Administrative Evaluation...

FloridaAtlantic

UniversityLabSchool

2016-17

FAULabSchool

SuperintendentDr.ValerieBristor

11/21/2016

Rule6A-5.030FormAEST-2015EffectiveDate:August5,2016

FAULabAdministrativeEvaluationSystem

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

**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.

Section1PerformanceofStudents

A school leader’s annual evaluation will consist of two parts: 50% Student Performance Scores based on specific state or district assessments and 50% on their Instructional Leadership Score pursuant to Section 1012.34, F.S..These parts will be combined to identify an overall rating.

The student growth component will count for 50% of the administrator’s overall evaluation score unless three years of data are not available. Administrators with more than three years of student performance data will be evaluated on the current year the two years immediately preceding the current year. In the case that less than three years of data are available, the percentage will be reduced to 40% and the Instructional Leadership Score component increased to 60%.

Student performance data utilized in the Leader Evaluation will be based on the grade levels assigned to the administrator. The student performance data points will be identified in the school’s annual School Improvement Plan (SIP). The district is composed of a K-12 school and assignments and responsibilities of student/teacher supervision are accounted when determining the student performance scores.

Assessment alignments will be used to determine the Student Growth/Achievement component. Table 1 serves as a tool for organizing student achievement scores. Table 1 will be updated through the revision process to reflect state models, state assessments, state provided item banks, and other resources as they become available. Value-Added Model (VAM) scores will reflect the percentages as outlined in Table 1 when available.

FAU Lab School has a traditional K-8 program with an accelerated high school component. Students in the ninth grade participate in accelerated coursework and are fully dual enrolled in Florida Atlantic University for grades 10-12. Students return to the high school campus to take required assessments for graduation and may meet other EOC assessment requirements through dual enrollment coursework as noted on Table 1.

The charts below display the assessments to be used for the 2015-16 school year. For the assessments not covered by the State’s VAM Model (as shown in the chart), local growth models will be developed to classify school administrators as Highly Effective, Effective, Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory. Proficiency models may be used for those assessments where growth cannot be measured.

Scores from the assessments below will be aggregated into a composite percentage to determine the school administrators’ Student Performance measure.

Table 1: Student Performance Measures

Student Performance Measure:

All administrator evaluations 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.

Course Performance Measure(s) for Evaluation Purposes

Percentage Associated with Final Summative Evaluation

Kindergarten (K) STAR Reading Assessments 50% First Grade (1) STAR Reading and Math Assessments 50% Second Grade (2) STAR Reading and Math Assessments 50% Third Grade (3) FSA ELA and Math 50% Fourth Grade (4) FSA ELA and Math VAM 50% Fifth Grade (5) FSA ELA and Math VAM 50% Other (K-5), including non-classroom instructional personnel (for example, media specialist, reading coach, etc.)

FSA ELA and/or Math

50%

Math Courses (6-8) FSA Math VAM 50% Science Courses (8) Statewide Science Assessment 50% English/Language Arts/Reading Courses (6-8) FSA ELA VAM 50%

Other (6-8), including non-classroom instructional personnel (for example, media specialist, reading coach, etc.)

District Measures including FSA ELA and FSA Math

50%

Civics Civics EOC 50% English 1 FSA ELA VAM 50% English 2 FSA ELA 50% English 3 Dual Enrollment at FAU FAU Faculty English 4 Dual Enrollment at FAU FAU Faculty Algebra 1; Algebra 1 Honors; Algebra 1B Algebra 1 EOC 50%

Geometry; Geometry Honors Geometry EOC 50%

Biology 1; Biology 1 Honors Biology EOC 50%

United States History N/A Students meet this requirement through Dual Enrollment

FAU Faculty

Other (9-12), including non-classroom instructional personnel (for example, media specialist, reading coach, etc.)

