What are the New Teacher Evaluations for Florida?

By: Suzanne Hollifield Clark, Esq.

As a service to PEN members, PEN of Florida will present a three part series explaining and discussing the new teacher evaluations in Florida, as follows:

Part 1: Outline of New Teacher Evaluations in Florida

Part 2: Student Performance: Overview of the FCAT Value-Added Model

Part 3: Instructional practice and professional and job responsibilities: Overview of the Marzano Causal Model for Teacher Evaluations

Part 1 of 3: Outline of New Teacher Evaluations in Florida

With this article, PEN of Florida is not attempting to advocate for or against the new Teacher Evaluation system in Florida. Rather, the purpose of this series of articles is to provide PEN of Florida members with an explanation of these new evaluations, so that the members may predict how their careers will be impacted, and can themselves come to informed opinions about the new evaluations. Further, this article is meant only as an outline, overview, and brief explanation. Endnotes are provided with sources and more in-depth analysis of the evaluations. ⁱ

WHO:

The new evaluations will affect instructional personnel and school administrators in Florida School Districts.

WHEN:

The Federal Race to the Top grant and the Student Success Act of 2011 (Senate Bill 736) require the State of Florida to implement new teacher evaluations over a four year period, beginning with the 2011-12 school year. The evaluations must be fully in place by 2014-15.

WHAT:

Under the new law ⁱⁱ, there are three required evaluation criteria:

50% of the evaluations must be based on:

Performance of students

The remaining 50% must be based on:

Instructional practice or instructional leadership (using FEAPs: Florida Educator Accomplished Practices) and

Professional and job responsibilities

Districts MUST use the State Model for the student

performance half of the evaluations.

The State Model is the FCAT Value-Added Model, a complicated statistical model which bases a teacher’s score on the teacher’s “effect” on a student’s FCAT score. In other words, how much better (or worse) is a student’s score because of the teacher’s instruction? (The FCAT Value-Added Model will be explained below, and in more depth in Part 2 of this series.)

Districts MAY choose to use the State Model for the other half of the evaluations, or they may implement their own model for the second half of the evaluations.

The State Model for the second half of evaluations is Dr. Marzano’s Causal Teacher Evaluation Model, ⁱⁱⁱ and is based heavily on classroom observations. (The Marzano Causal model will be briefly explained below, and in more depth in Part 3 of this series.)

WHERE:

All 67 Districts must implement new evaluations.

WHY:

The new evaluations are needed to comply with the Federal Race To The Top Grant and are required by The Student Success Act of 2011, and must be “based on sound educational principles and contemporary research in effective educational practices.” ^iv

HOW:

Eight committees have been formed to implement the requirements of the Student Success Act. ^v The committee formed to devise a model for the student performance portion of the evaluations is the Student Growth Implementation Committee (SGIC). ^vi The Value-Added Model chosen by the SGIC was fully adopted by the Commissioner of Education.

THE FCAT VALUE-ADDED MODEL FOR TEACHER EVALUATIONS

What is the concept?

The basic idea behind the model is to:

Take a student’s past performance (i.e. past test score

Create a predicted performance for that student based on factors (listed below) that are statistically accounted for in the Value-Added Model (i.e. predicted test score).

Take the student’s current performance (i.e. current test score).

Calculate the difference between the student’s predicted performance and their actual current performance. That amount of difference is the teacher’s effect, ^vii or the “value added” by the teacher’s performance. ^viii

What factors are taken into account statistically with the purpose of “leveling the playing field”? ^ix

Student Characteristics:

Up to two prior years of achievement scores

The number of subject-relevant courses in which the student is enrolled

Students with Disabilities (SWD) status

English Language Learner (ELL) status

Gifted Status

Attendance

Mobility (number of transitions)

Difference from modal age in grade (as an indicator of retention)

Classroom characteristics:

Class size

Homogeneity of students’ entering test scores in the class

The above factors are taken into account in the complicated statistical equation to separate what is out of the teacher’s control from what is in the teacher’s control and in essence “level the playing field.”

Note: the legislature specifically prohibited the use of

gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as

variables in the model. ^x

What does this complicated value-added equation look like?

This equation is explained in the Technical Report by American Institutes of Research (AIR). ^xi

The DOE broke down this equation by stating in their Slide Presentation for the August 1-2, 2011 Workshop: ^xii “The left side of the equation is the outcome variable. The right side of the equation includes all the predictor variables and the school and teacher random effects.”

