1. The Leadership and Learning Center ® Leader Evaluation in Florida’s Charter Schools An Overview: The Florida School Leader Assessment Name of School

2. What do we need to know about educator evaluation in charter schools?

3. 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).

4. This New Approach to Evaluation Supports 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).

5. Leader & Teacher Performance Student Learning

6. Objectives for Today  Examine foundational statutes and rules related to leader evaluation systems. FPLS – Florida Principal Leadership Standards FEAPs – Florida Educator Accomplished Practices Common Language High-Effect Size Practices MTSS – Multiple Tiered System of Supports  Review the requirements in the evaluation system.

7. Objectives for Today  Discuss the timelines and logistics for implementation of the system.  Examine and discuss the additional metric: deliberate practice.  Discuss and understand performance metrics. Value-added measure Leadership practice

8. Today’s Agenda Part I: Foundational Information Part II: Rationale & Requirements Part III: Contemporary Research Part IV: The Florida School Leadership Assessment (FSLA) Part V: Logistics & Support

9. Foundational Information

10. Rewards states leading the way in comprehensive, coherent, statewide education reform across four key areas: 1.Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace 2.Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals how to improve instruction 3.Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most 4.Turning around their lowest-performing schools

11. 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.

12. Senate Bill 736: Student Success Act

13. SB 736 Requires  DOE approve school district evaluation systems & monitor for compliance  DOE provide requirements and criteria for evaluation systems  Charter schools comply with provisions related to performance evaluations

14. SB 736 Requires  District evaluation systems  Support effective instruction & student learning growth  Provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous improvement  Use data from multiple sources, including input from parents

15. SB 736 Requires  Four levels of performance (highly effective, effective, *needs improvement, unsatisfactory)  At least **50% of the evaluation is based on student learning growth  Based on contemporary research  Indicators based on each of the FEAPS

16. SB 736 Requires  DOE annual reports to the public on performance ratings including the percent of teachers and leaders receiving each rating.  School reports to parents when their child’s teacher or principal has received unsatisfactory ratings for two consecutive years.

17. SB 736 Requires  The state Board of Education shall adopt rules… to establish uniform procedures for the submission… and approval of evaluations of teachers and leaders.

18. SBE Rule 6A-5.065 The Educator Accomplished Practices Florida'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.

19. Rationale & Requirements

20. What all school leaders need to know about the FPLS and FSLA

21. SBE Rule 6A-5.080 Florida Principal Leadership Standards Florida’s core expectations for effective school administrators They represent skill sets and knowledge bases needed in effective schools

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

23. Development of the Collaborative statewide process engaging a broad cross- section of stakeholders Extensive opportunities for public review and input 2005 FPLS informed by historical patterns of what principal’s jobs entailed 2011 FPLS informed by gap analyses comparing issues in the 2005 standards to contemporary leadership research and practitioners input on best practice 2011 FPLS are modeled after the 2010 FEAPs adding clarifying and defining descriptors to address gaps in the 2005 standards

24. The 10 Florida Principal Leadership Standards

25. The FPLS: Sample Standard

26. Unwrapping Example

27. The Florida Principal Leadership Standards Form the foundation for school leader: Personnel evaluations Professional development Preparation programs Certification requirements

28. Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPS)

29. 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 Instruction

30. Common Language …a tool of master practitioners in any profession that is used to facilitate effective communications about the essential concepts and practices of the profession.

31. High-Effect Size Practices Contemporary research reveals a core of instructional and leadership strategies that have a higher probability than most of positively impacting student learning in significant ways.

32. 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.www.fldoe.org/profdev/pa.asp

33. Contemporary Research

34. Research frameworks pre-approved by the Department are: -based on contemporary research. -aligned with the Senate Bill 736, the FEAPs or FPLS, as appropriate.