District Measures including EOC’s and FSA

50%

District Non-Classroom Instructional Personnel

Defined in Non-Instructional Evaluation Plan

FAU Lab Schools will have an administrative evaluation system that weighs student performance measures as 50% of the summative evaluation calculation. FAU Lab Schools will accept the state determined VAM score of each teacher. This score will be a 1-4 score, indicated by U to HE. The

chart below demonstrates how this score will be converted to points for the summative evaluation score: VAM Score Conversion Categorical Score = Points

4 Highly Effective 4 3 Effective 3

2 Needs Improvement/Developing 2

1 Unsatisfactory 1

Non-VAM Score Conversion (this will be used for assessments that don’t

have a conversion chart listed within the document)

Categorical Score = Points

60 – 100% growth, achievement, or proficiency

on any non-VAM assessment Highly Effective 4


on any non-VAM assessment Effective 3


on any non-VAM assessment

Needs Improvement/Developing 2


on any non-VAM assessment Unsatisfactory 1

FAU Lab Schools will allow the site based principal to determine the student performance measure for the newly hired for the first evaluation and use non-VAM calculation for scoring. For the Student Performance measure for school administrators (50% of final evaluation), scores will be combined by level based on their area of responsibility and their Student Performance scores (aggregated across all the assessments listed previously) will be percentile ranked. School administrators will receive a Student Performance rating based on the chart below:

Score Percentage Points Points 4.0 Scale

Highly Effective 94-100 100 4.00

86-93 95 3.80

Effective High (74-85) 86 3.44

Medium (63-73) 80 3.20

Low (50-62) 73 2.92

Needs Improvement/Developing 26-51 51 2.04

Unsatisfactory 0-25 25 1.00

Student Performance Calculation Example: Elementary Principal

Course Points awarded (out of 4) Kindergarten (K) 4 First Grade (1) 3 First Grade (1) 3 Second Grade (2) 4 Third Grade (3) 2 Fourth Grade (4) 3 Fifth Grade (5) 4 Other (K-5) 4 Total 27

Student Growth: = points awarded / points possible: 27 / 32 = 84.3%

Based on score table above, student growth score is 3.44

Summative score (example): 50% Student Learning Growth and 50% Instructional Practice

Student Growth: = 3.44 points

Instructional Practice: = 3 scale score points

(Student Growth) 3.44 scale score points + (Instructional Practice) 3 scale score points = 6 . 4 4

6.44 ÷ 2 = 3.22

3.22 = Effective on Summative Rating Scale (more information in section 4)

Section2InstructionalLeadershipThecompositescorefortheADHUSAdministratorisbasedona4.0scaleasdemonstratedinthetablebelow:

ElementsofAdministratorEvaluation MaximumPoints PercentFinalScorePerformanceofStudents 4 50%InstructionalLeadership LeadershipPractice

(MarzanoSchoolLeadershipEvaluation)

4 30%

DeliberatePractice 4 20%

The primary purpose of the A.D. Henderson University School/ FAU High School performance-feedback process is to provide a sound basis for administrative improvement and professional growth that will increase student learning. This is accomplished through an evaluation of administrative effectiveness and subsequent discussions between the evaluator and a supervisor. The process assumes the competence of the administrator and focuses on professional development in the context of student performance gains first, while documenting competency on an annual basis. The entire model for administrative evaluations is based around a common language of instruction. The common language is available on the Florida Department of Education website: http://www.fldoe.org/profdev/pdf/CommonLanguage.pdf

At the core of the professional development continuum is the belief that the administrator is engaged in a process of continuous improvement through deliberate practice seeking to provide better learning for current and future students. Another critical key element is a focus on improvement in student performance. Administrator expectations include data-driven decision making, continuous improvement of instruction, curriculum development, communication skills and creating a school climate that will improve student achievement.

Core of Effective Practices

A.D. Henderson University School/ FAU High School has a comprehensive performance evaluation system for all instructional personnel serves multiple functions and is designed to accomplish the following:

• Establish the practices and expectations of the position or profession that are based on research and linked to student outcomes

• Evaluate individual performance relative to expectations by assessing the quality and effectiveness of the services

• Provide feedback to the professional that recognizes effective performance, identifies areas for improvement, and directs professional growth activities

• Provide support to supervisees and practitioners not meeting performance expectations

The ADHUS/FAUHS Performance Evaluation System is grounded in the work of Robert Marzano and aligned with the Florida Principal Leadership Standards (FPLS). The documentation tools included in the iObservation System (Learning Sciences International) and referenced in subsequent sections of this plan will be used by all supervisory personnel. Evidence and results from iObservation System will inform the Leadership and Deliberate Practice Score which will make-up 50% of their final evaluation.