How is it calculated, and by whom?

The DOE has contracted with AIR to create this formula. The DOE will provide the calculated scores to the Districts based on the factors listed above (e.g. prior test scores, ELL, gifted status, attendance, mobility, etc.).

What about the school

component?

The Committee (SGIC) “felt that some of the school component should be attributed to the

teacher.” ^xiii

The “final” teacher value-added score is computed as:

Teacher Value-Added Score = Unique Teacher Component + ½ Common School Component

Therefore, teachers get credit in their score for half of the value of the school’s score, because the committee (SGIC) decided that the teacher should not receive full credit for a school (due to leadership, neighborhood factors, etc.), but did have some impact on the school (e.g. working together with other teachers on programs that affect the entire school, etc.).

What if you teach a course or grade not tested by the FCAT?

Until assessments are in place for all grades and courses, teachers in non-FCAT assessed courses will be evaluated based on their student’s FCAT reading score. ^xiv This issue will be addressed in greater depth in Part 2 of this series.

THE MARZANO CAUSAL MODEL

FOR TEACHER EVALUATIONS

What is the concept?

Simply put, the Marzano Model is based highly on classroom observations.

The Marzano Model assumes that the purpose of Teacher Evaluations is not simply to measure the effectiveness and/or abilities of a teacher’s instruction as it impacts student achievement, but also to help teachers improve each year by giving teachers the right feedback to enable them to develop skills, behaviors, and expertise over time. Marzano’s idea is that as the teacher improves from year to year, there will also be gains in student achievement from year to year. ^xv

The idea is that the teachers are observed and assessed, then given two to three areas where they can improve each year. These two to three areas of improvement can be chosen by the District, school administrators, and/or individual teachers. “Deliberate practice” should be used such that the teacher works to improve in these areas under the supervision and direction of administrators and with the support of peers. Student achievement should be the end product of the above process of teacher improvement.

What are the basics?

The model includes four domains. ^xvi Each of the domains has many elements linked to it. The four domains are:

Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors

Domain 2: Preparing and Planning

Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching

Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism

For a flow chart with the above domains that was designed by Dr. Marzano, please see the following website: http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/evaluation/causal_teacher_evaluation_model/

Because of the many areas (domains and elements) where the teacher can be observed and assessed within the Marzano Model, another component for Districts in implementing this evaluation model is “iObservation .” ^xvii iObservation, a Division of Learning Sciences International, provides a computer software program that implements the Marzano Causal Model. ^xviii Essentially, it is a way for administrators and teachers to use Dr. Marzano’s system. ^xix

One of the many components of this software program is that an observer can pull up the program and click on The Marzano Model’s domain elements as they observe the classroom. Another component is that once the observation and notes are “finished,” and an e-mail is sent to the teacher informing them that their observation/evaluation is ready to be viewed. That teacher can then “log in” to the system to view it. Michael Toth, the CEO of Learning Sciences International states that the iObservation program provides a system for: feedback, walkthroughs, observations, growth plans, pre/post observation conferences, and professional development through reflection and resource library. ^xx

CONCLUSION

In review, under Florida Law, the new teacher evaluations are to be based on two parts. The first 50% must be based on Student Performance through the FCAT Value-Added Model, and that model must be adopted by all districts. The second 50% must be based on Instructional Practice and Professional and Job Responsibilities. Each District may choose its own model for the second half of evaluations, or it may adopt the model selected by the State of Florida, which is the Marzano Model for Teacher Evaluation.

For in-depth information on the FCAT Value Added Model and how it was

implemented, See http://www.fldoe.org/committees/sg.asp

ⁱⁱ Student Success Act (Senate Bill 736)

ⁱⁱⁱ http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/fldoe/

^iv See www.fldoe.org/arra/pdf/april13tac.pdf

^v I read this either in the White Paper or the Technical Report on VAM

^vi “The purpose of the SG Implementation Committee is to provide input, feedback and recommendations to the state in the development and implementation of teacher-level student growth models.” http://www.fldoe.org/committees/sg.asp

Scroll down the above cited web page for a complete list of committee members, their position/organization, and their district.

