Table Of ContentInstructional Evaluation System, 2017 – 2018 School Year
Rule 6A‐5.030
Form IEST – 2015
Effective Date: July 1, 2017
(cid:3)
Table of Contents
1. Performance of Students
2. Instructional Practice
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
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.
(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
(cid:3)
1. Performance of Students
Student Performance Measures – Table 1: The table to follow specifies the assessments, calculation
components and percentages associated with the final evaluation score for each teaching assignment.
Specifically the percentage of the evaluation that is based on performance of students’ criterion is stated in
Column 5: Evaluation Weight/Percentage of Overall Evaluation. Unless indicated otherwise, the percentage
of the overall evaluation based on student performance is 33%.
TABLE 1: Evaluation Components/Measures forClassroomTeachersby Grade/Subject
Row Grade Level/Subject AssessmentsUsed Calculation Evaluation
Reference (Teacher Category) Components of the Weight/Percent of
Student Performance Overall Evaluation
Factor
a. Teachers assigned to FloridaDepartmentof Studentproficiency on Studentproficiencyon
Prekindergarten (VPK Education VPK FLDOE VPK VPK assessment
and Gen Ed only) Assessment, Window 3 Assessment
b. Teachers assigned to MathandEnglish i‐ReadyAssessment Combinationoftwo
Kindergarten – Grade 2 Language Arts (ELA) Window 3 proficiency factors:
i‐Ready Spring measure (25%) Cumulative
Assessment. Math Proficiency on
i‐ Ready
(25%) and Cumulative
ELA Proficiency on i‐
Ready
c. Teachers assigned to MathandEnglish i‐Ready Assessment Combinationoftwo
Grade 3 Language Arts (ELA) Window 3 factors:
i‐Ready Spring proficiency measure Assessment of
Assessment proficiency as
Grade 3 FSA for ELA measured by i‐Ready
Grade 3 Florida and Math as (25%) and FSA (ELA
Standards Assessment measure of and Math Proficiency
(FSA) for English proficiency (L2 or 12. 5% each)
Language Arts (ELA) above)
and Math
Page 2
TABLE 1: Evaluation Components/Measures forClassroomTeachersby Grade/Subject
Row Grade Level/Subject AssessmentsUsed Calculation Evaluation
Reference (Teacher Category) Components of the Weight/Percent of
Student Performance Overall Evaluation
Factor
d. Teachers assigned to FloridaStandards AggregatedTeacher Performanceofstudents
Grades 4 and 5 Assessment (FSA) for VAM – includes FSA assigned to the teacher
English Language Arts ELA and Math (teacher VAM)
(ELA) and Math for
assigned students
e. Elementary Resource ContentAreaDistrict Student proficiency Studentproficiencyfor
Teachers of non‐state Assessments on district based students assigned to the
tested subjects assessment as teacher
follows:
Technology
Resource = Grades
4 – 5
All Other Resource
= Grades 1 – 3
f. Elementary Resource StateAssessmentsin Student proficiency Studentproficiencyor
Teachers of state tested Content Area on state VAM, if available, for
subjects (ELA, Math or assessment or VAM students assigned to the
Science) if available teacher
Middle Grades (G6‐G8)andHighSchool(G9–G12)(COHORT II)
**The student performance measure will be based on all students assigned to the courses taught and the
corresponding assessments.
g. Teachers of English FloridaStandard TeacherVAMfor Growthinstudents
Language Arts in grades Assessments for ELA for FSA/ELA assigned to the teacher
6 – 10** assigned students in ELA (teacher VAM)
h. Teachers of English SemesterExams Semester1and SemesterFinalExams
Language Arts in Grades Semester 2 Exam (Semester 1 = 50% and
11 and 12 and Teachers grades for assigned Semester 2 = 50% of
of SWD without FSAA students proficiency score)
Scores
i. Teachers of students FloridaStandards TeacherVAM TeacherVAM
enrolled in 6th, 7th or 8th Assessment
grade math and Algebra I
including teachers of
students with disabilities
without FSAA scores.
