The Evaluation Process€¦ · Category 1A. Category 1B/2: 1 Year. 2+ Years: Informal Observation. 1: 1. 1: Formal Observation. 1: 1. 1: Evaluation. Mid Year: Final. Final : 12. Student

Top-performing urban school district in Florida

The Evaluation ProcessJanuary 24th, 2018

1


Agenda

● Statutory Requirements

● Joint Evaluation Negotiations Committee (JENC)

● Review of Teacher Evaluation Process

● Teacher Evaluation Data Results ○ Compared to state ○ Compared to urban districts ○ Compared to ourselves

● Challenges

● Next Steps

2


Teacher Evaluation System (2011-12)• Florida Statute 1012.34o (2) (a) “Be designed to support effective instruction and student

learning growth...”o (3) (a) (1.) “At least one-third of a performance evaluation must be

based upon data and indicators of student performance...”o (3) (a) (2.) “at least one-third of the performance evaluation must

be based upon instructional practice...”o (3) (a) (4.) “the remainder of a performance evaluation may

include, but is not limited to, professional and job responsibilities...”

3

• Florida Statute 1012.22“Salary adjustments for highly effective or effectiveperformance shall be established”

Top-performing urban school district in Florida 4

Payroll & Compensation

Florida’s Best & Brightest Teacher Scholarship (Classroom Teachers)

● Must have received a “Highly Effective” performance evaluation rating.

● Must be in a position that meets the definition of Classroom Teacher, F.S. 1012.01(2)(a).

● $6,000 per qualified teacher.

CTA Agreement (Pending Ratification)

● Highly Effective (3.5%)

● Effective (2.75%)


Teacher Evaluation Components

Florida Statute JENC

Instructional Practice At least 33% 57%

Student Performance At least 33% 33%

Deliberate Practice Remainder 10%

5


Joint Evaluation Negotiations Committee (JENC)

o Comprised of representatives (teachers and principals) from both the School District of Palm Beach County and the Classroom Teachers Association.

o Empowered to make amendments to the CTES (Classroom Teacher Evaluation System) Handbook

o Communicates those amendments via the JENC Newsletter to administrators and teachers.

6

Top-performing urban school district in Florida 7


o Classroom Strategies &

Behaviors

o Planning & Preparing

o Reflecting on Teaching

o Collegiality &

Professionalism

Instructional Practice

• 4 Domains

8


o Classroom Strategies &

Behaviors

o Planning & Preparing

o Reflecting on Teaching

o Collegiality &

Professionalism

Instructional Practice

• 4 Domains

9

• Element Name

• Focus Statement

• Evidences

• Developmental Scale

• Reflection Questions

• Desired Effect

Instructional Practice: Protocols

10

Instructional Practice: Conjunctive Scoring

11


Instructional Practice: Minimum Requirements

Category 1A Category 1B/2

1 Year 2+ Years

Informal Observation 1 1 1

Formal Observation 1 1 1

Evaluation Mid Year Final Final

12

Student Performance• Students must have both a pre and post-test.

• Survey 2 & 3 students must match with the exception of semester long acceleration courses.

• The District uses the state required VAM for the statewide assessments identified by FDOE. Currently, this includes Florida Standard Assessment (FSA) English Language Arts (ELA) Mathematics, and Algebra 1.

• Additional applied models as they are approved by the State. Local models developed to determine the Student Performance component for teachers assigned to courses aligned to other statewide assessments: Grade 5, 8 FCAT 2.0 Science, Civics EOC, Algebra 2, Geometry, Biology, US History.

• Teachers assigned non-statewide tested courses, the District will apply locally developed measures including but not limited to: Statewide assessments, locally developed tests, other standardized assessments (SAT, ACT, AP, IB, AICE, etc.) Industry Certifications.

13

Student PerformanceOther state approved measures are designed to comply with FS 1012.34 section (7) are utilized, rating information will be determined, negotiated and distributed by the District.

