Administrator Evaluation - Citrus County School District

2015-2016

Citrus

Sandra Himmel, Superintendent

Suzanne Swain, Coordinator of Certification

and Professional Standards

School Administrator Evaluation System

Rule 6A-5.030 Form AEST-2015 Effective Date: ______ 2015

Citrus Page 1 School Administrator Evaluation System (2015-2016)

Table of Contents

1. Performance of Students

2. Instructional Leadership

3. Other Indicators of Performance

4. Summative Evaluation Score

5. Additional Requirements

6. District Evaluation Procedures

7. District Self-Monitoring

8. Appendix A – Checklist for Approval

9. Appendix B – Self-Reflection Tool

10. Appendix C – Observation Instrument

11. Appendix D – Administrator Summative Evaluation

12. Appendix E – Developing Rubric for Deliberate Practice Plan

13. Appendix F – Rating Rubric for Deliberate Practice Plan

14. Appendix G – Deliberate Practice Plan Template

Directions:

This document has been provided in Microsoft Word format for the convenience of the district.

The order of the template shall not be rearranged. Each section offers specific directions, but does

not limit the amount of space or information that can be added to fit the needs of the district. All

submitted documents shall be titled and paginated. Where documentation or evidence is required,

copies of the source document(s) (for example, rubrics, policies and procedures, observation

instruments) shall be provided. Upon completion, the district shall email the template and required

supporting documentation for submission to the address [email protected].

**Modifications to an approved evaluation system may be made by the district at any

time. A revised evaluation system shall be submitted for approval, in accordance with Rule

6A-5.030(3), F.A.C. The entire template shall be sent for the approval process.

mailto:[email protected]


1. Performance of Students

Directions:

The district shall provide:

For all school administrators, the percentage of the evaluation that is based on the

performance of students criterion as outlined in s. 1012.34(3)(a)1., F.S., along with an

explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined [Rule

6A-5.030(2)(a)1., F.A.C.].

For all school administrators, confirmation of including student performance data

for at least three years, including the current year and the two years immediately

preceding the current year, when available. If less than the three most recent years

of data are available, those years for which data are available must be used. If more

than three years of student performance data are used, specify the years that will

be used [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)3., F.A.C.].

For school administrators, the district-determined student performance measure(s) used

for personnel evaluations [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)7., F.A.C.].


Student Performance Measures

The district portion (leadership practice) will be 67% and the data portion (student performance)

will be 33% of the school administrator’s overall summative evaluation. All administrative

personnel will include student performance data for at least three years, including the current year

and the two years immediately preceding the current year, when available. If less than the three

most recent years of data are available, those years for which data are available must be used. School

administrators will receive a rating based on their school wide VAM results and the data collected

from district designed assessments. Citrus County will accept the schoolwide VAM (1-4) that the

DOE issues. The weighting of the VAM will be proportional to the teaching assignment at the

school. The state provides ratings based on the cut scores. The ratings issued by the state in

combination with the district data ratings will be averaged to give the administrator (s) a rating for

the data portion of the evaluation system. Instructional personnel receive a rating for the district

designed assessments. Again, all data ratings will be combined and averaged to provide the

administrator(s) with an overall data rating. For example, an administrator has 10 teachers assigned

to him. 5 teachers receive highly effective, 3 receive effective, and 2 receive needs improvement as

the data rating. The ratings are given a value (1-4). The overall total score is 33 points. When

divided by the number of teachers, 10, the average score is 3.3 which is an overall rating of effective.

The rating matrix on page 18 clearly explains how the two ratings will be combined for the overall

evaluation rating.

Below is a chart of the data sources administrators will use to determine the data rating for

instructional staff.

STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS USING VAM DATA CONTENT AREA/TEACHER GRADE Performance

Measure(s) for

Evaluation Purposes

Percentage Associated with Final Summative

Evaluation

English Language Arts & Math 4-8 FSA ELA & Math VAM

33% HE, E, D/NI, U

English Language Arts & Reading 4-10 FSA ELA VAM

Math 4-8 FSA Math VAM

Algebra 1 6-12 FSA EOC VAM

District: TOSA Math PK-12 District FSA, EOC Math VAM

District: TOSA ELA, Program Specialist ELA, Literacy Coach

PK-12 District FSA ELA VAM

Non-Classroom Instructional Personnel (Guidance, Media, ESE Specialist, Speech Pathologist, School TOSA, Technology Specialist, Testing Specialist, Athletic Director, Title I)

PK-12 School-Wide VAM=FSA

ELA and MATH, or FSA ELA, or FSA Math

District: TOSA (ESE, Grant Writer), ESE Specialist, Social Worker, School Psychologist, Teacher Hearing Impaired, Technology