^vii The teacher effect is the portion of student growth attributed to the classroom teacher. See link for August 1-2 Presentation (PDF, 649KB) at http://www.fldoe.org/committees/sg.asp

^viii Chart from slide presentation for AIR Workshop Aug 1-2, 2011 p. 18/111. See http://www.fldoe.org/committees/sg.asp and click link for “August 1-2 Presentation (PDF, 649KB)”

^ix p. 14 of slide presentation, Presentation on the Value Added Model. Link is under “Implementation Materials” found at http://www.fldoe.org/committees/sg.asp

^x p. 4 of VAM White Paper. Link is under “Implementation Materials” found at http://www.fldoe.org/committees/sg.asp

^xi p. 6 of the Technical Report. Link is under “Implementation Materials” found at http://www.fldoe.org/committees/sg.asp

“where is the observed score at time t for student i, is the model matrix for the student and school level demographic variables, is a vector of coefficients capturing the effect of any demographics included in the model, is the observed lag score at time t-r (), γ is the coefficient vector capturing the effects of lagged scores, is a design matrix with one column for each unit in q ( ) and one row for each student record in the database. The entries in the matrix indicate the association between the test represented in the row and the unit (e.g., school, teacher) represented in the column.”

^xii p. 25 of slide presentation, Presentation on the Value Added Model. Link is under “Implementation Materials” found at http://www.fldoe.org/committees/sg.asp

^xiii p. 33 of slide presentation, Presentation on the Value Added Model. Link is under “Implementation Materials” found at http://www.fldoe.org/committees/sg.asp

^xiv See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/florida-teacher-evaluatio_n_1079758.html

^xv This author attended the January 18, 2012 webinar, “The Role of Research when choosing a teacher evaluation model” presented by Dr. Robert Marzano and Michael Toth.

^xvi Research_Base_and_Validation_Studies_Marzano_Evaluation_Model[1].PDF available at http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/

^xvii “a division of Learning Sciences International”

^xviii See http://www.iobservation.com/iObservation/ “iObservation is an instructional and leadership improvement system. It collects, manages and reports longitudinal data from classroom walkthroughs, teacher evaluations and teacher observations. Teacher growth and leadership practices inform professional development differentiated to individual learning needs for every teacher and leader to increase his/her classroom effectiveness each year.”

^xix This author attended the January 18, 2012 webinar, “The Role of Research when choosing a teacher evaluation model” presented by Dr. Robert Marzano and Michael Toth. Mr. Toth is the CEO of Learning Sciences International and gave a presentation on iObervations at this webinar.

^xx Id. See also Slide Presentation provided to webinar attendees.

Collective Bargaining

As teachers aligned themselves more and more closely with the labor movement, collective bargaining emerged as the means for determining teacher contracts. In 1961New York City teachers elected to collectively bargain their contracts, with the United Federation of Teachers (AFT affiliate)operating as their agent. This idea quickly spread throughout most school districts in the United States and Union membership skyrocketed.

PROS-
- Teachers are all treated equally.
- It permits teachers to increase their "fringe benefits," particularly during lean years when raises cannot be afforded and school districts need to satisfy the unions.
- It gives teachers a very powerful seat at the table during discussions on educational policy.

CONS-
- It forces school districts to make long term, more expensive concessions in exchange for short term savings. This hurts teachers and students.
- It can be unnecessary since most of the major points in the teacher contract are now granted by virtue of state law, and not the collective bargaining process.
- It hurts the profession of teaching by treating educators like factory workers instead of academic professionals.

Early in its history, collective bargaining was viewed as a way to unite teachers against administrators that had for years discriminated against and underappreciated its work force. Many proponents of collective bargaining will point to the early history of collective bargaining, and the subsequent improvement to teacher working conditions, as justification for its existence in today's reality. Collective bargaining also spawns things like the unified teacher salary schedule, which many proponents might look to as a benefit (to form your own opinion view the blog entry on said topic). Many also argue that collective bargaining is what gives teachers and unions their power when discussions of edcuational policy arise in a community.

Myron Lieberman, early champion of teacher collective bargaining, has since written several books on how collective bargaining has ended up damaging the profession. It drains valuable resources into contractual obligations (i.e. mandatory professional development days for teachers cost an estimated $84 per student per year, you can do the math on how much extra money that could be in your pocket; restrictions on teachers covering duty stations require principals to hire additional aides and other support staff). Many teachers enjoy these benefits without realizing that they come at a price and that this money could be used to pay them more and recruit and retain more talented teachers. Much of what is collectively bargained in teacher contracts, from planning periods to health benefits, have unintended consequences that cost school districts, and ultimately teachers and students, billions.
The state of Georgia does not collectively bargain their teacher contracts and currently their teachers salaries are rated #3 in the country in the salary comfort index (www.teacherportal.com), which factors in cost of living. Teachers at charter schools, which do not collectively bargain, often enjoy higher salaries then their collective bargaining counterparts.
Many also argue that collective bargaining classifies the teaching profession as more like a factory worker, where everyone is equally valuable (except for seniority) and equally replaceable without reward for innovation or creativity, and less like the academic professions of lawyers, doctors, and engineers that do not collectively bargain.

