Classroom Teacher Evaluation
Teacher quality matters.
Scholars agree that teacher quality is the most important school-based factor affecting student achievement (Sawchuk, 2011, Nye, et al, 2004, Hanushek, et al, 1998, and Goldhaber, et al, 1999).
Leon County Schools recognizes this and hopes to support its students, teachers, and community by striving to continually improve both teacher effectiveness and student learning.
This improvement happens in relationships that are based on trust and a desire to grow and learn. We are using the teacher evaluation process as a way to promote quality classroom instruction that balances research based observation data with the creativity and individuality of each classroom and student.
In addition, following the signing of Senate Bill 736, “The Student Success Act” into law, State Statute 1012.34 was amended to read: “The purpose of teacher evaluation is to increase student learning growth by improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state.” In accordance with the senate bill, state statutes, and the Race to the Top Leon County Schools developed a teacher evaluation system that combines student growth measures with the assessment of the delivery of core effective practices that have been strongly linked to student achievement.
When asked, your colleagues say teacher evaluation is important. Teachers want to enhance their practice. And they want to be noticed for what they do well.
Evaluation is not simply a measurement tool. It is a way to improve and show growth.
1. Instructional Practice
Instructional Practice comprises 45% of all classroom teachers’ evaluations in Leon County Schools, whether newly-hired or continuing with the district.
The Marzano Evaluation Model has been approved by the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) as a model that districts can use or adapt as their evaluation model. Leon County Schools has adapted the Marzano Evaluation Model framework into the Leon Educator Assessment and Development System (LEADS). The purpose of the evaluation system is to increase student learning by improving instructional practice. More specifically, LEADS is designed to assess the classroom teacher’s performance in relation to the Florida Educators Accomplished Practices and is based on the Marzano’s Framework for Effective Teaching.
The practices identified in the framework are strongly linked through research to increased student achievement. An additional outcome goal of the system is for the educator to use the evaluation to design a plan for professional growth (Deliberate Practice Plan - see below). The principal or a designee conducts the evaluation process in which the classroom teacher actively participates through the use of self-assessment, reflection, presentation of artifacts, and classroom demonstration.
The same core of effective strategies will be used by all evaluators for all classroom teachers. The strategies are captured as elements in an overall evaluation framework. The LEADS framework contains the following domains for Instructional Practice:
- Domain 1: Collaborative Planning
- Domain 2: Instruction
- Domain 3: Reflection and Revision
The three domains include 33 elements: 5 in Domain 1, 22 elements in Domain 2, and 4 elements in Domain 3.
Deliberate Practice Plan
Deliberate practice is a way for teachers to focus on instructional practice to improve student learning outcomes by growing their expertise through a series of planned action steps, reflections, and collaboration. The Deliberate Practice Plan includes: setting student learning objectives, targeting elements for instructional growth to support student achievement, focused feedback, progress monitoring, and observing/discussing teaching.
2. Student Performance Measure:
The Student Performance Measure comprises 35% of all teachers’ evaluations in Leon County Schools, whether newly-hired or continuing with the district. The source of this student performance measure is derived from teacher-created Student Learning Objectives. Each teacher’s Student Learning Objectives will vary based on the matched and qualified students assigned to the teacher in relation to subject and grade level taught. Student Learning Objectives are derived from data based on proficiency and growth measures for state, national and international assessments as well as proficiency rates and growth data based on district, curricular, or teacher assessments. The overall student performance score will include SLO data for the last 3 years including the current year and the two years immediately preceding the current year. If less than the three most recent years of data is available, then those available will be used.
International/National Assessment Data
Some courses include an international or national assessment as an expectation of student participation. When an international or national assessment is administered, student performance data is used to derive the student learning objectives component in the teacher evaluation. Because of a commitment by LCS to encourage all students who are motivated to participate in advanced coursework, regardless of previous assessment performance and for the purposes of teacher evaluation, proficiency is defined as students earning a “2” or higher on an Advanced Placement exam. See Appendix C.
