Completing the Classroom Teacher and Non-Classroom Teacher Evaluations for Presented by: The Office of Talent Development Employee Evaluations Department Heather Parente, Director Khandia Pinkney, Evaluation Coordinator Tanya Thompson, Evaluation Coordinator Farrah Wilson, Evaluation Coordinator Diego DeRose, Research Specialist

Procedures for presentation….. Live presentations will take place today, October 16 th at: 9:30 am, 11:00 am, 12:30 pm If Principals or District Supervisors have questions during the presentation, please the question(s) via CAB to Teacher Evaluations. Questions will be answered during the presentation. The presentation will be recorded and available as of Thursday, October 17, 2013 beginning at 9:00 am. The link will be ed directly to Principals and District Supervisors and available on our website.

Classroom and Non-Classroom Teachers The Overall Evaluation for Classroom and Non-Classroom Teachers was completed based on the following:

Instructional Practice Score

Classroom Teachers – Instructional Practice Score Classroom Teachers were observed through iObservation using Domain 1.

Non-Classroom Teachers – Instructional Practice Score Non-Classroom Teachers were observed/attended meeting and received Datamarks through iObservation using Domain 1.

All Teachers – Instructional Practice Score All teachers had the opportunity to earn datamarks within Domains 2, 3, and 4.

Instructional Practice Score Observations were conducted: Formal(30+ minutes) Informal(15-25 minutes) SnapShot(3-10 minutes) Pre-conferences, post-conferences, meetings and/or evidence was reviewed. All Teachers received Datamarks based on rubrics. The rubric ratings were: InnovatingApplyingDevelopingBeginningNot Using

Instructional Practice Score Datamarks were as follows: Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Needs Improvement (2) Unsatisfactory (1) InnovatingApplyingDevelopingBeginningNot Using

Instructional Practice Score Datamarks were calculated (averaged). Teachers received a Final Instructional Practice Score based on Datamarks in May, Administration met with classroom teachers to share Final Instructional Practice Scores: Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory

Instructional Practice Score Administrators shared the Instructional Practice Score within iObservation: The Instructional Practice Score was based on the scale: Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory

Student Growth Score/VAM Reminders Up to two prior years of achievement scores Number of subject-relevant courses in which student is enrolled Students with Disabilities status English Language Learner status Gifted status Attendance Mobility Difference from average age in grade (indicating retention) Class size Homogeneity of prior test scores in the class Note: Under State statute, socio-economic status, race, and gender cannot be used. For VAM model technical information, including the courses included, please go to this link on the DOE page. link Following is the list of student & classroom-level characteristics used in the state’s VAM model to calculate a student’s expected score:

Value-Added: The difference between the expected performance and the actual performance. Expected Score: Expected student performance after accounting for student and classroom characteristics through the VAM. Student Growth Score/VAM Reminders

Student Growth/VAM for Classroom Teachers

Classroom Teachers – Student Growth Score Assessments used in calculating the VAM Score: FCAT 4 th -10 th Grade Reading scores for Reading/Language Arts teachers. FCAT 4 th -8 th Grade Math scores for Math teachers. Classroom Teachers received a Student Growth score based on their own assigned students if: He/she taught FCAT students in Reading/Language Arts and/or Math. He/she had at least 10 VAM expected scores. He/she had at least 60% FCAT VAM eligible students (those with at least 2 years of FCAT scores). Classroom Teachers not meeting these conditions used the school-wide VAM score. NOTE: Students were included in the VAM model only if they were assigned to the teacher during Survey 2 AND Survey 3.

