaluation rating  Commissioner must consult with experts, instructional personnel, school administrators and education stakeholders in developing the criteria for the performance levels  Uniform procedures for measurement of student learning growth and associated implementation procedures 4

DateEvent/Process August 1-2, 2011School district technical assistance meetings on Value-added model and delivery of three years of historical data to each district September 16, 2011Rule development noticed in Florida Administrative Weekly (FAW) September 30, 2011RTTT Participating LEA final evaluation systems documents submitted October 2011Analysis of district plans for student growth standards. Provide state assistance as needed for districts that are not successful in completing acceptable plans by the September 30 th deadline. December 2011Proposed rule text for use in evaluations for school year noticed in FAW March – May 2012Regional workshops on standard setting and possible state standards  Education on the standard setting process  Input from educators and the public on content of proposed standards rule  Development of proposed standards July 2012Value-added results calculated for all teachers and principals provided to districts to complete their personnel evaluations Final values for standards completed based on second year of FCAT 2.0 and Alg I EOC data; rule development workshop to be held via statewide conference call. August 2012Final rule with statewide standards for all performance levels presented to the SBOE for adoption. Standards applied to personnel evaluations for school year. Breakdown of Timeline for Rule 6A

Review of New Data Reporting Requirements  One revised data element in the staff information system  Personnel Evaluation  Five new data elements added to the staff information system  Personnel Evaluation, Instructional Practice Component  Personnel Evaluation, Instructional Leadership Component  Personnel Evaluation, Student Learning Growth Component  Personnel Evaluation, Professional and Job Responsibilities Component  Personnel Evaluation, Measures of Student Learning Growth 6

Review of New Data Reporting Requirements – Revised Element  Personnel Evaluation - A code to indicate the level of performance on the evaluation of the instructional staff member or school administrator status in accordance with Section , Florida Statutes  Adds codes to capture the new categories established in the Student Success Act  Highly Effective  Effective  Needs Improvement  Developing (for staff in first 3 years of employment)  Unsatisfactory  Must be reported on Survey 5; and Survey 3 for mid-year evaluations of newly hired teachers 7

Review of New Data Reporting Requirements – New Elements  (4 Elements) Personnel Evaluation, Component – A two- digit code indicating the percent of an instructional staff member or school administrator’s evaluation that is based on each component:  Instructional Practice  Instructional Leadership  Student Learning Growth  Professional and Job Responsibilities  Must be reported on Survey 5 8

Review of New Data Reporting Requirements – New Elements  Personnel Evaluation, Measures of Student Learning Growth – A code to indicate the measures upon which student learning growth, as defined by Section (7)(a)-(e) Florida Statutes, is based in the personnel evaluation of a classroom teacher or school administrator  Categories are:  Exclusively (100%) on statewide assessments  Exclusively (100%) on district-developed or district-selected end-of-course assessments  Exclusively (100%) on other standardized assessments, including nationally recognized standardized assessments  Exclusively (100%) on industry certification examinations  Exclusively (100%) on measureable learning targets  Combination of assessments, with the state assessments accounting for largest component  Combination of assessments, with the state assessments not accounting for the largest component  Must be reported on Survey 5 9

Requirements of the Student Success Act – Roster Verification Process Section (8), F.S., requires a process to permit instructional personnel to review the class roster for accuracy and to correct any mistakes relating to the identity of students for whom the individual is responsible  Florida is one of five states participating in a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grant to develop a tool for roster verification (“Teacher- Student Data Link” Project)  A web-based process has been developed whereby schools and teachers will have access to view rosters, based on data collected from school districts, and verify their accuracy Florida worked with a small group of districts (Hillsborough, Escambia, and NEFEC) to pilot this process with the Fall data collection (Survey 2) 10

Requirements of the Student Success Act – Roster Verification Process  Provides teachers the opportunity to review their rosters based on the data reported to the state via the survey process  Tool is an opportunity to confirm that the information is an accurate reflection of the class roster as of the survey reporting week  Teachers will have the ability to indicate whether a student should have been added or deleted from their class roster  Changes will be reported back to the state after school- level or district-level personnel confirm the changes 11