Page 3
TABLE 1: Evaluation Components/Measures forClassroomTeachersby Grade/Subject
Row Grade Level/Subject AssessmentsUsed Calculation Evaluation
Reference (Teacher Category) Components of the Weight/Percent of
Student Performance Overall Evaluation
Factor
j. Teachers of Biology, US StateEndofCourse ScoresfromStateEOC State EndofCourse
History, Civics, Algebra II Exams (EOC) for assigned students Exam scores for assigned
and Geometry including students
teachers of students
with disabilities without
FSAA scores
k. Teachers of subjects not SemesterExams Semester1and Studentproficiencyon
assessed by FSA, State Semester 2 Exam semester exams
EOC or FSAA Scores for assigned
students
l. Teachers of students FSA forEnglish AggregatedTeacher TeacherVAM
with disabilities with Language Arts (ELA) and VAM for ELA and
VAM Math for assigned Math
students
m. Teachers of students MathandEnglish i‐ReadyAssessment Combinationoftwo
with disabilities in Language Arts (ELA) i‐ Window 3 proficiency factors:
Kindergarten – Grade 2 Ready Spring measure (25%) Cumulative
Assessment Math Proficiency on
i‐Ready
(25%) and
Cumulative ELA
Proficiency on i‐
Ready
n. Teachers of students Districtselected Districtselected Studentproficiencyon
with disabilities in assessment assessment the selected assessment
Prekindergarten
o. Teachers of students FSAAassessmentfor Studentproficiency on Studentproficiencyon
assessed using FSAA assigned students FSAA FSAA
SCHOOL BASEDNON‐CLASSROOMTEACHERS(COHORTIII)
p. Guidance Counselor FloridaStandard Aggregated SchoolwideVAM
Assessment (FSA) in Schoolwide VAM for
English Language Arts ELA and Math
(ELA) and Math
Page 4
TABLE 1: Evaluation Components/Measures for Classroom Teachers by Grade/Subject
Row Grade Level/Subject Assessments Used Calculation Evaluation
Reference (Teacher Category) Components of the Weight/Percent of
Student Performance Overall Evaluation
Factor
q. Dean FSA in ELA and Math Aggregated Schoolwide VAM
Schoolwide VAM for
ELA and Math
r. Media Specialist FSA in ELA and Math Aggregated Schoolwide VAM
Schoolwide VAM for
ELA and Math
s. Math Instructional FSA Math for students Schoolwide VAM for Schoolwide VAM for
Coach assigned to the school Math (includes EOC as Math
applicable)
State End of Course
Exams (EOC) as
applicable
t. School Assessment FSA in ELA and Math Aggregated Schoolwide VAM
Specialist Schoolwide VAM for
ELA and Math
u. Literacy Instructional Florida Standards Schoolwide VAM for Schoolwide VAM for ELA
Coach Assessment (FSA) ELA
English Language Arts
for students assigned to
the school
v. ESE Support Facilitator FSA for ELA and Math FSA for ELA and Math Assessment of
for assigned students as a measure of proficiency as measured
proficiency for by FSA for ELA (25%) and
students in the same Math (25%)
course qualifier
w. ESE School Based FSA for ELA and Math FSA for ELA and Math Assessment of
Specialist and ESE for Students with as a measure of proficiency as measured
Support Facilitator Disabilities proficiency for by FSA for ELA (25%) and
without students students with Math (25%)
assigned disabilities
Page 5
TABLE 1: Evaluation Components/Measures for Classroom Teachers by Grade/Subject
Row Grade Level/Subject Assessments Used Calculation Evaluation
Reference (Teacher Category) Components of the Weight/Percent of
Student Performance Overall Evaluation
Factor
w. Athletic Director FSA for ELA and Math Aggregated Aggregated Schoolwide
Schoolwide VAM for VAM
ELA and Math
x. Teacher on Special FSA for ELA and Math Aggregated Aggregated Schoolwide
Assignment – School Schoolwide VAM for VAM
Based ELA and Math
DISTRICT LEVEL NON‐CLASSROOM TEACHERS (COHORT IV)
y. Includes: Florida Standards Aggregated District District VAM
Behavior Analyst Assessment for English VAM for ELA and Math
Behavior Specialist Language Arts and Math
Child Find/
Educational
Consultant
Curriculum Specialist
Diagnostician
Language
Development
Specialist
Professional
Development
Specialist
Program Specialist
RTI Coach
School Psychologists
School Social Workers
Teachers on Special
Assignment
Teacher Support
Specialists
Scoring Method, Calculation and Combination of Assessment Results: To translate assessment data,
Teacher VAM, School VAM, and District VAM into one of four ratings (Highly Effective, Effective, Needs
Improvement/Developing or Unsatisfactory) as required by sec. 1012.34 (2)(e.) F.S., the following
procedures will be used:
For individual VAM scores:
For the 2017‐2018 school year St Lucie Schools will have an instructional evaluation system that
weighs student performance measures as 33% of the summative evaluation calculation.