PK-12 District FSA, EOC - ELA & Math VAM


Specialists, Speech Pathologist, Lead Speech & Language Teacher

CDE 11-12 School-Wide VAM (all 3

high schools)

STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS USING DISTRICT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MODEL (NOT VAM DATA) Geometry, Algebra 2 6-12 FSA EOC: Geometry,

Algebra 2

33% HE, E, D/NI, U

Biology, US History, Civics 6-12 NGSSS EOC: Biology, US History, Civics

Science- 8th grade Science- 5th grade (if only teaches Science)

8 5

NGSSS FCAT 2.0 Science- 8th grade NGSSS FCAT 2.0 Science- 5th grade

District: TOSA Science K-12 District NGSSS FCAT 2.0 Science and Biology EOC

District: TOSA Social Studies K-12 District US History and Civics EOC

Pre-Kindergarten PK VPK Assessment

Advanced Placement Classes 9-12 AP Tests

AP Human Geography 9 AP Tests

International Baccalaureate 9-12 IB Tests

Career and Technical Courses (High School) with Industry Certification

9-12 Industry Certification Exams If 50% of students are not IC tested, then End-of-Term Test will serve as the data source

GED, Adult Education TOSA 9-Adult Industry Certification

WTC Career & Technical Courses of Study 9-Adult Content Specific Certification Exams For instructional staff serving all students; Guidance, Media, Adult ESOL-Career Pathways, etc. – School-wide Industry Certification Exams

Transition Academy 9-Adult Employability Rating Scale

Math, Applied Academics Resource Instructor

9-Adult Industry Certification

Access Points K-12 Florida Standards Alternate Assessment (FSAA)

DISTRICT DESIGNED ASSESSMENTS


Elementary Art, Music, PE Teachers 2 District Art, Music, PE Assessment

33% HE, E, D/NI, U

Middle School- Non-State Tested subject areas and elective courses

6-8 District End-of-Term Test

High School- Non-State Tested core subject areas (not linked to EOC, AP or IB courses):

Informal Geometry

Liberal Arts Mathematics 2

Pre-Calculus Honors

Calculus Honors

Environmental Science

Earth Space Science

Physical Science and Honors

Marine Science and Honors

Chemistry 1 and Honors

Anatomy and Physiology and Honors

US Government and Honors

World History and Honors

Economics with Financial Lit and Honors

World Cultural Geography

Spanish 1

English III and IV and Honors

9-12 District End-of-Term Test

DISTRICT SELECTED ASSESSMENTS High School- Non-State Tested course and electives not listed above

9-12 Teacher Created-Principal Approved Final Exam/End-of-Term Test

33% HE, E, D/NI, U

Kindergarten, First Grade, Second Grade, Third Grade

K-3 FastBridge aReading

Career and Technical Courses (not linked to Industry Certification Assessments)

9-12 Teacher Created Final Exam/End-of-Term Test


Below are the Growth Models we use to determine the overall data ratings for instructional

personnel.




2. Instructional Leadership

Directions


For all school administrators, the percentage of the evaluation system that is based on

the instructional leadership criterion as outlined in s. 1012.34(3)(a)3., F.S., along with

an explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined

[Rule 6A-5.030(2)(c)1., F.A.C.].

Description of the district evaluation framework for school administrators and the

contemporary research basis in effective educational practices [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(c)2.,

F.A.C.].

For all school administrators, a crosswalk from the district’s evaluation framework to

the Principal Leadership Standards [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(c)3., F.A.C.].

Observation or other data collection instrument(s) that include indicators, organized by

domains, based on each of the Principal Leadership Standards, and additional elements

provided in s. 1012.34(3)(a)3., F.S. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(c)4., F.A.C.].

Procedures for observing and collecting data and other evidence of instructional

leadership [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(c)5., F.A.C.].

The following optional chart is provided for your convenience to display the crosswalk of the

district’s evaluation framework to the Principal Leadership Standards. Other methods to display

information are acceptable, as long as each standard and descriptor is addressed.


Instructional Leadership Scoring Method

The district portion (leadership practice) will be 67% and the data portion (student performance)

will be 33% of the school administrator’s overall summative evaluation. The district leadership

portion will include the five standards listed on pages 9-13 and the Deliberate Practice Plan. Each

standard and Deliberate Practice Plan will be 17% of the 67% of the district portion (leadership

practice) rating for the district portion (leadership practice). The administrator will receive a

rating for each standard and a rating for the Deliberate Practice Plan. Those ratings will be added

together and averaged to determine the overall score for the district portion of the summative

evaluation. Once a rating is determined for the district portion (leadership practice), that rating

will be combined with data portion. The chart on page 18 explains how the overall rating is

determined.

Observing and Collecting Data for Instructional Leadership

The administrator’s supervisor will collect artifacts and observe at the school site throughout the year.