Framework: Leadership Evaluation

The Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model is a comprehensive approach to school leadership evaluation. While it can be implemented independently, it is designed to be used in close conjunction with the Marzano Causal Teacher Evaluation Model based on the leading instructional framework, the Art and Science of Teaching. Both models rely on a common language of instruction, building collaboration among teachers, leaders, and central office administrators.

A Multi-Dimensional Framework: The Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model is based on in-depth research and an extensive review of contemporary literature in school administrator leadership. To develop the model, Dr. Marzano and his associates first conducted a survey of the available research on school administrator competence. From this survey, specific school leader actions and behaviors were identified that, historically, have had a relationship with student achievement.

Reference List

Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning: Final Report of Research Findings. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

Marzano Research Laboratory. (2011). What Works in Oklahoma Schools: Phase I State Report. Englewood, CO.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Evaluation of school leaders is based on observation and evidence about certain leadership behaviors AND the impact of a leader’s behavior on others.

1. Student Performance Measures: 50% of a school leader’s annual evaluation is based on the performance of students in the school on specific state and/or district assessments.

2. The Leadership Practice: For 2015-16, 50% of the Evaluation will be based on Leadership Practice. The Leadership Practice Score combines results of the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model, weighted as 30% and Deliberate Practice, weighted as 20%. The Marzano School Leadership score is based on observation of the leader’s actions and the leader’s impact on the actions and behaviors of others. There are 24 elements identified under the five domains; A Data-Driven Focus on Student Achievement, Continuous Improvement of Instruction, A Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum, Cooperation and Collaboration and School Climate.

The following is a crosswalk from the district’s Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model and the Florida Principal Leadership Standards.

The district utilizes the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation System. For each Domain, evidence is listed to identify the scale value for each domain.

Each fall, the Evaluator will meet with the Principal and the Principal will meet with the Assistant Principal(s) for the purpose of formative assessment. Together, decisions will be made for goal setting and deliberate practice, which will be indicated on the Individual Leadership Development Plan (ILDP) in the fall. Each spring/summer the evaluator(s) and administrator(s) will discuss the summative evaluation using data collected from the protocol and /or short forms and reflected on the ILDP. Table 1 is a copy of the Conference/Proficiency Status Short From and Table 2 is the Deliberate Practice Growth Target will reflect the Performance Goals of Students applicable to the administrator based on their areas of responsibility. The Student Performance goals will be identified in the school’s School Improvement Goals. Both forms will be completed collaboratively between the evaluator and administrator.

Table 1

Table 2

The Principal and Assistant Principal will use the district approved ILDP (pursuant to Rule 6A- 5.071, F.A.C.) and any other evidences that support the administrators’ evaluation. The plan will be written based on school and classroom disaggregated student achievement and behavior data. It will contain clearly defined professional learning goals that specify measurable improvement in student performance, improvements in teacher effectiveness, and changes in administrator practices resulting from professional learning. School administrators and the School Advisory Body will review the evaluation data as part of the needs assessment process for the following school year’s professional development planning.

Where possible, district calculations will parallel state rules, policies, and procedures for determining student inclusion in calculations. The District Goals are the same as the School Improvement Goals due to the fact that A.D. Henderson University / FAU High School is the only school in the district.

The procedure for observing and collecting data and other evidence of instructional leadership is collaboration between the evaluator and the administrator. The administrator is responsible for providing artifacts if necessary for each domain as listed in the evidence.

There are seven steps to providing support for administrators

1. Orientation – The orientation step can occur at the start of a new work year, at the start of a new school year, or at the start of assignment (or new assignment) as a school leader. The depth and detail of orientation may vary based on prior training and whether changes in the evaluation model have occurred, but an annual orientation or re-fresher orientation should occur.

