Completing the Classroom Teacher and
Non-Classroom Teacher Evaluations
for
2012-2013
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 16th at:
• 9:30 am, 11:00 am, 12:30 pm
• If Principals or District Supervisors have questions during the presentation,
please email 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 emailed directly to Principals and District
Supervisors and available on our website.
Classroom and Non-Classroom Teachers
The 2012-2013 Overall Evaluation for Classroom and Non-Classroom
Teachers was completed based on the following:
60%
40%
Student
Growth
Instructional
Practice
Instructional Practice Score
2012-2013
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:
Innovating
Applying
Developing
Beginning
Not Using
Instructional Practice Score
•
Datamarks were as follows:
Innovating
Applying
Highly Effective
(4)
Developing
Effective
(3)
Beginning
Needs
Improvement
(2)
Not Using
Unsatisfactory
(1)
Instructional Practice Score
•
•
Datamarks were calculated (averaged).
Teachers received a Final Instructional Practice Score
based on Datamarks in May, 2013.
•
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
3.400 - 4.000
• Effective
2.450 - 3.399
• Needs Improvement 1.450 - 2.449
• Unsatisfactory
1.000 - 1.449
Student Growth Score/VAM Reminders
Following is the list of student & classroom-level characteristics used
in the state’s VAM model to calculate a student’s expected score:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.
Student Growth Score/VAM Reminders
250
Value-Added: The difference
between the expected
performance and the actual
performance.
200
150
100
Expected Score: Expected
student performance after
accounting for student and
classroom characteristics
through the VAM.
50
0
Student
Prior Score
Current Score
Expected Score
Student Growth/VAM
for
Classroom Teachers
2012-2013
Classroom Teachers – Student Growth Score
• Assessments used in calculating the 2012-2013 VAM Score:
• FCAT 4th-10th Grade Reading scores for Reading/Language Arts teachers.
• FCAT 4th-8th 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:
Percentile Method (for Teachers using their own data)
Highly Effective
87th – 99th Percentile
Effective
9th – 86th Percentile
Needs Improvement
4th – 8th Percentile
Unsatisfactory
1st – 3rd Percentile
* Middle school teachers who taught both Reading and Math used the higher of their two subject area
ratings for their final Student Growth Rating.
Classroom Teachers – Student Growth Score
•
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 Effective
87-99 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation
Effective
9-86 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation
Needs Improvement 4-8 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation
Unsatisfactory
1-3 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.
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 2011-12 teacher and school
administrator evaluations.
• To adjust for this in 2012-13 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.
Classroom Teachers – Student Growth Score
Classroom Teacher VAM Student Growth Output
Following is the 1st classroom teacher data file you will receive via email.
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.
Classroom Teachers – Student Growth Score
Student by Student VAM Data, 2012-13
Following is the 2nd classroom teacher data file you will receive via email.
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
2012-2013
Non-Classroom Teachers – Instructional Practice Score
• These are the Job Classifications used to identify Non-Classroom Teachers for 2012-13:
Assistive Tech. Program Specialist
Autism Coach
Behavior Program Specialist
Behavioral Support Teacher
Case Manager
Child Find Specialist
Coaches (not athletic)
Course Designer Online Teacher
Curriculum Facilitator
Educational Diagnostician
ESE Program Specialist
ESE Specialist
ESE Support Facilitator
Grant Facilitator
Instructional Facilitator
Instructional Technology Facilitator
Intensive Reading Teacher
Internal Suspension
Magnet Coordinator
Monitor Teacher
Pre-K Evaluation Program Specialist
Program Monitor (Inser/Cur)
Reading Coach
Resource Teacher
Family Counselor
Guidance Counselor
Guidance Director
School Psychologist
School Social Worker
Occupational Therapist
Speech Language Pathologist
Speech/Language Program Specialist
Teacher – Deaf & Hard of Hearing
Teacher – Visually Impaired
Audiologist
Media Specialist
Staff Developer
Studio Teacher
Teacher - Adult Student Support
Teacher - CTE Instructional Tech Support
Teacher - CTE Student Support
Teacher – Hospital Homebound
Teacher – Reading Intensive
Teacher - on Special Assignment
Teacher – Specialist, Early Childhood
Technology Specialist
Test Developer
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 2012-13, and will receive a Student Growth rating based on following table:
40% Student Growth Score
Highly Effective
87 - 99 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation
Effective
9 - 86 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation
Needs Improvement 4 - 8 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation
Unsatisfactory
1 - 3 Percent of School or District scores meet/exceed expectation
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 nonclassroom teachers received an "Effective" rating for their Student Growth Score.
Completing the 2012-2013 Teacher Evaluations
Student Growth/VAM Supporting Documents
Administration will receive the following information via email.
• Classroom Teacher VAM Student Growth Output and Explanation
• 2012-13 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
Completing the Final Evaluation for Classroom
Teachers and Non-Classroom Teachers
•
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.
Special Circumstances
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 2012-2013 Evaluation:
•
The Principal or District Supervisor must submit a memo to Personnel Records stating
that the employee will not be receiving an evaluation for 2012-2013 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 2012-2013.)
OR
The employee was reassigned to an alternate location.
(Upon return, the teacher will receive the final evaluation for 2012-2013.)
OR
The employee resigned/retired.
Special Circumstances
Teachers who will not receive a 2012-2013 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 1012.31(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.
School-Based Administrators
•
The Principal/Assistant Principal Final Evaluations for 2012-2013 will be
released within the next few weeks.
•
We will be emailing you the details needed in order to complete these
evaluations.
Tentative Dates
•
10/21/13 - Student Growth/VAM data will be emailed 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!
Additional Questions…….
Heather Parente
Khandia Pinkney
Farrah Wilson
Tanya Thompson
Diego DeRose
954-806-8903
954-804-2788
954-614-7702
954-632-1416
754-321-5065