1

2	STATE OF FLORIDA

3	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

4	RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP

5

6	6A-5.030, INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS

7	and

8	6A-5.0411, CALCULATIONS OF STUDENT LEARNING GROWTH USING STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT DATA FOR USE IN SCHOOL
9	PERSONNEL EVALUATIONS

10	 	

11

12	LOCATION:	GULF COAST STATE COLLEGE

13	GIBSON LECTURE HALL

14	5230 WEST U.S. HIGHWAY 98

15	PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA

16

17	DATE:	MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2013

18	COMMENCED:	4:00 P.M.

19	 	

20	TRANSCRIBED BY:

21	DEBBIE KRICK

22
PREMIER REPORTING
23	114 W. 5TH AVENUE
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
24	(850) 894-0828

25

1

2	PARTICIPANTS

3

4	EILEEN McDANIEL, DOE

5	BILL EMERSON, SANTA ROSA COUNTY

6	TIM WYROSDICK, SANTA ROSA COUNTY

7	GREG ALFORD, PAEC

8	MONA RAMIREZ, PAEC

9	BILL HUSFELT, BAY COUNTY

10	LEON FAIRCLOTH, BAY COUNTY

11	CAMILLA HUDSON, BAY COUNTY

12	DAWN CAPES, BAY COUNTY

13	KK OWEN, ESCAMBIA COUNTY

14	ALEXIS TIBBETTS, ESCAMBIA COUNTY

15	KEITH LEONARD, ESCAMBIA COUNTY

16	BRIAN K. ALABACK, ESCAMBIA COUNTY

17	BRENT BRUMMET, ESCAMBIA COUNTY

18	KATHY BREAKALL, ESCAMBIA COUNTY

19	DONNA HARPER, ESCAMBIA COUNTY

20	CATHY BOEHME, ESCAMBIA COUNTY

21

22	*	*	*

23

24

25

1	P R O C E E D I N G S

2	MS. McDANIEL:	We are going to go ahead and

3	get started, so welcome, everyone.	This is the

4	rule development workshop of public input on the

5	draft text for two of our rules that are under

6	development.	The first one is Rule 6A-5.030,

7	District Instructional Personnel and School

8	Administrator Evaluation Systems, and Rule

9	6A-5.0411, Calculations of Student Learning Growth

10	for Use in School Personnel Evaluation.

11	I am Eileen McDaniel.	I am Bureau Chief for

12	Educator Recruitment, Retention & Professional

13	Development at the Florida Department of Education,

14	and with me today is Anna Schultz from the

15	Department.	She is the Assistant Deputy Chancellor

16	for Educator Quality.	And with us today also is a

17	court reporter, Debbie Krick, who will be taking

18	down, recording -- or taking down all the

19	proceedings today so that we have a recording of

20	today's session.

21	If you are just joining us, if you will be

22	sure you sign in.	We have a copy of the two rules

23	that we will be reviewing, along with the

24	presentation, and so please be sure to sign it.

25	And I will remind you again later if you plan
1	

1	to make a public comment today, if you will be sure

2	to fill out the speaker form here, leave that with

3	us.	That's for the record so we can get your

4	correct spelling of your name and the organization

5	you are with so we have it into the record

6	appropriately, okay.

7	So today's presentation I am going to begin

8	with just a few instructions for how we are going

9	to proceed in the next few hours.	Throughout, we

10	are going to want to make sure that we have

11	everybody's comments and questions on the record,

12	so that's extremely very -- very, very important to

13	us, whether you have got a question or if you have

14	a comment to make.

15	We are going to conduct our workshop in three

16	different sections.	Part one, we will begin with

17	an overview presentation of the authorizing

18	statutes and the content of the draft rules.	We

19	are going to do this for two reasons.

20	First, we want to make sure that everyone has

21	an opportunity to see what the law requires that we

22	put into rule, and also, that we can provide you an

23	overview of what we are intending to say in this

24	draft text -- in this first draft text.