2. Pre-evaluation Planning – After orientation processes, the leader and evaluator prepare a formal conference and address evaluation processes and expectations. By September 30, 2015 the evaluatee submits a Self-Assessment through IObservation and provides completes their Deliberate Practice Growth Targets to their supervisor.

3. Initial Meeting between evaluate and evaluator – before October 23, 2015 a face-to-face meeting is held to discuss the evaluation processes, Self-Assessment, relationship of indicators to the School Improvement Plan, Deliberate Practice targets and indicators and/or student performance measure goals.

4. Monitoring, Data Collection, and Application to Practice – Evidence is gathered that provides insights on the leader’s proficiency on the issues in the evaluation system by those with input into the leader’s evaluation.

5. Mid-year Progress Review between evaluatee and evaluator- Between January 11-February 19, 2016 the evaluator and evaluatee will have a face-to-face meeting to discuss strengths and progress toward goals. The evaluator will discuss evidences gathered and provide feedback on any elements for which there is insufficient evidence to rate proficiency at this stage.

6. Prepare a consolidated performance assessment – By June 30, 2016 the evaluator will complete a final scores for the Leadership Practice and Deliberate Practice (if scores are available).

7. Year-end Meeting between evaluatee and evaluator – Based on the release of the VAM scores by the state, a meeting will be set within 30 days of the release of the VAM scores to address the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation, Deliberate Practice Score and Student Performance Measures to discuss the evaluatee’s final score for the evaluate.

Scoring on the Leadership Practice Component using the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation tool is defined by rubrics for each element within each of the five domains. Each element is equally weighted. The performance labels and points from the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation tool are listed below:

Performance Rating Points Innovating 4 Applying 3 Developing 2 Beginning 1 Not Using 0

Each element is rated using the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation rubric, weighted scores are calculated for each element. An overall score is determined by adding together weighted scores for a final score. Below are the domains and weights for each element:

Domain 1 20% Element 1 5% Element 2 4% Element 3 2% Element 4 4% Element 5 5% Domain 2 40% Element 1 10% Element 2 9% Element 3 8% Element 4 4% Element 5 4% Element 6 5% Domain 3 20% Element 1 8% Element 2 4% Element 3 4% Element 4 4% Domain 4 10% Element 1 3% Element 2 2% Element 3 2% Element 4 2% Element 5 1% Domain 5 10% Element 1 2% Element 2 2% Element 3 2% Element 4 2% Element 5 1% Element 6 1%

Section3OtherIndicatorsofPerformanceDeliberate Practice: The leaders work on specific improvements in mastery of educational leadership as a separate metric, which will be combined, with the Marzano School Leadership Score to make up 50% of their final score. The Deliberate Practice component makes up 20% of that final score. The leader and the evaluator identify two to four specific measurable learning goals related to teaching, learning, or school leadership practices that impact student learning growth. Two to four targets are required.

• The target of a deliberate practice process describes an intended result and will include “scales” or progress points that guide the leader toward highly effective levels of personal mastery.

• The leader takes actions, monitors progress, uses data to monitor and make adjustments and provides measurable evidence of growth in personal mastery.

• The evaluator monitors progress and provides feedback. • Deliberate practices ratings are based on comparison of proficiency at a “start point” and

proficiency at a designated “evaluation point”. The start point data can be based on preceding year IObservation data on a specific element or proficiency area, or determined by school leader and evaluator either at the end of the proceeding work year or at the start of the new work year in which the Deliberate Practice targets will be used for evaluation.

The leader must develop a minimum of two growth targets.

1. One target must address an issue based on a school improvement need related to student learning and is either selected by the district or approved by leader’s supervisor. The focus should be on complex issues that take some time to master such as providing observation and feedback of high-effect size instructional practices.

2. The second target must address an issue related to a knowledge base or skill set relevant to instructional leadership selected by the leader.