The supervisor of the administrator will complete school-wide walkthroughs which will allow the

supervisor to collect data. Examples of data collected include, but are limited to, charts documenting

student performance, walkthrough notes documenting effective classroom instruction, accomplishing

strategies listed in the school improvement plan, and evidence demonstrating highly effective/effective

leadership practices.

Contemporary Research in Effective Educational Practices

The underlying research base of this evaluation system combines many of the concepts of

"reflective practices,” "collaborative action,” "learning communities" and "quality management”

into the “Working on the Work" concepts of Dr. Phillip C. Schlechty and his organization, The

Center for Leadership in School Reform. Our new process includes the research and principles

that support the Florida Principal Leadership Standards which is the framework for the entire

assessment system. The foundation of the evaluative processes is based on the research from the

practices of Douglas Reeves and The Leadership and Learning Center. Other research utilized in

the revision of our appraisal system includes the six (6) design standards from The New Teacher

Project as well as the extensive research information provided through Robert J. Marzano and his

organization Learning Sciences International. Also integrated into this evaluation system are high

impact teaching strategies developed by Max Thompson and the high effect size strategies by John

Hattie.

School Administrator Professional Standards and Florida Principal Leadership Indicators


To support this end, CCS has clearly defined a set of standards-based expectations for school

administrators and has established a set of processes and procedures to assist school administrators

in meeting these standards. To clarify these expectations, five (5) Citrus County Standards have

been developed to guide the work of school administrators. The five (5) Standards encompass

Florida Principal Leadership Indicators (FPLI), which are based on essential foundational

principles. The appraisal committee matched the FPLIs descriptors to the five (5) Standards. As

the FPLIs provide a common language and statewide understanding of the expectations of quality

instruction, the descriptors serve as indicators of effectiveness within each Citrus County Standard

in our revised evaluation system

Standard: 1

The school administrator supports the beliefs, shared vision, and mission adopted by the district.

1.2.A Enables faculty and staff to work as a system focused on student learning.

1.2.B Maintains a school climate that supports student engagement in learning.

1.2.C Generates high expectations for learning growth by all students.

2.5.A Maintains a safe, respectful and inclusive student-centered learning environment that is

focused on equitable opportunities for learning and building a foundation for a fulfilling

life in a democratic society and global economy.

2.5.B Recognizes and uses diversity as an asset in the development and implementation of

procedures and practices that motivate all students and improve student learning.

2.5.C Promotes school and classroom practices that validate and value similarities and

differences among students.

3.7.E Develops sustainable and supportive relationships between school leaders, parents,

community, higher education and business leaders.

3.9.A Actively listens to and learns from students, staff, parents, and community stakeholders.

3.9.C Communicates student expectations and performance information to students, parents,

and community.

4.10.A Adheres to the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the

Education Profession in Florida, pursuant to Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, F.A.C.

4.10.B Demonstrates resiliency by staying focused on the school vision and reacting

constructively to the barriers to success that include disagreement and dissent with

leadership.

4.10.C Demonstrates a commitment to the success of all students, identifying barriers and their

impact on the well-being of the school, families, and local community.


Standard: 2

The school administrator designs and delivers knowledge work that meets the needs of staff, students,

parents, school system, and community.

1.1.A Develops the school's learning goals based on the states adopted student academic

standards and the districts adopted curricula.

2.3.A Implements the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices as described in Rule 6A-5.065,

F.A.C. through a common language of instruction.

2.3.D Implements the district's adopted curricula and state's adopted academic standards in a

manner that is rigorous and culturally relevant to the students and school.

2.4.A Generates a focus on student and professional learning in the school that is clearly linked

to the system-wide strategic objectives and the school improvement plan.

2.4.E Implements professional learning that enables faculty to deliver culturally relevant and

differentiated instruction.

2.5.F Engages faculty in recognizing and understanding cultural and developmental issues

related to student learning by identifying and addressing strategies to minimize and/or

eliminate achievement gaps.

Standard: 3

The school administrator manages the resources of time, people, space, information and technology

in order to enhance the qualities of the work provided to the staff and students.

2.4.C Employs a faculty with the instructional proficiencies needed for the school population

served.

2.4.D Identifies faculty instructional proficiency needs, including standards-based content,

research-based pedagogy, data analysis for instructional planning and improvement, and

the use of instructional technology.

2.4.F Provides resources and time and engages faculty in effective individual and collaborative

professional learning throughout the school year.

3.6.E Uses effective technology integration to enhance decision making and efficiency

throughout the school.

3.8.A Organizes time, tasks and projects effectively with clear objectives and coherent plans.


3.8.B Establishes appropriate deadlines for him/herself and the entire organization.

3.8.C Manages schedules, delegates, and allocates resources to promote collegial efforts in

school improvement and faculty development.