Student Learning Objectives
Teachers that are assigned courses that require the following assessments will be required to utilize state assessment data to write Student Learning Objectives to reflect the Florida standard(s) needed for student achievement on the following assessments: Grades 3-8 Math, Grades 3-10 ELA, Algebra I, Civics, US History, Biology, and Geometry. To achieve this determination, teachers and principals are required to identify outcome measures of student learning. These student learning objectives (SLOs) are based on data of the students assigned to the teacher. Data is gathered from multiple sources including previous state assessment data, school level, and classroom level assessments, as well as student performance on classwork during the first weeks of the school year. Each teacher meets with his or her administrator to discuss and develop goals based on this data. The goals are aligned to the data and reflect all students and student groups assigned to the teacher. The attainment of the student learning objectives is quantified and converted into the student performance measure reported on the teacher evaluation instrument based on students that are matched and qualified.
Converting Student Learning Objectives to Student Performance Measures
To convert Student Learning Objective data to student performance measures, a percentage of goal attainment will be calculated. Teacher performance will be assigned using quartiles. This percentage of Student Learning Objective (SLO) targets met will be used to assign each teacher a student performance measure score (1-4). See Appendix
Student Growth for Instructional Personnel without Assigned Students
Both the instructional practice and student performance measure components are a part of the evaluation of non-classroom instructional personnel. Instructional practice is observed and evaluated by an administrator. Student performance measures are calculated using student learning objectives that are based on the function of each particular non-classroom instructional personnel's job.
3. Professional Responsibilities:
In accordance with s. 1012.34(3)(a)4., F.S., Leon County Schools has added a third performance indicator to the Leon LEADS framework. This performance indicator will be evaluated using Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities from the Leon LEADS framework. Professional Responsibilities comprises 20% of all classroom teachers and non-classroom instructional personnel evaluations in Leon County Schools, whether newly-hired or continuing with the district. There are four elements in this domain.
4. Summative Evaluation Scoring Method
The instructional summative evaluation score is comprised of three parts: Instructional Practice, Student Performance Measures, and Professional Responsibilities. The weighting of each component is as follows:
- Instructional Practice = 45%
- Student Performance Measures = 35%
- Professional Responsibilities = 20%
Within the Instructional Practice component, there are three domains that are weighted equally to determine the overall Instructional Practice score.
- Domain 1 Collaborative Planning x 20%
- Domain 2 Instruction x 60%
- Domain 3 Reflection and Revision x 20%
The Student Performance Measures score is calculated by proportionalizing the teacher VAM data provided by the state and the percentage of Student Learning Objectives met where appropriate. The average of up to three (3) years of SPM scores is used when appropriate and available per statute (s. 1012.34, F.S.).
The Professional Responsibilities score is determined by the teacher’s ratings on the elements within Domain 4 Professional Responsibilities.
The final summative rating is then calculated using the weighting described above:
Instructional Practice x 0.45
Student Performance Measures x 0.35
+ Professional Responsibilities x 0.20____
Summative Evaluation Score
The four final rating categories used in the system are:
- Highly Effective – Teacher consistently and significantly exceeded the standard(s) of performance
- Effective – Teacher exceeded or demonstrated the standard(s) of performance most of the time
- Needs Improvement or Developing (first three years of teaching) – Teacher demonstrated adequate growth toward achieving standard(s) of performance, but did not demonstrate competence on all standards of performance
- Unsatisfactory – Teacher did not demonstrate competence on or adequate growth toward achieving standard(s) of performance.
Final rating categories are determined based on the following scale:
HIGHLY EFFECTIVE (4)
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT/DEVELOPING (2)
Overall Final Score of
3.35 – 4.0
Overall Final Score of
2.35 – 3.349
Overall Final Score of
1.35 – 2.349
Overall Final Score of
0 – 1.349