FAULabSchools Page1AdministratorEvaluationSystem(AEST–2015)

Deliberate Practice Growth Target

School Leader’s Name and Position: _____________________________________________________ Evaluators Name and Position: _________________________________________________ Target for school year: 2015-16 Date Growth Targets Approved: _____________ School Leader’s Signature ___________________________________________ Evaluator’s Signature _____________________________________

Deliberate Practice Growth Target # ______ (Insert target identification number here, check one category below)

( ) District Growth Goal ( ) School Growth Target ( )Leader’s Growth Target Focus Issue(s): Why is the target worth pursuing: Growth Target: Describe what you expect to know or be able to do as a result of this professional learning effort. Anticipated Gain(s): What do you hope to learn? Plan of Action: A general description of how you will go about accomplishing the target. Progress Points: List progress points or steps toward fulfilling your goal that enable you to monitor your progress of your goal.


Deliberate Practice Rubrics

Deliberate Practice (DP) – Development Rubric Completed before September 30, 2015 The leader and the evaluator identify 2-4 specific and measurable priority learning goals related to teaching, learning, or school leadership practices that impact student learning growth.

Highly Effective 4 Points

Effective 3 Points

Needs Improvement 2 Points

Unsatisfactory 1 Point

All criteria for the proficient category have been successfully met in addition: The leader … • Uses the concepts

contained within the DP template to influence other school improvement planning documents

• The leader regularly shares the results of their action research along with some of the things they are learning about leadership practices and the connection to student achievement with other schools, departments, or districts to maximize the impact of the leader’s personal learning experience.

The leader … • Crafts coherent Focus

Issue statement (e.g. one of the school’s SMART Goals identified within the school improvement plan)

• Creates a Plan of Action statement that specifically describes implicit or explicit models of how leadership must act and what, as a result, they hypothesize what will happen to student achievement as a result.

• The Anticipated Gains statement is a description of what the leader hopes to learn as a result of implementing the action plan.

The leader …. • The Focus issue

clearly identifies the content area that students are not performing well. However the goal may not have all the elements to make it a SMART one, there may not be a baseline and a projected gain percent or a measurable outcome.

• The Plan of Action statement is represented in the “IF/THEN” format, but lacks clarity or is overly complex and confusing and may not specifically address desired changes in student achievement.

The leader … • Is unable to produce

a completed draft of their DP or several elements of the DP template are left blank.

• The Focus Issue SIP Goal is missing many of the required elements that help provide clear direction to others.

• Plan of Action statement is either missing or not stated in an “IF/THEN” format or fails to specifically identify the one or two hypothesized adult strategies and/or the impact on student achievement.


Deliberate Practice (DP) – Implementation Rubric Completed before September 30, 2016

Highly Effective 4 Points

Effective 3 Points

Needs Improvement 2 Points

Unsatisfactory 1 Point

All criteria for the proficient category have been successfully met in addition: The leader … • Shares the results of

their action research with faculty, what they are learning, and how that learning will influence leadership practices in the future.

• Publicity reports, including plans and oral presentations, a frank acknowledgement of prior personal and organizational failures, and clear suggestions for system-wide learning resulting from those lessons.

• The leader regularly shares the results of their action research along with some of the things they are learning about leadership practices and the connection to student achievement with other schools, departments, or districts to maximize the impact of the leader’s personal learning.

The leader … • Demonstrates a

positive relationship between the adult and the student Anticipated Gains

• Produces clear and consistent evidence that they are monitoring and measuring both the leadership strategy or strategies as well as the impact on student achievement monthly

• Documents the changes in leadership practice that is occurring monthly as a result of the monitoring

• Publicly displays the graphic depiction of the degree in which the achieved leadership strategies-in-action compare to the impact on student achievement.

The leader... • Provides evidence

some of the Progress Points (student data) were monitored but not adult (cause) data

• Produces evidence that they are monitoring and measuring student effect data, but are inconsistent in monitoring and measuring leadership data. Consequently it is difficult to determine the degree to which the specified leadership practices are impacting student achievement.

• Participates in the action research process, and limited evidence of changes based on data.

• Has not yet created a graphic display of their research.

The leader … • Demonstrates no

significant effort to work on the targets.