3.8.D Is fiscally responsible and maximizes the impact of fiscal resources on instructional

priorities.

3.9.E Creates opportunities within the school to engage students, faculty, parents, and

community stakeholders in constructive conversations about important school issues.

3.9.F Utilizes appropriate technologies for communication and collaboration.

3.9.G Ensures faculty receives timely information about student learning requirements, academic

standards, and all other local state and federal administrative requirements and decisions.

Standard: 4

The school administrator continuously monitors and communicates the extent to which staff and

students are engaging the work, persisting with the work, experiencing satisfaction in the products

of the work, and modifies the work accordingly.

1.1.B Analyzes student learning results which are evidenced by the student performance and

growth on statewide assessments; district-determined assessments that are implemented by

the district under Section 1008.22, F.S.; international assessments; and other indicators of

student success adopted by the district and state.

1.2.D Engages faculty and staff in efforts to close learning performance gaps among student

subgroups within the school.

2.3.B Engages in data analysis for instructional planning and improvement.

2.3.C Communicates the relationships among academic standards, effective instruction, and

student performance.

2.3.E Ensures the appropriate use of high quality formative and interim assessments aligned with

the adopted standards and curricula.

2.4.B Evaluates, monitors, and provides timely feedback to faculty on the effectiveness of

instruction.

2.5.D Provides recurring monitoring and feedback on the quality of the learning environment.

2.5.E Initiates and supports continuous improvement processes focused on the students'

opportunities for success and well-being.


4.10.F Demonstrates explicit improvement in specific performance areas based on previous

evaluations and formative feedback.

Standard: 5

The school administrator is a leader.

3.6.A Gives priority attention to decisions that impact the quality of student learning and teacher

proficiency.

3.6.B Uses critical thinking and problem solving techniques to define problems and identify

solutions.

3.6.C Evaluates decisions for effectiveness, equity, intended and actual outcome; implements

follow-up actions; and revises as needed.

3.6.D Empowers others and distributes leadership when appropriate.

3.7.A Identifies and cultivates potential and emerging leaders.

3.7.B Provides evidence of delegation and trust in subordinate leaders.

3.7.C Plans for succession management in key positions.

3.7.D Promotes teacher—leadership functions focused on instructional proficiency and student

learning.

3.9.B Recognizes individuals for effective performance.

3.9.D Maintains high visibility at school and in the community and regularly engages

stakeholders in the work of the school.

4.10.D Engages in professional learning that improves professional practice in alignment with the

needs of the school system.

4.10.E Demonstrates willingness to admit error and learn from it.

Observation Form

The observation form (Appendix C) will be used by the supervisor to show proficiency levels for

all administrators. The observation instrument was developed by integrating the FPLS indicators

into the five Citrus County standards. Proficiency levels on the observation instrument will

follow the guidelines established by Florida Statute 1012.34 with feedback provided by the


supervisor conducting the formal or informal observation. This evaluation process, including

feedback, begins with an initial conference with the administrator, on-going informal

observations, formal and informal feedback, and concludes with a summative evaluation infusing

data outcomes with principal competencies.

3. Other Indicators of Performance

Directions:


The additional performance indicators, if the district chooses to include such additional

indicators pursuant to s. 1012.34(3)(a)4., F.S.;

The percentage of the final evaluation that is based upon the additional indicators; and

The scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(d),

F.A.C.].

Examples include the following:

Deliberate Practice - the selection of indicators or practices, improvement on which is

measured during an evaluation period

Peer Reviews

Objectively reliable survey information from students and parents based on teaching

practices that are consistently associated with higher student achievement

Individual Professional Leadership Plan

Other indicators, as selected by the district


Deliberate Practice Plan

School administrators are required to complete a Deliberate Practice Plan (Appendix G) every

year. School administrators will use the Developing Rubric (Appendix E) when writing the

Deliberate Practice Plan. School administrators will implement the Deliberate Practice Plan

throughout the school year. A rating of HE, E, D, NI, U will be given based on successful

implementation of the plan. The Rating Rubric (Appendix F) will be used by the administrator to

determine the rating. The rating will be under the Professional Standards and Florida Principal

Leadership Indicators. The Deliberate Practice Plan will be 17% of the rating for the district

portion of the evaluation system. The district portion will be combined with the data portion which

will determine the overall evaluation rating.


4. Summative Evaluation Score

Directions:


The summative evaluation form(s); and

The scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined; and

The performance standards used to determine the summative evaluation rating.

Districts shall use the four performance levels provided in s. 1012.34(2)(e), F.S.,

[Rule 6A-5.030(2)(e), F.A.C.].