Requirements of the Student Success Act – Roster Verification Process  In an attempt to make the system as flexible as possible, the rosters for each class can be verified and edited at the district, school, or teacher level; it is up to the district to determine what works best for them  Additionally, recognizing that some districts may have local verification processes in place, we will provide an avenue for district to simply submit a verified/corrected file to the state at a specified time using a standard file format 12

Requirements of the Student Success Act – Roster Verification Process  Planned roll-out: Verification window to be open from early April (April 2, tentative) to the end of May (May 25, tentative)  Resulting MIS procedures will be adopted into existing Rule 6A , F.A.C.  An address has been set up to address questions specific to the process: 13

Upcoming Technical Assistance 14  Deliberate Practice  Intended audience – district redevelopment/PD teams  Incorporating deliberate practice component into IP  Groups of LEAs and consortia to schedule on their own for the summer  Common Core State Standards  Intended audience – principals and district administrators  Implementing CCSS, including evidence for classroom observations  Regional sessions to be held late June and throughout July  Evaluating Professional Development  Intended audiences – District PD, HR and Assessment teams, teacher leaders  Evaluating PD effectiveness using evaluation data and other information; integration with beginning teacher programs and other instructional coaching  New procurement ITN to be released next week; TA to begin in the summer and extend into years 3 and 4 of RTTT

Learning Targets (7)(e): For classroom teachers of courses for which the district has not implemented appropriate assessments under s (8) or for which the school district has not adopted an equally appropriate measure of student learning growth under paragraphs (b)-(d), student learning growth must be measured by the growth in learning of the classroom teacher’s students on statewide assessments, or, for courses in which enrolled students do not take the statewide assessments, measurable learning targets must be established based upon the goals of the school improvement plan and approved by the school principal. 15

Local Assessments (8) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.— (a) Measurement of the learning gains of students in all subjects and grade levels other than subjects and grade levels required for the state student achievement testing program is the responsibility of the school districts. (b) Beginning with the school year, each school district shall administer for each course offered in the district a student assessment that measures mastery of the content, as described in the state-adopted course description, at the necessary level of rigor for the course. Such assessments may include: 1. Statewide assessments. 2. Other standardized assessments, including nationally recognized standardized assessments. 3. Industry certification examinations. 4. District-developed or district-selected end-of-course assessments. 16

Learning Targets  Teachers for whom learning targets are required  Teachers teaching exclusively K, 1, and 2  Teachers teaching exclusively grades 11 and 12  Teachers for whom learning targets may be combined with other measures  Teachers teaching a combination of courses where an assessment is available and courses where an assessment is not available (and the assigned students do not take a state assessment)  For the courses where the required assessment is available, that data must be included  For the courses where only a learning target is available, the district may choose to use only the data from the required assessments, or may combine both – the district should explain this in their evaluation system 17

Example Learning Target Assessments Excerpted from Original LEA Evaluation System Documents:  Pre-K ESE  Brigance  Kindergarten, Grades 1 and 2  DEA Reading and DEA Math  FAIR (in combination with another measure)  School level assessments*  SAT 10  Interim assessments*  Grades 11 and 12  FAIR  Individual Teacher assessments*  School-wide assessments*  FCAT retakes  Interim assessments* 18

District Sharing  Other learning target sample assessments  Procedures for implementing learning targets  Setting targets –  Basis for targets – student goals, outcomes and standards  Procedures  Use of teacher time and contributions to school or classroom level assessments  Principal training and information  Others …? 19

For more information 20 Kathy Hebda, Deputy Chancellor for Educator Quality Juan Copa, Director of Research and Analysis in Educator Performance John Moore, Director of Educator Retention Programs Eileen McDaniel, Bureau Chief for Educator Recruitment, Development and Retention Todd Clark, Director of RTTT Assessments