Further Reading:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/BetterBargain.pdf
http://www.performanceincentives.org/data/files/directory/ConferencePapersNews/Hannaway_et_al_2008.pdf
http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/FrozenAssets.pdf


In the News:
As was seen in Florida with Senate Bill 6, collective bargaining is powerless in the face of changes to state laws. We must ask ourselves, as professional educators, is it more important to get involved in reforms at the state level or at the bargaining table?
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2010-03-24/story/florida-senate-passes-overhaul-teacher-contracts
More current news about collective bargaining and teacher contracts:
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-08-09/story/school-board-wants-discuss-end-some-teacher-raises

Unified Teacher Salary Schedule

Across the country states and school districts currently use a Unified Teacher Salary Schedule, or "grid", to determine a teacher's pay. The factors that determine salary increases are years of service and advanced degrees.

PROS:
- Teachers are guaranteed a certain salary.
- Teachers are encouraged to pursue advanced degrees.
- Teacher raises at the bottom of the "grid" usually lead to increases across the board.
- Teachers are rewarded for the amount of time they serve in the system.
- Makes budget projections easier on school boards and administrators.

CONS:
- Hard-working young teachers are more likely to pursue career opportunities that compensate their talent and extra effort.
- Attempts to entice more qualified new teachers (especially in math and science) become too costly as all salaries in the grid must then increase.
- Strips the system of accountability as all teachers are compensated the same regardless of effort or outcomes.
- Pays teachers the same no matter the difficulty of their subject matter.
- Creates a mentality that denegrates the educator profession by not treating teachers like other academic professionals.

The argument for the unified salary schedule is simple, its proponents believe that because time served and advanced degrees are the only thing that educators can control, then it should be the sole basis for their compensation. They claim it is unfair to base a teacher's salary on other variables that they believe hinder student performance and are out of the control of the teacher, like the socioeconomic background of their students. Opponents of this method of compensation take a broader view of what is within the control of educators.
Opponents believe that educators across the country have proven that increased effort and skill on the part of the teacher can be quantified. No matter the socioeconmoic background of the student, quality teaching will lead to increased student performance and they believe that educators should be compensated based, in part, on this measure. They believe that a unified salary structure hurts the education system by offering incentives to teachers that use their flex time working on advanced degrees (especially degrees that are not in the field of education) instead of focusing on current student achievement. They believe it also deters young and talented individuals from pursuing a career in education (especially in math and science) because they can advance much more quickly in other sectors where their creativity and talent will be compensated accordingly, no matter the amount of time they have been with their organization. Some also argue that it creates the perception that teachers are like assembly line workers, all of equal value and easily replaced. They believe that this pay structure, instead of being compensated like doctors, engineers or other academic professionals, has damaged the status of professional educators.



Further Reading:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=gse_pubs
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/14817/How_Teachers_Are_Paid_The_Salary_Grid.html
http://www.psrf.org/gur/gur20.3wenders.jsp

News from around the country:
In Washington D.C. removing the salary grid led to a 21% raise in teacher salaries and the opportunity to earn more.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcschools/2010/06/council_approves_teachers_cont.html?hpid=newswell

Welcome to PEN's Blog!

As a part of PEN's commitment to empower teachers with the facts about education reform we are launching this blog to offer a series of research-based examinations on both current practices of the public education system and ideas for reform that could potentially challenge the status quo.
It is our goal that teachers will weigh the pros and cons of each, form an opinion, and voice their beliefs in the way they see fit. It is a core belief of PEN that informed professional educators promote what is best for public education.
We know that a teacher's time is valuable and it is our intent to make each entry as concise as possible. We plan to list the pros and cons for each topic, write a brief synopsis containing the more salient points, and provide links for further reading for those who are interested to learn more.
Please feel free to comment on and share this information with as many professional educators as you can! Teachers voices are too important to this cause to be silenced or manipulated by misinformation!