Summative Evaluation

Each administrator will receive a rating of Highly Effective, Effective, Needs Improvement, or

Unsatisfactory based on his/her performance on the district portion of the administrator summative

evaluation (Appendix D). School administrators will receive a rating for the data portion based on

school-wide VAM. The district portion of the summative evaluation will be 67% of the overall

evaluation. The data portion of the evaluation will be 33% of the overall evaluation. The rating

matrix in this section will be used to determine the overall rating. The assistant superintendent

and principals will schedule an end of the year meeting with each administrator to complete a

summative evaluation. During this meeting, administrators will share data related to his/her student

performance data/achievement documented in his/her professional development plan/deliberate

practice, discuss the strategies implemented throughout the year, and participate in conversation

about performance related to the five (5) Citrus County Standards based on the Self-Reflection

Tool. After reviewing the evidences of effectiveness gathered throughout the year via

informal/formal walkthroughs and classroom observations, the administrator’s supervisor will

assign a rating of Highly Effective, Effective, Needs Improvement, or Unsatisfactory for the six

components of the district portion of the evaluation system. Each component is weighted as 17%

of the 67% of the district portion. Once the rating for the district portion is determined by

combining the six components, that rating is weighted at 67% of the final evaluation rating. The

rating for the student performance portion of the evaluation will be based on the growth model

rating provided by the state or the district model for teachers of subjects and grades not assessed

by statewide assessments. School administrators will receive a rating based on their school wide

VAM results and the data collected from district designed assessments. Citrus County will accept

the schoolwide VAM (1-4) that the DOE issues. The weighting of the VAM will be proportional to

the teaching assignment at the school. The state provides ratings based on the cut scores. The

ratings issued by the state in combination with the district data ratings will be averaged to give the

administrator (s) a rating for the data portion of the evaluation system. Instructional personnel

receive a rating for the district designed assessments. Again, all data ratings will be combined and

averaged to provide the administrator(s) with an overall data rating. For example, an administrator

has 10 teachers assigned to him. 5 teachers receive highly effective, 3 receive effective, and 2

receive needs improvement as the data rating. The ratings are given a value (1-4). The overall total

score is 33 points. When divided by the number of teachers, 10, the average score is 3.3 which is

an overall rating of effective. The rating matrix on page 18 clearly explains how the two ratings

will be combined for the overall evaluation rating.

Summative Evaluation Ratings

Highly Effective

Performance and results relative to CCS and the Accomplished Practices are consistently at

the highly effective level.


CCS and the Accomplished Practices should exceed effective levels and constitute models of

proficiency for other teachers.

This level of CCS and the Accomplished Practices reflect extraordinary effort and superior

capabilities.

Effective

Performance and results relative to CCS and the Accomplished Practices are consistently

effective.

The level of CCS and the Accomplished Practices reflect efforts and capabilities that

consistently meet expectations.

Developing (instructional personnel in the first 3 years of employment)

Needs Improvement (4+ years)

Performance and results relative to CCS and the Accomplished Practices are developing or

need improvement

Efforts and capabilities show growth towards meeting CCS and the Accomplished Practices.

Continued support will be provided.

Unsatisfactory *

Performance and results relative to CCS and the Accomplished Practices do not meet expected

level of performance expectations.

Efforts and capabilities do not meet the level of performance required by the CCS and the

Accomplished Practices.

Substantial assistance, monitoring, and training is required.

*An assistance plan is required if rated as Unsatisfactory.

Rating Matrix

Rating Areas

Range Average Overall Rating Options

Florida

Principal

Leadership

Standards

67%

Student

Data

33%

H H 4.00 4.00 Highly Effective

H E 3.12-3.81 3.67 Highly Effective, Effective

H D/NI 2.78-3.48 3.33 Highly Effective, Effective

H U 2.30-3.15 3.00 Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement

E H 2.78-3.63 3.33 Highly Effective, Effective

E E 2.45-3.44 3.00 Effective


E D/NI 2.12-3.11 2.67 Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement

E U 1.97-2.77 2.33 Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement

D/NI H 2.12-2.96 2.67 Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement

D/NI E 1.78-2.77 2.33 Effective, Developing/Needs Improvement

D/NI D/NI 1.45-2.44 2.00 Developing/Needs Improvement

D/NI U 1.30-2.11 1.67 Developing/Needs Improvement, Unsatisfactory

U H 1.82-2.29 2.00 Developing/Needs Improvement

U E 1.48-2.11 1.67 Developing/Needs Improvement

U D/NI 1.15-1.77 1.33 Developing/Needs Improvement, Unsatisfactory

U U 1.00 1.00 Unsatisfactory


5. Additional Requirements

Directions:


Documentation that the evaluator is the individual who is responsible for supervising

the employee. An evaluator may consider input from other personnel trained in

evaluation practices. If input is provided by other personnel, identify the additional

positions or persons. Examples include assistant principals, peers, district staff,

department heads, grade level chairpersons, or team leaders [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)2.,

F.A.C.].