Classroom Teachers – Student Growth Score Example for Classroom Teacher using his/her own VAM score: 10 out of 20 students (50%) met/exceeded their expected score. The teacher’s percentage meeting/exceeding expectation was ranked within school level and subject area (analyses were conducted separately for Elem Reading, Elem Math, Elem Reading & Math, Middle Reading*, Middle Math*, and High Reading) The percentages were then converted to percentiles and teacher received a Student Growth rating based on the following scale: * Middle school teachers who taught both Reading and Math used the higher of their two subject area ratings for their final Student Growth Rating. Percentile Method (for Teachers using their own data) Highly Effective87 th – 99 th Percentile Effective9 th – 86 th Percentile Needs Improvement4 th – 8 th Percentile Unsatisfactory1 st – 3 rd Percentile

Example for Classroom Teacher using his/her school’s VAM score: 400 out of 800 students (50%) at the school met/exceeded their expected score. This percentage was used and the teacher received a Student Growth rating based on the following scale: Percentage Method (for Teachers using School or District data) Highly Effective87-99 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation Effective9-86 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation Needs Improvement4-8 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation Unsatisfactory1-3 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation Note 1: Remember, these are Classroom Teachers meeting one of the following criteria: (1) <60% of students FCAT VAM eligible, (2) <10 VAM expected scores, or (3) at a Center site. Note 2: For all school and district locations, the percent meeting/exceeding expectation was between 9% and 86%. Therefore, all classroom teachers using the school-wide VAM score received an "Effective" rating on their 40% Student Growth Rating. ** Please note that a teacher using the school score may or may not have the same rating as their administrator. Teachers’ Student Growth Score is based on a percentage and the administrators’ Student Growth Score is based on a percentile. Classroom Teachers – Student Growth Score

Student Growth Score/VAM: Ceiling Effect Adjustment A “ceiling effect” occurs when an assessment has a distinct upper limit and therefore a student near that upper limit has limited room for growth. This effect was noted in VAM calculations for teacher and school administrator evaluations. To adjust for this in for both FCAT Reading and Math, any student who achieved at Level 5 was counted as “meeting/exceeding expectation”, regardless of their VAM Expected Score. For each teacher and school administrator, the Student Growth analysis was calculated with and without the Ceiling Effect Adjustment, and the employee received the higher of the two Student Growth ratings.

Following is the 1 st classroom teacher data file you will receive via . Classroom Teachers – Student Growth Score Classroom Teacher VAM Student Growth Output Note 1: If teacher has individual student data within the first 9 columns of this table, the teacher received a VAM score based on his/her own student’s data; otherwise, the teacher has dashes in those columns and used school or district scores. Note 2: Attached to this file, administration will receive backup documentation describing the column headers and explaining the “Percentile” column. These can be used when meeting with classroom teachers to review their Student Growth Score and the Overall Final Score.

Following is the 2 nd classroom teacher data file you will receive via . Classroom Teachers – Student Growth Score Student by Student VAM Data, Note: Administration will only receive data in this file for those teachers who received a Student Growth/VAM score based on their own assigned students.

Classroom Teachers – Student Growth Score Now that Student Growth Scores have been received: Student Growth Ratings will be uploaded into iObservation. Those scores are as follows: Highly Effective = 4.0 Effective = 3.0 Needs Improvement = 2.0 Unsatisfactory= 1.0

Student Growth/VAM for Non-Classroom Teachers

Non-Classroom Teachers – Instructional Practice Score These are the Job Classifications used to identify Non-Classroom Teachers for : Assistive Tech. Program Specialist Family Counselor Autism CoachGuidance Counselor Behavior Program Specialist Guidance Director Behavioral Support TeacherSchool Psychologist Case ManagerSchool Social Worker Child Find Specialist Occupational Therapist Coaches (not athletic)Speech Language Pathologist Course Designer Online TeacherSpeech/Language Program Specialist Curriculum FacilitatorTeacher – Deaf & Hard of Hearing Educational DiagnosticianTeacher – Visually Impaired ESE Program Specialist Audiologist ESE Specialist Media Specialist ESE Support FacilitatorStaff Developer Grant FacilitatorStudio Teacher Instructional FacilitatorTeacher - Adult Student Support Instructional Technology FacilitatorTeacher - CTE Instructional Tech Support Intensive Reading TeacherTeacher - CTE Student Support Internal SuspensionTeacher – Hospital Homebound Magnet CoordinatorTeacher – Reading Intensive Monitor TeacherTeacher - on Special Assignment Pre-K Evaluation Program Specialist Teacher – Specialist, Early Childhood Program Monitor (Inser/Cur) Technology Specialist Reading Coach Test Developer Resource Teacher Virtual Teachers