Page 6
In accordance with Florida School Board Rule 6.0411 (5)(c) St. Lucie Schools will use the state
determined VAM score for each teacher. The score provided by FDOE for each teacher will range
from 1 – 4. The score received from FDOE will be translated into the student performance score
using four levels of performance as outlined below. The state VAM score will be used to calculate
the student performance component of the overall summative evaluation.
VAM Score Calculated StudentPerformance
by FDOE Rating
4 HighlyEffective
3 Effective
2 Needs
Improvement/Developing
1 Unsatisfactory
For teachers with multiple VAM scores:
St. Lucie Schools will use a proportional methodology to determine the student performance
measure for teachers based on courses assigned, instructional position, and student load for
those students who have VAM, and non‐VAM courses.
For elementary teachers with student proficiency measures (grades PK – 3):
Individual scores by test for each student will be electronically scored and entered into the district
data warehouse. Assessment results for all students assigned to the teacher will be aggregated at
the district. All calculations to arrive at the teacher’s overall score will occur at the district level.
For teachers of VPK students, the number of students demonstrating proficiency on period 3 VPK
Assessment will be divided by the number of students taking the assessment to determine the
percentage of students demonstrating proficiency.
For teachers in grades K – 2, the number of students assigned to the teacher that demonstrate
proficiency on the English Language Arts assessment, the math assessment will be calculated and
divided by the number of assessments taken resulting in an average number of students
demonstrating proficiency on the assessments. The number of students taking each assessment
will also be divided by the number of assessments given to determine the average number of
students assessed. The aggregate number of students demonstrating proficiency on the
assessments will then be divided by the number of students taking both assessment measures to
determine the overall percentage of proficient students assigned to the teacher.
For teachers of students in grade 3, the number of students assigned to the teacher that
demonstrate proficiency on FSA ELA and FSA Math will be calculated and divided by the number
of assessments taken resulting in an average number of students demonstrating proficiency. The
number of students taking each assessment will also be divided by the number of assessments
given to determine the average number of students assessed. The aggregate number of students
demonstrating proficiency on FSA ELA and Math and i-Ready will then be divided by the number
of students taking both assessment measures to determine the overall percentage of proficient
students assigned to the teacher.
Page 7
For teachers with Semester 1 and Semester 2 Scores:
Individual scores by test will be determined by the teacher and entered into the Skyward Student
Grading System as each student’s final semester exam, which will then be incorporated as a factor
in the student’s semester grade. For the teacher evaluation system the final semester exam
results for all students assigned to the teacher for both semester 1 and semester 2 will be
aggregated in the district data warehouse. This total score will then be divided by the number of
students who took the exams.
For teachers with Students with Disabilities:
Student proficiency scores on statewide assessments for all students assigned to the teacher for
both semester 1 and semester 2 will be aggregated in the district data warehouse. This total
score will then be divided by the number of students that took the assessment.