Description of training programs and processes to ensure that all employees subject

to an evaluation system are informed on evaluation criteria, data sources,

methodologies, and procedures associated with the evaluation before the evaluation

takes place, and that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities and those who

provide input toward evaluation understand the proper use of the evaluation criteria

and procedures [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)3., F.A.C.].

Description of the processes for providing timely feedback to the individual being

evaluated [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)4., F.A.C.].

Description of how results from the evaluation system will be used for professional

development [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)5., F.A.C.].

Confirmation that the district will require participation in specific professional

development programs by those who have been evaluated as less than effective as

required by s. 1012.98(10), F.S. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)6., F.A.C.].

Documentation that all school administrators must be evaluated at least once a year

[Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)7., F.A.C.].

Documentation that the evaluation system for school administrators includes

opportunities for parents to provide input into performance evaluations when the

district determines such input is appropriate, and a description of the criteria for

inclusion, and the manner of inclusion of parental input [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(f)9.,

F.A.C.].

Description of the district’s peer assistance process, if any, for school administrators.

Peer assistance may be part of the regular evaluation system, or used to assist

personnel who are placed on performance probation, or who request assistance [Rule

6A-5.030(2)(f)11., F.A.C.].

If included by a district, a description of the opportunity for instructional personnel to

provide input into a school administrator’s performance evaluation [Rule 6A-

5.030(2)(f)12., F.A.C.].


Personnel Completing Evaluations

The Assistant Superintendent for School Operations will complete the evaluations for all

Principals and the Principals for each school site will complete the evaluations of his/her Assistant

Principals. These evaluations will be completed utilizing the Citrus County Administrator

Summative Assessment.

Training Programs and Processes

All Principals and the Assistant Superintendent for School Operations who supervise

administrative personnel participate in an administrator evaluation overview meeting in July each

year. A PowerPoint presentation with voiceover was created to explain the essential components

of the system and is shared with the above mentioned staff, assuring that all participants heard and

saw the same information. An additional training takes place in the summer of each of the

following years with all administrators to clarify the processes and procedures for conducting

evaluations. School based administrators who are responsible for conducting evaluations will

collaborate with each other during district administrator meetings to ensure inter-rated reliability

of the system. After the initial training period, subsequent training sessions will be provided for

new personnel who move into evaluator roles.

Annual Evaluation (Timely Feedback)

All school administrators will be evaluated at least once per year. School principals will be

evaluated by the Assistant Superintendent. Assistant Principals will be evaluated by the school’s

Principal. Annual evaluations will take place at the end of the school year for all school

administrators. School administrators and the Assistant Superintendent will schedule an end of

the year meeting with the administrators that they oversee to complete a summative evaluation.

During this meeting, school administrators will share data related to student performance

/achievement documented in his/her deliberate practice plan, discuss the strategies implemented

throughout the year, reflect on the impact of professional development, and participate in

conversation about performance related to the five (5) Citrus County Standards and the Florida

Principal Leadership Standards based on the Self-Reflection Tool. After reviewing evidence of

effectiveness gathered throughout the year via midyear review and data, the administrator will

assign a rating of highly effective, effective, developing/needs improvement, or unsatisfactory

for the district portion of the evaluation system. The rating for the student performance portion

of the evaluation will be based on the VAM scores provided by the state. If statewide assessment

data is not available prior to the end of the year, the administrator will receive a rating on the

district portion. Subsequently, the summative evaluation rating will be assigned the following

school year during the beginning of the year conference with the administrator. In discussing the


previous year’s data at the beginning of the year meeting, a true cyclical improvement process

will evolve. Administrators will submit the Summative Evaluation Form to the Human

Resources Department

Professional Development

Evaluation results and data are currently used in the reflective cycle of establishing Deliberate

Practice Plans. The Deliberate Practice Plan is 17% of the district portion of the evaluation system.

Each educator will use their individual results to identify professional development needs which

must be implemented to increase student achievement. The school administration through the

school improvement process will identify professional development needs via school based data

relative to teacher performance and student growth measures. The district will provide professional

development activities based upon the culmination of the global results received in regards to

student growth measures and teacher evaluation results. Data collected by Research and

Accountability and individual schools will assist each level in determining the types of

professional development options that are needed throughout the district. This process will

continue in the coming years with a more systematic and defined examination of the researched-

based strategies being utilized in our schools. If an administrator receives a less than effective

rating, he/she will be placed on an assistance plan and assigned a mentor administrator to provide

assistance with his/her professional growth. The administrator’s supervisor will provide and

monitor professional development opportunities through the assistance plan. Specific professional

development is required for administrators that received a rating of less than effective on their

evaluations.