Non-Classroom Teachers – Student Growth Score Student Growth will count 40% towards the final evaluation. Non-Classroom Teachers will use school or district scores depending on their work location in , and will receive a Student Growth rating based on following table: Note : For all school and district locations, the percent meeting/exceeding expectation was between 9% and 86%, with and without the Ceiling Effect Adjustment. Therefore, all non- classroom teachers received an "Effective" rating for their Student Growth Score. 40% Student Growth Score Highly Effective Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation Effective Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation Needs Improvement4 - 8 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation Unsatisfactory1 - 3 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation

Completing the Teacher Evaluations

Student Growth/VAM Supporting Documents Administration will receive the following information via . Classroom Teacher VAM Student Growth Output and Explanation Student by Student VAM Data (file name: #### TEACHER VAM DATA) Non-Classroom Teacher Student Growth Backup Documentation VAM Backup Documentation Student Growth and Overall Final scores will be uploaded into iObservation for each teacher

The Principal, Assistant Principal or District Supervisor meets with each teacher individually when giving him/her their evaluation. Complete the evaluation instrument by printing and signing the document. Use blue or black pen only. (Do not use pencil or colored ink.) All evaluations must be signed by the employee (or witness) and the Principal, Assistant Principal or District Supervisor. Completing the Final Evaluation for Classroom Teachers and Non-Classroom Teachers

Send Evaluations to Personnel Records: Principal/District Supervisor must print an Employee List from BI Reports and ensure that evaluations are completed for all employees by the required deadlines. The Employee List Report must be signed at the bottom by the Principal/District Supervisor verifying that an evaluation or memo has been completed for each employee. Principal/District Supervisor will send all original Classroom and Non-Classroom Teacher Final Evaluations to Personnel Records. Completing the Final Evaluation for Classroom Teachers and Non-Classroom Teachers

Teacher was at a different location last year: Complete the memorandum stating that the teacher was at a different location last year. Memorandum is attached to original Final Evaluation and sent to Personnel Records (along with all other Final Evaluations). Special Circumstances

Teachers who will not receive a Evaluation: The Principal or District Supervisor must submit a memo to Personnel Records stating that the employee will not be receiving an evaluation for because: The employee was not in attendance and/or actively teaching for one day more than half of the school year. OR The employee is on a Board Approved Leave. (Upon return, the teacher will receive the final evaluation for ) OR The employee was reassigned to an alternate location. (Upon return, the teacher will receive the final evaluation for ) OR The employee resigned/retired. Special Circumstances

Teachers who will not receive a Evaluation: Special Circumstances

Teacher refuses to sign: All evaluations must be signed by the employee (or witness) and the supervisor. If witnessed, supervisor signs and a witness (another administrator or confidential secretary): Witness writes, “Employee received a copy and chose not to sign.” Witness signs and dates the statement. Special Circumstances

Teacher files a grievance: Hold all signed Final Evaluations per the Grievance Procedure (at least 15 work days). Article 18 - Notification To Employee: Items may not be placed in an employee's official personnel file unless the item has been made known to the employee, pursuant to the methodology described in Florida Statute (2)(c). In addition, items challenged under the provisions of the grievance procedure may not be placed in the employee's file until the grievance has been resolved pursuant to the provisions of Article Thirty-Four of this contract. The employee shall have the right to respond to any item(s) to be placed in his/her personnel file and to have the response attached to such item. The employee's signature shall indicate only that he/she has read the item and shall not necessarily indicate agreement with its contents. Special Circumstances

The Principal/Assistant Principal Final Evaluations for will be released within the next few weeks. We will be ing you the details needed in order to complete these evaluations. School-Based Administrators

10/21/13 - Student Growth/VAM data will be ed to Principals/District Supervisors 10/21/13 - A Brainshark of this presentation will be posted on our website for teachers to view 10/28/13 - Final Evaluations for teachers will be available within iObservation 10/28/13 – Administrators may begin final evaluation conferences with each teacher 12/6/13 – All final evaluations are sent to Personnel Records * Timeline may be adjusted! Tentative Dates

Heather Parente Khandia Pinkney Farrah Wilson Tanya Thompson Diego DeRose Additional Questions…….