14


Deliberate Practice

Professional Growth Plan Scoring Rubric:

15


Overall Score Determination

The rating scale below indicates the final evaluation ratings possibilities:

Possible scoring scenario for the final evaluation rating based on the weights of thethree components:

IP (57%) SP (33%) DP (10%) Final Rating

4 3 1 3.5

1 1 1 1

3 1 3 2.3

16


State Teacher Evaluation Distribution (FY16)

Source: www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7503/urlt/1516AnnualLegisReportTeacherEval.pdf

17

http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7503/urlt/1516AnnualLegisReportTeacherEval.pdf


State Teacher Evaluation Distribution (FY16)

DISTRICT Highly Effective EffectiveNeeds

Improvement / Developing

Unsatisfactory

Broward 18.3 80.3 1.3 0.1

Dade 32.6 65.4 1.9 0.1

Duval 23.4 71.1 5.2 0.1

Hillsborough 54.8 42.7 1.7 0.7

Orange 75.2 23.1 1.7 0.0

Palm Beach 50.4 49.1 0.6 0.0

Pinellas 10.3 81.8 7.9 0.1

STATE 45.9 52.0 1.9 0.2

Source: www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7503/urlt/1516AnnualLegisReportTeacherEval.pdf

18

http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7503/urlt/1516AnnualLegisReportTeacherEval.pdf

SDPBC Teacher Evaluation Rating by Component

FY17 Teacher Eval Ratings IP PP SP

Overall

Highly Effective (%) 51 87 32 62

Effective (%) 48 11 58 38

FY16 Teacher Eval Ratings IP PP SP

Overall

Highly Effective (%) 40 74 32 54

Effective (%) 58 16 61 46

19

19

SDPBC Teacher Evaluation Rating by Category (FY17)

State Cat.

Years of Exp.

InstructionalPractice

Student Performance FINAL

HI EFF EFF HI EFF EFF HI EFF EFF

1A 1 yr 32% 62% 30% 57% 47% 52%1B 2 yr 47% 51% 28% 61% 58% 42%2 3+ yr 56% 44% 33% 57% 65% 35%

Total 51% 48% 32% 58% 61% 38%

20

20

Instructional Practice Student GrowthHE EFF NI/DEV UN HE EFF NI/DEV UN

Non-Title 1 Schools(79)

EL 59% 35% 1% 0% 39% 49% 6% 2%

HS 75% 19% 0% 0% 31% 58% 4% 1%

MS 58% 36% 1% 0% 26% 63% 5% 2%

Total 64% 30% 1% 0% 34% 55% 6% 2%

Title 1Schools (86)

EL 26% 66% 2% 0% 27% 60% 7% 3%

HS 42% 51% 1% 0% 10% 71% 12% 2%

MS 29% 62% 1% 0% 17% 56% 16% 6%

Total 30% 61% 1% 0% 21% 61% 10% 3%

SDPBC Teacher Evaluation Ratings for Title 1 and Non-Title 1 Schools (FY17)

21

21

SDPBC First-Year Teacher Assignments (FY18)22

22


Learning from the Past (2012)

• Schools Received the training on the framework before District Support Staff.

• Instructional elements trained 3 years before planning elements.

• Multiple changes in policies and procedures from JTEC/JENC.

• Administrators trained separately from teachers.

• Train the trainer model not as effective as hoped.

23


Moving Forward (2018-2019)

24


Moving Forward (2018-2019)

o Turn key professional development where teachers and administrators receive the same message side-by-side through personalized and job-embedded learning (face-to-face, webinars, eLearning, LSI Growth Tracker).

o Collaboration meetings with JENC to align language, practices, and training to address raised issues.

o Research based on 23 essential teacher competencies to focus instruction toward student success.

o Focused Model developed based on feedback from our District and those around the nation.

25


Moving Forward• Inter-Rater Reliability

o Data cycles with instructional leadership and principals analyzing trends and areas of concern.

o Calibration training through instructional rounds.

o Side-by-side coaching from instructional leadership.

• Monitoring

o Support courageous conversations.

• Coaching

o Continue to work with CTA regarding fair compensation.

• Compensation

26

The Evaluation Process�January 24th, 2018Slide Number 2Slide Number 3Slide Number 4Slide Number 5Slide Number 6Slide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21Slide Number 22Slide Number 23Slide Number 24Slide Number 25Slide Number 26

Documents

The Evaluation Process€¦ · Category 1A. Category 1B/2: 1 Year. 2+ Years: Informal Observation. 1: 1. 1: Formal Observation. 1: 1. 1: Evaluation. Mid Year: Final. Final : 12. Student