Transformation Procedure: The average score for each teacher will be calculated by group as
described above. Within each group the individual teacher’s score will be transformed to a Z score
and cut points will be determined to assign each teacher a student performance factor rating of “1”
or Unsatisfactory, “2” or Needs Improvement/Developing, “3” or Effective or “4” Highly Effective.
Rounding: Since the overall rating calculation for teachers with no VAM may not result in a whole
number, the rating calculation will be carried out to two decimal places and the following rating scale
will be used to determine the overall student performance factor. This rating will be multiplied by 50
percent and combined with the instructional practice factor (multiplied by 50 percent) to achieve the
overall final evaluation rating.
Unsatisfactory Needs Effective (3) Highly
(1) Improvement/ Effective
Developing (2) (4)
Student Performance
Factor Range 1.0 ‐ 1.49 1.50 – 2.49 2.50 – 3.49 3.50 – 4.0
First Year Teachers: All teachers new to St. Lucie Schools will receive two formal evaluations during their first
year of employment with the District. If no VAM or local assessment results as described in Table 1 is available
at the time of formal evaluation, the District’s Protocol for Student Performance will be used to identify
student data for determination of the performance factor component of the final evaluation score. This
Protocol requires the teacher to collaborate with his/her principal to identify at‐risk students utilizing factors
such as student attendance, discipline, and available student assessment data. Strategies to impact
performance of these students will then be developed. The District Rubric will be applied to differentiate
results using a 1 – 4 scale: “1” or Unsatisfactory, “2” or Needs Improvement/ Developing, “3” or Effective or
“4” Highly Effective.
New teachers working 99 or more days in their initial contract year will be classified as a 1.1 teacher and
Table 1 will apply. New teachers working 98 days or less days in their initial contract year will be
categorized as 1.1 teacher for the remainder of the first contract year and continue as a 1.1 category
teacher throughout the next contract year.
Page 8
Student Performance Data Used: When available, student performance data for three years, including
the current year and the two years immediately preceding the current year will be used in calculating
performance of students. If less than the three most recent years of data are available, those years for
which data are available will be used.
Courses with State Assessments: Teachers of courses assessed by statewide, standardized assessments
under section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, the Value Added Measure (VAM) will comprise at least one third
of the evaluation. For the 2015 – 2016 school year the percentage used for each teacher category is
specified in Table 1.
Courses without State Assessments: For classroom teachers of students for courses not assessed by
statewide, standardized assessments, the district‐determined student performance measures are
included in Table 1 as applicable to each teacher category.
Non‐Classroom Teachers (NCT): For instructional personnel who are not classroom teachers, the district
– determined performance measures are identified in Table 1. The overall evaluation for Non-Classroom
Teachers will be composed of 33% student performance and 67% professional practice.
2. Instructional Practice
The percentage of the evaluation that is based on instructional practice (IP) is 67% for teachers in categories
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 2.0. The scoring method uses the Marzano Framework’s rating scale for Domain Elements
which includes:
4 3 2 1 0
Formative Ratings used for Innovating Applying Developing Beginning NotUsing
Each Domain Element
These formative ratings are utilized during the collection of data and evidence for the instructional practice
component of the instructor’s evaluation. These labels translate into four summative ratings and finally into the
four required ratings in Florida Statute as indicated below:
Marzano Formative Ratings St. LucieSummativeRatings FloridaSummative Ratings
Innovating Highly Effective Highly Effective
Applying Effective Effective
Developing and Beginning Emerging Developingand Needs Improvement
Not Using Ineffective Unsatisfactory
Using the Florida Model approved evaluation and calculation instruments, Category 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and
2.0 instructional personnel will receive a score of 1.0 to 4.0 for instructional practice. This score reflects the
teacher’s performance across all elements within the framework (Domains 1‐ 4) while accounting for his or
her experience level. It assigns more weight to Domain 1 as having the greatest impact on student
achievement and acknowledges teachers’ focus on deliberate practice by measuring teacher improvement
over time on specific elements within the framework.
Page 9
Description:In accordance with Florida School Board Rule 6.0411 (5)(c) St. Lucie Schools will use the state determined VAM score for each teacher. The score