• Demonstrates an indifference to data, no changes in leadership practice compared to the previous year. The data indicates there is a need for a significant change and the leader indicates that everything is fine.

The scoring for Deliberate Practice is based on the average growth demonstrated based on the development and implementation rubrics.


Section4SummativeEvaluationScore

ThecompositescorefortheADHUSAdministratorisbasedona4.0scaleasdemonstratedinthetablebelow:

ElementsofAdministratorEvaluation MaximumPoints PercentFinalScorePerformanceofStudents 4 50%InstructionalLeadership LeadershipPractice

(MarzanoSchoolLeadershipEvaluation)

4 30%

DeliberatePractice 4 20%


Section5AdditionalRequirements

The principal evaluation system was created based on the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model. Representatives from the School Advisory Body, along with the Principal/Director, attended the development training provided by the FDOE. The plan was circulated and shared with all relevant parties.

The evaluator is the individual responsible for supervising the evaluatee. The Assistant Dean of PK-12 Schools and Educational Programs will evaluate the Principal/Director; the Principal/Director will evaluate the Assistant Principal.

Our district is working with Learning Sciences International (LSI), the professional development firm that supports the Marzano Leadership Model. Expectations of leaders are clearly delineated through the model. The content of the district evaluation system informs those evaluated and those doing valuations of the issues to address and the process to use. Those being evaluated use these documents to guide self-reflection on practices that improve their work.

All administrators receive an annual Evaluation Report. This evaluation is a summation of Performance of Students, Leadership Practice and Deliberate Practice.

Evaluators provide both recurring feedback to guide growth in proficiency in district priorities and provide summative performance ratings.

Things to know:

1. The Research Framework(s) on which the evaluation system is based is The Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model. Each research framework is associated with particular approaches to instruction or leadership. The research aligned with the district framework(s) is a useful source of deeper understanding of how to implement strategies correctly and in appropriate circumstances. Marzano’s School Leadership Evaluation Model is designed to correspond to a teacher evaluation framework to maximize impact on raising student achievement. Evaluators can provide better feedback to sub-ordinates when they understand research framework.

2. Inter-rater reliability: Evaluators in the district should be able to provide sub-ordinates similar feedback and rating so that there is consistent use of the evaluation system across the district. This is promoted by training on the following:

a. The “look fors” – what knowledge, skills, and impacts are identified as system priorities by inclusion of indicators in the evaluation system.

b. The Rubrics – how to distinguish proficient levels. c. Rater reliability checks – processes for verifying raters meet district expectations in

using the rubrics. 3. Specific, Actionable, and Timely Feedback Processes: What evaluators observe does not

promote improvement unless it is conveyed to employees as specific, actionable and in a timely manner. Training on how to do so is essential. Continuous training in the Marzno Model will be provided by Learning Sciences International (LSI) for the single school


district evaluator and building principal. 4. Conference protocols and use of forms: Know what is required regarding meetings,

conference procedures, use of forms, and records. Protocol forms for observations are located

5. Process and procedures for implementing the evaluation system a. Evidence gathering: What sources are to be used? The Administrators’ ILPD,

deliberate practice documentation and the protocol forms included along with the results from school-wide student growth scores, will inform the administrators; evaluations.

b. Timeframes, record keeping. The Principal/Director, along with the Assistant Principals will participate in a formative assessment with their direct supervisors in the fall of each year. Each spring, they will meet to finalize the summative evaluation and complete the Annual Evaluation Report for School Leaders.

6. Additional metrics: Training on any additional metric use to supplement the practice portion of the evaluation is available through the Marzano IObservation site.

7. Input Mechanisms a. Parent input – each year, parents complete a survey about their experiences with

their child(ren)’s school. This includes school climate, teacher feedback, school safety, and program offered. These data will not be used in the administrators’ evaluation; however, it will be used to provide formative feedback, which will help to inform the administrator’s year-long goals.

b. Faculty input – Each year, the faculty have an opportunity to assess administrators’ job performance through a university-wide survey. The survey is provided by the United Faculty of Florida (UFF) and is distributed electronically to all employees. While data from this survey will not be used for administrators’’ evaluations, it will help to inform areas of growth and development needed and will be targeted on the ILDP through deliberate practice.

c. School Advisory Body (SAB) - Results from parent survey and the faculty survey will be discussed each year at the final SAB meeting in the spring. At this meeting, areas of growth identified through these surveys will provide formative feedback to the administrators that will inform their goals for the following school-year.

