Leader Evaluation in Florida’s Charter Schools

1. Name of School Leader Evaluation in Florida’s Charter Schools An Overview: FCPCS School-Based Administrator Evaluation Model

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-Reflectionby 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. Student Learning Leader & Teacher Performance

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: professional growth 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 FCPCS School-Based Administrator Evaluation Model • Part V: Logistics & Support

9. Foundational Information

10. Rewards 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 workplace • Building 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 most • 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

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. Common Language of Instruction 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)

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.

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 FCPCS School-Based Administrator Evaluation Model

37. Structure of the Model Professional Growth

38. FCPCS School-Based Administrator Evaluation Model 4 Domains 10 Standards 50 Indicators

39. 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

40. School-Based Administrator Evaluation Rubric

41. Performance Ratings and Associated Scores Total Score Performance Rating 3.6 – 4.0 Highly Effective 3.0 – 3.5 Effective 2.0 – 2.9 Needs Improvement 1.0 – 1.9 Unsatisfactory

42. 80% Leadership Practice Score Formula Domains 1-3

43. Summative Performance Score

44. Performance Assessment Planning Administrators meet with their evaluators at the beginning of the year to analyze dataand develop a plan with annual measurable performance goals. Interim review dates with evaluators are decided and will consist of discussion and reflection to monitor progress toward the goal using formal and/or informal data. At the end of the year, a final review is held to examine student data, evidence of attainment on the goals, and areas for continued growth are also discussed.

45. Student Growth Measure? The Student Success Act requiresthe inclusion of student learning growth measures in teacher evaluations, and it tasks the education commissioner with identifying and implementing student growth models.

46. The Value-Added Model (VAM) Value-added is a statistical model that uses student-level growth scores to differentiate a leader’s performance in the area of student learning growth.

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

48. 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.

49. VAMScores Students who meet their expected performance level Students who exceed their expected performance level Students who fall below their expected performance level

50. The Value-Added Model (VAM) This overall percent is transferred to a scale which provides a rating for the administrator at highly effective, effective, needs improvement, or unsatisfactory.