Parent Input

Parental input will be provided via yearly school improvement surveys and through School

Advisory Enhancement Council meetings. Parental input into an administrator’s performance

evaluation will be sought if/when a school receives a grade of D or F by the Department of

Education and is deemed to be in an “Intervene Status” according to the No Child Left Behind

legislation.


6. District Evaluation Procedures

Directions:

The district shall provide evidence that its evaluation policies and procedures comply with

the following statutory requirements:

In accordance with s. 1012.34(3)(c), F.S., the evaluator must:

submit a written report of the evaluation to the district school superintendent

for the purpose of reviewing the employee’s contract [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(g)1.,

F.A.C.].

submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the

evaluation takes place [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(g)2., F.A.C.].

discuss the written evaluation report with the employee [Rule 6A-

5.030(2)(g)3.,F.A.C.].

The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the

evaluation and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or

her personnel file [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(g)4., F.A.C.].

Documentation the district has complied with the requirement that the district school

superintendent shall annually notify the Department of any school administrators who

receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and shall notify the Department of

any school administrators who are given written notice by the district of intent to

terminate or not renew their employment, as outlined in s. 1012.34(5), F.S. [Rule 6A-

5.030(2)(i), F.A.C.].



Summative Evaluation Meeting

The supervisor of the administrator will schedule a time to meet with the administrator to review

all of the data collected that was used to determine the final rating. The ratings for each of the

five standards as well as the Deliberate Practice Plan will be shared. The supervisor will explain

how each rating was determined based on data that the supervisor collected as well as artifacts

that the administrator provided.

Unsatisfactory Summative Evaluations

Schools and cost centers will submit all administrative evaluations to the Human Resources

Department once the overall rating is assigned. The superintendent will review all of the data

collected regarding administrative evaluations. The superintendent will receive copies of

evaluations for administrative personnel that receive an overall rating of unsatisfactory for the

purpose of reviewing the employee’s contract. A written report will be provided to the employee

no later than 10 days after the superintendent reviews the evaluation. The employee may provide

a written response to the evaluation and it shall become a permanent attachment to the personnel

file. If an employee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations the superintendent will

notify, in writing, the Department of Education stating district’s intent to terminate or non-renew

the employment.


7. District Self-Monitoring

Directions:

The district shall provide a description of its process for annually monitoring its evaluation

system. The district monitoring shall determine, at a minimum, the following:

Evaluators’ understanding of the proper use of evaluation criteria and procedures,

including evaluator accuracy and inter-rater reliability; [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)1.,

F.A.C.]

Evaluators provide necessary and timely feedback to employees being evaluated;

[Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)2., F.A.C.]

Evaluators follow district policies and procedures in the implementation of evaluation

system(s); [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)3., F.A.C.]

Use of evaluation data to identify individual professional development; and [Rule 6A-

5.030(2)(j)4., F.A.C.]

Use of evaluation data to inform school and district improvement plans [Rule 6A-

5.030(2)(j)5., F.A.C.].


Monitoring

Citrus County Schools will follow Deming’s Plan-Do-Check-Act Model as the process for

evaluating the effectiveness of the revised administrative evaluation system. Summative student

performance data and comparative teacher/administrator evaluation ratings will be reviewed and

analyzed for consistency. Revisions to the components and/or processes related to the evaluation

system will be made to ensure continued improvements in instruction and student learning. In

addition, we will continue to study the results of the researched-based instructional practices being

utilized in our schools and provide professional development resources to support full

implementation of those practices strongly linked to increased student achievement. Supervisors

will complete a midyear review for all administrators in January of each school year. The rating

for the district portion of the evaluation system will be completed by June of each year and the

rating for the data portion of the evaluation system will be completed by October of each year. The

overall evaluation for the previous year will be completed by October.

School and District Improvement Plans

After examining the results of school-based evaluations based on specific student growth and

achievement data and reviewing the use of instructional strategies that have a high probability of

increasing student achievement, school improvement plans will be developed based on identified

areas. The results of evaluations will assist in defining plausible causal information relating to

deficit areas. Professional development will be linked to address these needs. Similarly, district

improvement plans will be able to follow the same process as the schools. The district will


identify global areas of need and the district improvement plan will be designed to provide

resources and support to address deficit areas.

Appendix A – Checklist for Approval

Performance of Students

The district has provided and meets the following criteria:

For all school administrators:

The percentage of the evaluation that is based on the performance of students

criterion.

An explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and

combined.

At least one-third of the evaluation is based on performance of students.

For all school administrators confirmed the inclusion of student performance:

Data for at least three years, including the current year and the two years

immediately preceding the current year, when available.

If less than the three most recent years of data are available, those years for

which data are available must be used.

If more than three years of student performance data are used, specified the

years that will be used.


The district-determined student performance measure(s) used for personnel

evaluations.