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

36. Charter School Evaluation Model Florida School Leader Assessment (FSLA)

37. Structure of the FSLA Professional Growth

38. Florida School Leader Assessment Domain (4) Proficiency (10) Indicator (45) Indicator Proficiency Indicator

39. FSLA Domain 2 Proficiency Area 3 Indicator 3.2 Proficiency Area 3. Instructional Plan Implementation: Effective school leaders work collaboratively to develop and implement an instructional framework that aligns curriculum with state standards, effective instructional practices, student learning needs, and assessments. Indicator 3.2 – Standards-Based Instruction: The leader delivers an instructional program that implements the state’s adopted academic standards (Common Core and NGSSS) in a manner that is rigorous and culturally relevant to the students by:  aligning academic standards, effective instruction and leadership, and student performance practices with system objectives, improvement planning, faculty proficiency needs, and appropriate instructional goals, and  communicating to faculty the cause and effect relationship between effective instruction on academic standards and student performance.

40. Florida Performance Ratings Performance levels for summative rating must conform to the requirements of Section 1012.34, F.S. Highly Effective (HE) Effective (E) Needs Improvement (NI) Unsatisfactory (U) No “developing” for administrators

41. Four Performance Ratings Domain 1: Student Achievement ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Scale Levels: (choose one) Where there is sufficient evidence to rate current proficiency on an indicator, assign a proficiency level by checking one of the four proficiency levels. If not being rated at this time, leave blank. Proficiency Area 1 - Student Learning Results: Effective school leaders achieve results on the school’s student learning goals and direct energy, influence, and resources toward data analysis for instructional improvement, development and implementation of quality standards-based curricula. ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 1.1 – Academic Standards ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 1.2 – Performance Data ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 1.3 – Planning and Goal Setting ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 1.4 - Student Achievement Results ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Proficiency Area 2 - Student Learning as a Priority: Effective school leaders demonstrate that student learning is their top priority through effective leadership actions that build and support a learning organization focused on student success. ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 2.1 - Learning Organization ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 2.2 - School Climate ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 2.3 - High Expectations ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 2.4 - Student Performance Focus ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator ratings combine for a proficiency area rating, and proficiency area ratings combine for a domain rating.

42. Direct Weighting Direct Weighting: The FSLA score is based on ratings for each of four domains, but the system specifically gives added weight to Domain 2: Instructional Leadership: The weights are: Domain 1: Student Achievement: 20% Domain 2: Instructional Leadership: 40% Domain 3: Organizational Leadership: 20% Domain 4: Professional and Ethical Behavior: 20%

43. Leadership Practice Score

44. Summative Performance Score

45. Deliberate Practice for Leaders Principals collaborate with their evaluators to identify personal growth goals. Evaluators provide structure, resources, and feedback for ongoing practice.

46. Deliberate Practice Results in year to year development of instructional and leadership expertise giving rise to improved student achievement year to year.

47. Deliberate Practice Defined The state has described deliberate practice as a process in which the educator and the evaluator identify one to four specific and measurable priority-learning goals related to teaching, learning, or school leadership practices that impact student learning growth.

48. “…isolate remarkably specific aspects of what they do and focus on just those things until they are improved; then it’s on to the next aspect.” The Highest Performers Colvin, G. (2008) Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else

49. Deliberate Practice Protocol Setting Goals Focused Practice Focused Feedback Focused Practice Monitor Progress

50. 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.

51. 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.

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

53. 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.

54. VAM Scores Students who meet their expected performance level Students who fall below their expected performance level Students who exceed their expected performance level

55. 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.

56. 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 Florida’s Value- Added Model and how it should be used for teacher evaluations. Florida’s Value Added Model

57. Logistics How will the FSLA system work?

58. Step 1: Orientation Step 2: Pre- Evaluation Planning Step 3: Initial Meeting Between Evaluatee and Evaluator Step 4: Monitoring, Data Collection, and Application to Practice Step 5: Mid-Year Evaluation Between Evaluatee and Evaluator Step 6: Prepare A Consolidated Performance Assessment Step 7: Year-end Meeting Between Evaluatee and Evaluator FSLA Process Overview Improved Leadership Performance

60. Questions & Reflection