25	And then the second part of this workshop for
1	

1	today is clarifying questions and answers, so

2	anyone in the audience can ask any clarifying

3	questions during part two.	A question about what's

4	in the law, questions about what's in the rule

5	text, questions what -- something you have heard

6	during today's presentation or perhaps in an

7	earlier rule development workshop, anything that

8	you need to clarify what you have heard or read

9	before you make your -- before you make a comment.

10	And then, we will move to the third section,

11	and the third section we will get into your public

12	comments.	During this time, you, as participants

13	in the audience who wish to make a comment, can do

14	so.	You're not required to.	And if you don't want

15	to make a public comment out loud, you prefer to

16	put it into writing, that is certainly acceptable

17	as well.	You're going to be able to write it for

18	us and give it to us here today if you wish or mail

19	it to us.

20	Or you will see on the next slide, at the

21	bottom of this slide -- and you have a copy of the

22	slides with you; if you don't have one, you can

23	come up here and get one -- there is a website

24	where you can go and add comments -- or ask

25	questions or add comments about either one of the
1	

1	two rules that we are going to take a look at

2	today.

3	We want everyone to feel comfortable in this

4	particular workshop, so feel free to jot down your

5	questions.	As we go along, when we come to that

6	portion, we will give you an opportunity to do

7	that, and then we will stop and make sure we allow

8	time for your public comments.

9	If at the time we come to public comments and

10	we see we are running out of time, we may need to

11	limit the amount of time that you can present your

12	comments.	We will determine that when we get

13	there.

14	MS. TIBBETTS:	Eileen, how long is part one

15	do?

16	MS. McDANIEL:	Excuse me?

17	MS. TIBBETTS:	How long is the part y'all are

18	going to do?

19	MS. McDANIEL:	About an hour.	It takes about

20	an hour to go through the Power Point presentation,

21	okay?

22	So a little bit more about the input and

23	participation.	As I have mentioned, when you're

24	asking a question or making a comments, you're

25	going to need to make sure you state your name and
1	

1	your organization or your affiliation for the

2	record.	If you wish to ask a question or make a

3	comment during those sections of the workshop, we

4	ask you complete the speakers card, as I have

5	already said.

6	When we get to that public comment section in

7	Section 3 of today's session, again, we will want

8	to make sure that you are speaking very loudly.	If

9	necessary, if the court reporter cannot hear you,

10	we will have to come a little bit closer, okay?

11	Types of the input we are seeking, as I

12	mentioned, we have these two rules out for public

13	comment right now.	This is draft rule text.	I

14	will repeat that quite a bit in the next two hours.

15	It's draft rule text.	There are two main types of

16	input we are seeking today from you.

17	First, suggestions or changes or notes where

18	you may agree or disagree what's in the rule text

19	at this point.	We want you to think about what

20	you're hearing, what you're reading and keep that

21	in mind, and then, tell us about that and make

22	suggestions in how the rule text can be clarified

23	or that you disagree with it and you want something

24	struck and why.	The more clarification in putting

25	it into context for us, the better it is for the
1	

1	entire process.	Changes could be comments such as

2	keep this, delete a specific passage here, add

3	information that you don't see, anything that you

4	feel would improve these two rules.

5	We are not ready to send to the State Board

6	yet; that's why we are here today.	We are still

7	very much in the development stage, so it's very

8	important to us that we have suggestions from you

9	on how to improve both of these rules.

10	Again, we wish for you to be as specific as

11	possible when stating what changes you might want

12	to make to the rule, and it would be extremely

13	helpful if you have, perhaps, substitute language

14	for how to clarify the rules.

15	Lastly, we are extremely interested in whether

16	the rule text is accomplishing what the statute

17	says it should be doing.	If our presentation says

18	we are intending to make sure that we collect a

19	specific kind of evidence from a district and you

20	look at the rule text and you don't see that, then

21	we want to know that it's not clear to you.

22	So what's the timeline?	This week and back on

23	February 14th -- February 14th, we conducted two

24	webinars via conference call; it was recorded.

25	Those are now available on our website, on the
1	

1	website that I gave you before.	And we are

2	conducting two workshops today, two tomorrow and

3	another one later on in the week.