Instructional Leadership



The percentage of the evaluation system that is based on the instructional

leadership criterion.

At least one-third of the evaluation is based on instructional leadership.

An explanation of the scoring method, including how it is calculated and

combined.

The district evaluation framework for school administrators is based on

contemporary research in effective educational practices.


A crosswalk from the district's evaluation framework to the Principal


Leadership Standards demonstrating that the district’s evaluation contains

indicators based upon each of the Principal Leadership Standards.


Procedures for conducting observations and collecting data and other evidence

of instructional leadership.

Other Indicators of Performance


Described the additional performance indicators, if any.

The percentage of the final evaluation that is based upon the additional indicators.

The scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined.

Summative Evaluation Score


Summative evaluation form(s).

Scoring method, including how it is calculated and combined.

The performance standards used to determine the summative evaluation rating

(the four performance levels: highly effective, effective, needs

improvement/developing, unsatisfactory).

Additional Requirements


Documented that the evaluator is the individual who is responsible for

supervising the employee.

Identified additional positions or persons who provide input toward the

evaluation, if any.

Description of training programs:

Processes to ensure that all employees subject to an evaluation system are

informed on evaluation criteria, data sources, methodologies, and procedures

associated with the evaluation before the evaluation takes place.

Processes to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities and

those who provide input toward evaluation understand the proper use of the

evaluation criteria and procedures.

Documented:

Processes for providing timely feedback to the individual being evaluated.

Description of how results from the evaluation system will be used for

professional development.

Requirement for participation in specific professional development programs


by those who have been evaluated as less than effective.

All school administrators must be evaluated at least once a year.

For school administrators:

Inclusion of opportunities for parents to provide input into performance

evaluations when the district determines such input is appropriate.

Description of the district’s criteria for inclusion of parental input.

Description of manner of inclusion of parental input.

Description of the district’s peer assistance process, if any.

Description of an opportunity for instructional personnel to provide input into

a school administrator’s evaluation, if any.

District Evaluation Procedures


That it’s evaluation procedures comply with s. 1012.34(3)(c), F.S., including:

That the evaluator must submit a written report of the evaluation to the

district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee’s

contract.

That the evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later

than 10 days after the evaluation takes place.

That the evaluator must discuss the written evaluation report with the

employee.

That the employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the

evaluation and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his

or her personnel file.

That district evaluation procedures require the district school superintendent to

annually notify the Department of any school administrators who receive two

consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and to notify the Department of any

school administrators who are given written notice by the district of intent to

terminate or not renew their employment, as outlined in s. 1012.34, F.S.

District Self-Monitoring

The district self-monitoring includes processes to determine the following:

Evaluators’ understanding of the proper use of evaluation criteria and

procedures, including evaluator accuracy and inter-rater reliability.

Evaluators provide necessary and timely feedback to employees being

evaluated.

Evaluators follow district policies and procedures in evaluation system(s).

The use of evaluation data to identify individual professional development.

The use of evaluation data to inform school and district improvement plans.


Appendix B – Self-Reflection Tool




























Appendix C – Observation Instrument


Appendix D – Administrator Summative Evaluation


Appendix E – Developing Rubric for Deliberate Practice Plan


Appendix F – Rating Rubric for Deliberate Practice Plan


Appendix G – Deliberate Practice Plan Template

Eileen L. McDaniel Bureau Chief, Educator Recruitment, Development & Retention

www.fldoe.org

325 W. Gaines Street | Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 | 850-245-0562 © 2014, Florida Department of Education. All Rights Reserved.

<Start Text Here>

August 11, 2016 Sandra C. Himmel, Superintendent Citrus County Schools 1007 West Main Street Inverness, Florida 34450-4625 Dear Superintendent Himmel: Thank you for submitting amendments to your district’s School Administrator Evaluation System. Your amendments to the Citrus County Schools’ evaluation system for school administrators have been approved for 2015-16. The department appreciates your continued leadership in your district and throughout the state for the benefit of all of our students. At your earliest convenience, please ensure that district staff update your district’s website with the 2015-16 revised School Administrator Evaluation System that was approved by the department and send the URL link to [email protected]. For questions or concerns, please contact Eileen McDaniel [email protected] (850-245-0562) or Jason Graham [email protected] (850-245-0546). Sincerely,

Eileen L. McDaniel ELM/jgd cc: Suzanne Swain, Director of Human Resources

State Board of Education Marva Johnson, Chair John R. Padget, Vice Chair Members Gary Chartrand Tom Grady Rebecca Fishman Lipsey Michael Olenick Andy Tuck

Pam Stewart Commissioner of Education



mailto:[email protected]/%20%20%20%20%20%20850-245-0562


Documents

Administrator Evaluation - Citrus County School District