1. VAM Primer

2. Agenda History Statute Files provided to Districts
Model Performance and Results 2

3. History 3

4. Florida’s Value-Added Model Was Developed by Florida Educators
The Student Growth Implementation Committee (SGIC) was originally composed of 27 members from across the state, selected from over 250 volunteers, including:
Teachers (across various subjects and grade levels, including exceptional student education, and union)
School-level administrators
District-level administrators (assessment, HR, superintendent, school board)
Postsecondary teacher educators
Representative from the business community
Parent representative
The SGIC met regarding the FCAT model from March-June 2011
Meetings were webcast live. See all materials and videos/recordings of committee proceedings at
The SGIC’s recommended model for FCAT data was fully adopted by the Commissioner of Education in June 2011 as Florida’s FCAT Value-added Model with no additions, deletions, or changes

5. Florida’s Value-Added Model Was Developed by Florida Educators
After exploring eight different types of value-added models, the SGIC recommended a model from the class of covariate adjustment models.
This model begins by establishing expected growth for each student which is based on:
Historical data each year
The typical growth, by grade and subject, among students who have earned similar test scores the past two years, and share the other characteristics controlled for by the model
To isolate the impact of the teacher on student learning growth, the model developed by the SGIC and approved by the Commissioner accounts for:
Student Characteristics
Classroom Characteristics
School Characteristics 5

6. Changes Since VAM was Created
Originally, the performance of students component of a teacher’s evaluation was required to comprise at least 50% of the evaluation.
In 2015, HB 7069 reduced this requirement to 1/3.
From to , districts were required to use VAM data for teachers who received scores, but could decide for themselves how to do so
During , districts were required to use the measures and performance level standards adopted by the State Board under Rule 6A , FAC for teachers who received VAM scores
In 2017, HB 7069 amended s , FS to make use of VAM data optional

7. Statute 7

8. Overview
Performance of students is required by law to be included in educator evaluations (s , FS)
For about 1/3 of classroom teachers, a VAM score is produced
Districts have locally approved evaluation systems that describe how VAM scores will be used in their teachers’ and administrators’ evaluations

9. Evaluation Procedures
Section , F.S., Personnel evaluation procedures and criteria
Section 3 – Evaluation procedures and criteria;
Must be based upon the performance of students assigned to the educator’s classrooms (teachers) or schools (administrators);
Must be conducted at least annually;
Must be based upon sound educational principals and contemporary research in effective educational practices; and 9

10. Evaluation Procedures (Continued)
Section , F.S., Personnel evaluation procedures and criteria
Section 3 – Evaluation procedures and criteria;
Must include
Performance of students (at least 1/3)
Instructional practice/leadership (at least 1/3)
Other indicators of performance 10

11. Differentiation
Section (2)(e), F.S. specifically requires that evaluation systems:
Differentiate among four levels of performance as follows:
Highly Effective.
Effective.
Needs improvement or, for instructional personnel in the first 3 years of employment who need improvement, developing.
Unsatisfactory. 11

12. VAM Models
Currently, VAM models are generated annually for the following subjects and grades:
English language arts (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th)
Mathematics (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th)
Algebra 1 (8th & 9th) 12

13. Covariates ELA/Mathematics Number of subject relevant courses
Up to 2 prior test scores
Disabilities
English language learner status
Gifted status
Attendance
Mobility
Difference from modal age of peers in the same grade
Class size
Similarity of prior test scores among students in the class 13

14. Covariates (Continued)
Algebra I covariates – same as ELA and Mathematics except 3 more are added:
Average prior test score on most recent test among students in the class
Percent of students in the class who are gifted
Percent of students in the class who are younger or older than the majority of students in the class 14

15. 3 year aggregate combined VAM score - ELA/Mathematics
Primary VAM Measures
3 year aggregate combined VAM score - ELA/Mathematics
Individual grade and subject VAM score - Algebra I
Standard errors
Percent meeting expectations 15

16. Value-Added Results and Scores
The formula produces a value-added score for a teacher, which reflects the average amount of learning growth of the teacher’s students above or below the expected learning growth of similar students in the state, using the variables accounted for in the model.
A score of “0” indicates that, on average, students performed no better or worse than expected based on the factors in the model
A positive score indicates that students, on average, performed better than expected
A negative score indicates that students, on average, performed worse than expected 16

17. Standard Error
An estimate of a teacher’s impact on student learning (the score) contains some Variability.
The standard error is a statistical term that describes that variability.
Using the standard error to construct a confidence interval around a score (like the +/-3 points in an opinion poll) is a good statistical practice that can assist in increasing the accuracy of classification decisions. 17

18. Value-Added Performance-Level Standards18

19. Files Provided to Districts19

20. VAM Files Generally available by the end of the 1st week in August.
Uploaded to sharefile for retrieval by district users authorized to view PII at both teacher and student level.
Each district receives a package of 74 data files containing student, teacher, school, district, statewide and model-level results.
There is also a “Read Me” file. The “FileContents” tab provides an overview of all of these files.
Other tabs in the “Read Me” file contain layouts and descriptions of the variables contained in each of the major file types. 20

21. Primary VAM Files These include: Teacher_Aggregation_3yr
Teacher_Alg_Grade9
Teacher_Alg_Grade8
School_Aggregation_3yr (1yr and 2yr scores may be appropriate for administrators who have not been at the school for all 3 years) 21

22. Teacher_Aggregation_3yr VAM File
Primary fields of interest include:
Agg_vam_combined_cattxt
Agg_vam_combined_catscr
Fewer_than_10
HOSS
Flag_1314, Flag_1415, Flag_1516 22

23. Teacher_Alg VAM files Primary fields of interest include:
Teacher_vam_estimate_catttxt
Teacher_vam_estimate_catscr
Fewer_than_10
HOSS 23

24. School_Aggregation VAM files
Primary fields of interest include:
Agg_vam_combined_cattxt
Agg_vam_combined_catscr
HOSS
Flag_1314, Flag_1415, Flag_1516 24

25. After reviewing if you still have questions about how to use these files, Call (850) or 25

26. Model Performance & Results26

27. R-squared Measures 27

28. Historical Percent of Variance Explained Trends28

29. Share of Students Scoring at or Above Expected Score29

30. Share of Students Scoring at or Above Expected Score- English Language Arts30

31. Share of Students Scoring at or Above Expected Score – Mathematics and Algebra 1
About 7 in 10,000 students has a predicted score above the test score ceiling.
About 1 in 5,000 students has a predicted score above the ceiling and scored at the ceiling. 31

32. Average Growth (Scale Score Units)32

33. Score Classification 33

34. Score Classification Two Year Comparison34

35. Historical Impact Analysis Trends - ELA35

36. Historical Impact Analysis Trends - Math36

37. Historical Impact Analysis Trends – Algebra 1 (9th Grade)37

38. VAM & Mean Prior Test Score38

39. VAM & Economically Disadvantaged39

40. VAM & % with Disabilities

41. VAM & % English Language Learners41

42. VAM & % Non-White 42

43. VAM & % Gifted 43

44. VAM & % With Expected Scores Above HOSS44

45. 2015-16 Final Evaluation Rating Compared to VAM Score Classification45

46. https://app1.fldoe.org/rules/default.aspx OR 46