1.  Developing a State Model for Student Support Services Personnel Evaluations Bureau of Exceptional Education & Student Services & Division of Educator Quality 1 Florida Department of Education

2.   Student Support Services  New Standard & Purpose of Personnel Evaluations  Evaluating Student Services Personnel – Student Success Act  Developing a State Model for Student Support Services Personnel Evaluations Overview 2

3.  Student Support Services 3

4.  Student Support Services Project 4

5.  New Standard & Purpose Personnel Evaluations Student Success Act 5

6.   Designed to support effective instruction and student learning growth  Results used in developing district and school level improvement plans  Results must be used when identifying professional development – Provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of professional skills  Identify teaching fields for which special evaluation procedures and criteria are necessary New Standard & Purpose for Personnel Evaluations 6

7.   Evaluations must differentiate among 4 levels of performance:  Highly Effective  Effective  Needs Improvement/Developing  Unsatisfactory  Measure sound educational principles and research in effective practice in three major areas:  Performance of students  Instructional Practice (FEAPs)  Professional & job responsibilities New Standard & Purpose for Personnel Evaluations 7

8.  Personnel Evaluations for Student Support Services Student Success Act 8

9.  Major Components of the Evaluation System Instructional Practice measured by the District’s Instructional Practice Framework Student performance measured by student learning growth Instructional Practice (50%) Performance of Students (50%) 9

10.  Evaluations for Non-classroom Instructional Personnel  Student performance (50%)  Student learning growth as assessed by statewide or district assessments  Combination of student learning growth data (30%) & other measureable student outcomes specific to the assigned position  Instructional practice (non-classroom instructional personnel)  Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs)  May include specific job expectations related to student support  Professional and job responsibilities 10

11.   FEAPs do not adequately reflect the job responsibilities & practices of student services personnel  Impact on student performance indirect  Student Services personnel typically assigned to multiple schools  Identifying and measuring student outcomes related to job Challenges for Student Services Personnel Evaluations 11

12.  Personnel Evaluations for Student Support Services Developing a State Model 12

13.   Develop an integrated evaluation system that establishes common practice standards for student services professions  Focus on “practice” component & evidence- based/research-based practices linked to student achievement and behavior  Provide districts with a State Model for Student Service Personnel Evaluations that can be adopted, adapted, or replaced by district model Purpose 13

14.   Student Success Act requires performance-based evaluations for instructional personnel – statute allows modifications for non-classroom instructional personnel  District requests for assistance in evaluations for non-classroom instructional person  Discussions between Division of Educator Quality & Student Support Services (BEESS) Need for Student Support Services Model 14

15.   Evaluation must address Student Services Practices (50%) and Student Growth (50%)  Evaluation must promote evidence-based practices & inform professional growth  Evaluation built on framework of a Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS)  Integrate practices across Student Services disciplines: School Counselors; School Social Workers; School Psychologists Non-negotiable 15

16.   Evaluation of Practices  Identification of Practice Domains  Identification of Practices  Indicators/Descriptors of levels of performance for each practice  Evaluation of Outcomes  Student growth – value-added (30%)  Student outcomes related to practices and job responsibilities(20%) Conceptual Model 16

17.   Focus on “practices” component  Crosswalk Professional Practice Standards with FEAPs, Professional Competencies, & Teacher/Principal models  Identify  Domains of practice; Practices; Indicators for each practice (levels of performance/proficiency)  Research/evidence supporting practice  Develop an evaluation rubric  Vet model rubric with key stakeholders Process – Developing Draft Model 17

18.   Division of Educator Quality & Student Support Services (BEESS)  Core Development Workgroup  District Coordinators from each of the Student Service disciplines  Develop Draft Model  Focus Group  Student Services Directors; Coordinators from Student Service disciplines; Administrators; Other stakeholders  Feedback on Draft Model Contributors to Development 18

19.  ActivityParticipantsDateComplete Draft SS accomplished practices SS Consultants & FDOE Jan 4, 2012 ✓ Develop Draft evaluation model SS ConsultantsJan 31, 2012 ✓ Feedback on Draft Model via Adobe Connect Core WorkgroupFeb 9, 2012 ✓ Face-to Face Meeting to develop Model Core WorkgroupMarch 8, 2012 Feedback on Draft Model via Adobe Connect Focus GroupMarch 22, 2012 Submit Draft Model to FDOE SS Consultants & FDOE March 29, 2012 State Model DistributionFDOEApril Process Action Plan 19

20.   Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS)  Data-based Decision Making and Evaluation  Collaboration, Communication, and Consultation  Professional Learning, Responsibility, & Ethics Domains & Practices 20

21. 21 Draft Evaluation Rubric

22.   Is this domain/practice clear?  Is there a suggestion for change?  As an evaluator of student services personnel, do you feel equipped to use this instrument to evaluate your staff (school counselor, school social worker, and/or school psychologist)? Review Rubric: Core Group 22

23.   Is this domain/practice clear?  Is there a suggestion for change?  As an evaluator of student services personnel, do you feel equipped to use this instrument to evaluate your staff (school counselor, school social worker, and/or school psychologist)? OR  As a university pre-service trainer, do you feel your institution’s current curricula adequately prepares graduates (school counselors, school social workers, and/or school psychologists) based on the practices described in this evaluation? Review Rubric: Focus Group 23

24.  Questions/Input 24