The results of interim and final evaluations determine the focus of staff development for administrators. The form of staff development and training may include leadership meeting settings as well as completion of the Marzano Modules available to the district. The district contracts with the Learning Science Institute to provide fall training for administrators as needed.

FAU Lab schools will require participation in specific professional development programs by administrators who have been evaluated as less than effective. The district has created a cycle of assistance for administrators evaluated as Needs Improvement/Developing or Unsatisfactory. This cycle of assistance is provided through the collaborative creation of a Professional Development Plan. This assistance targets the areas identified as deficient and will provide opportunities for the teacher to improve through various venues. The supports for the administrator may include mentoring, peer modeling, additional coursework, and attend professional development.


Peer assistance is supported through modeled walk-throughs with leadership team members. The principal works with the leadership team to develop a deeper understanding of the IObseration Tool utilized to evaluate teachers. Additional assistance by the principal and/or a peer is provided when deficiencies are identified through their Marzano School Leadership evaluation or lack of growth on meeting goals identified through their Deliberate Practice Growth Targets that were established.

Section6DistrictEvaluationProcedures

The individuals responsible for supervising the employee will evaluate the employee’s performance, but may consider input from other supervising personnel. The evaluator will submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the final evaluation takes place. The evaluator will meet with each administrator to discuss areas of professional practice for growth and areas to maintain effectiveness. The final Leadership and Deliberate Practice scores are discussed with the employee in detail with a full explanation of the final rating.

The evaluator will submit a written report of the evaluation to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee’s contract. School administrator evaluation results are a component used to inform the district’s human capital decisions. Human capital decisions include, but are not limited to, the determination of professional development, assignment of support structures, renewal of contract or reappointment, transfers, promotions or additional responsibilities, non-renewal of contracts or termination of employment, and compensation. Administrators in the district receive a written report within 10 days of a formal evaluation through the IObservation tool. Additionally, the administrator has the opportunity to provide feedback on all observations completed in the system, which are a permanent part of their IObservation record.

The protocols for unsatisfactory evaluations include a written notification in the form of a memo. Staff receiving unsatisfactory observations will conference with their supervising administrator to discuss deficiencies and develop a Professional Development Plan to assist the staff member.

The district school superintendent shall annually notify the Department of Education of any school administrator who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations; three consecutive needs improvement evaluations, or three consecutive years of a combination of needs improvement and/or unsatisfactory evaluations. The district school superintendent shall also notify the Department of Education of any school administrator who are given written notice by the district of intent to terminate or non-renew employment.


Section7DistrictSelf-Monitoring

a. b. c.

The district’s comprehensive performance evaluation system for all administrative staff serves multiple functions and is designed to accomplish the following:

• Establish the practices and expectations of the position or profession that are based on research and linked to student outcomes

• Evaluate individual performance relative to expectations by assessing the quality and effectiveness of the services

• Provide feedback to the professional that recognizes effective performance, identifies areas for improvement, and directs professional growth activities

• Provide support to supervisees and practitioners not meeting performance expectations • Identify individual professional development • Provide evaluation data to inform school and district improvement plans.

FAU Lab School personnel and staff meet annually to review the Administrative Evaluation System to determine compliance with the Florida Statute. The team usually meets in the summer of each year to evaluate the effectiveness of the system. During the review, the team determines if:

• The evaluator understands 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.]

o The Principal director trains the evaluator staff, walking with younger administrator providing instant feedback and post-walk through assessment analysis

o To ensure inter-rater reliability, more than one evaluator is observing the educator. The supervising administrator has midyear and annual meetings with evaluators to ensure accuracy in their evaluations. The face-to-face meetings review the evaluation tool for inter-rater reliability.

o The district continues to implement procedures to increase evaluator accuracy and inter-rater reliability. The district continues to work with administrative staff to improve the evaluation process and assist teachers with identified deficiencies.

o Evaluators should be familiar with the research framework on which the evaluation system is based, The Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model, and use it as a source of deeper understanding of how to implement strategies correctly and in


appropriate circumstances. Marzano’s School Leadership Evaluation Model is designed to correspond to a teacher evaluation framework to maximize impact on raising student achievement. Evaluators can provide better feedback to sub-ordinates when they understand research framework. The district will continue to provide staff development for both teachers and administrators to continue increase their understanding of the Marzano Art and Science of Teaching Framework. The district is committed to actively engaging all faculty and administrators to collectively deepen knowledge and improve skills that result in improved student learning.

• All evaluators must be oriented to the tool annually in order to be able to observe and evaluate administrators. The evaluator provides necessary and timely feedback to the employees being evaluated. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)2., F.A.C]

o Administration will meet with educators to review observation within a week of the observation. Monthly administration meetings are held to ensure that observations are occurring and timely feedback is provided.

o Evaluators in the district should be able to provide sub-ordinates similar feedback and rating so that there is consistent use of the evaluation system across the district. This is promoted by training on the following:

i. The “look fors” – what knowledge, skills, and impacts are identified as system priorities by inclusion of indicators in the evaluation system.

ii. The Rubrics – how to distinguish proficient levels. iii. Rater reliability checks – processes for verifying raters meet district

expectations in using the rubrics.

o Evaluators will convey to employees evaluative feedback in a specific, actionable and in a timely manner. Continuous training in the Marzno Model will be provided by Learning Sciences International (LSI) for the single school district evaluator and building principal. The district will support interdependence among faculty and administrators, as well as individual accountability, for student learning and academic growth and the development of the whole child. The district will provide feedback through individual meetings. These meetings occur throughout the year.

o The IObservation instrument can provide immediate feedback to the teacher. Administrators provide feedback to teachers within 48 hours in the majority of classroom visits.

• The evaluator will follow district policies and procedures in the implementation of evaluation system(s); [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)3., F.A.C.]

o Evaluators follow district policies and procedures established for administrator evaluations. These procedures meet the guidelines of both the district and the Florida Atlantic University.

o The evaluator will participate in Inter-Rater Reliability trainings and linking professional development to evaluation results and student data.

o The district’s Director monitors the policies and procedures are being followed through instructional practice data within IObservation, conferencing with evaluators, visiting schools, conducting training, and conducting side by side Inter-rater reliability Instructional Rounds and partnering with the district’s assessment and accountability staff.

• The district will use evaluation data to identify individual professional development. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(j)4., F.A.C.]


o Data is collected each semester and annually through the district processing center. The Professional Development committee reviews the summative ratings, in order to develop Professional Development.

o Evaluation data of administrators and instructional personnel is used to help determine Deliberate Practice Targets at the school level each school year as well as identify ongoing professional development.

• The district will use evaluation data to inform school and district improvement plan(s). o Annually the review committee will analyze evaluation data for focus of District

Improvement Plan, utilizing the data from iObseravtion tool. o The team looks at the performance evaluation results from the prior school year for all administrative

personnel using the four levels of performance. The performance evaluation results for instructional personnel are disaggregated by classroom teacher and all other instructional personnel; by school site; and by instructional level. School grades and state and local assessment data are also reviewed by school and district and compared to the performance evaluation data. As required by state statute, administrator evaluations are based primarily upon student achievement scores that align with school and District improvement plans. School and District improvement plans are based primarily on student achievement. Leadership Practice results will also be used to guide the development of the administrators’ professional development plans, and school and district improvement plans. Evaluation results will be used to decide how personnel are assigned/deployed in the school/district setting to maximize student achievement growth and aligned to the improvement plans

Changes and revisions to the administrative evaluation system will be recommended. All substantial revisions will be reviewed and approved by the district before being used to evaluate administrators.

Administrative Evaluation...

Documents

Transcript of Administrative Evaluation...