4	Within the rule text that you picked up today

5	or you brought with you, it has a loc-- it has

6	locations for each of those workshops.	We

7	encourage you if you wish to go to additional

8	workshops, you certainly can go.	All of the

9	workshops are being recorded, and all of the

10	recordings will be posted on the website for all to

11	see.

12	During the months of March and April when the

13	workshops are over, we will be reviewing the public

14	comment from the workshops and from the web where

15	you can add additional comments or ask additional

16	questions, and we are going to leave the public

17	website open until the State Board meets.	So you

18	can continue to add comments and questions to the

19	website; there is a specific place for that.

20	UNIDENDIFIED SPEAKER:	Eileen, do you have a

21	date for that?

22	MS. McDANIEL:	No, we do not.	There is not a

23	due in date yet.	Okay.

24	And that was my next thing, in May, we will

25	make sure we revise the text, and that's -- that's
1	

1	our intention to revise at that point based on the

2	feedback that we receive, present it back out to

3	the public again.	We will advertise that there is

4	new rule text out there to take a look at, more

5	public comment, and if the Commissioner is then

6	ready to make the recommendations to the State

7	Board, we intend to bring it to the June board if

8	that's possible.	No, I don't have a date yet.

9	That Calendar is not set yet.

10	MS. TIBBETTS:	Eileen, is any of this moving

11	in legislation?	It's all going to be kept in the

12	State Board rule; there aren't any bills?

13	MS. McDANIEL:	During the -- during the months

14	of March and April, we are -- we will be reviewing

15	whatever is happening in Legislature.	There

16	certainly are some bills that are addressing

17	evaluation system.

18	If they impact what's in rule, we are going to

19	need to make some rule changes, obviously, so

20	that's part of the monitoring process.	And that's

21	why the calendar here as well to show you we don't

22	have specific dates.	We have got to keep an eye on

23	the Legislature.	We need the comments from you

24	before we come to the rule text that will be

25	presented to the Board.
1	

1	In the meantime, we will certainly keep all

2	informed of every step of the way to ensure that

3	you have an opportunity for public comment all the

4	way up through the State Board process.

5	So our target date to the State Board is the

6	month of June.	What we like to do by then is to

7	have it then go into if the State Board does

8	consider it at its June meeting, we would like for

9	it to be implemented in 2013-2014.	It would not

10	impact in any way this year's evaluations, but they

11	would impact the 2013-14 evaluation.

12	So the first rule we are going to talk about

13	here is 6A-5.030, District Instructional Personnel

14	and School Administrator Evaluation Systems.

15	First, we are going to talk about the rule

16	authority that's within the statute and what the

17	law says is the content of the rule.

18	On Slide 7, which I have up here if you are

19	following along, the first thing you see is what

20	the law says we are supposed to put into the rule.

21	In subsection (8) of Section 1012.34 of the Florida

22	Statutes, the law prescribes the types of things

23	the State Board is required to adopt rules on.

24	Because we have two rules today, what I have done

25	is I have divided portions of subsection (8) that
1	

1	pertain to this rule from the ones that pertain in

2	the second rule that we will discuss when we are

3	finished with this one.

4	For this rule, we have to establish the

5	uniform procedures for the submission, the review

6	and approval of district evaluation systems.	Also,

7	it includes the reporting requirements for the

8	annual evaluation of instructional personnel and

9	school administrators and the process for

10	monitoring school districts in the implementation

11	of their evaluation systems in accordance with this

12	section of the law.

13	The way that 6A-5.030 is constructed at this

14	time is Sections 1 and 2 of the rule begin to

15	explain what are those uniform procedures for

16	submission of a district evaluation system, whether

17	we are talking about instructional personnel or

18	school administrators?	How is that to be outlined?

19	The -- the rule is very specific.

20	Section 4 and 5 -- we are going to skip

21	Section 3 for a second and go on to Section 4 and 5

22	of the rule -- deals with how those who are

23	reviewed and approved, how those evaluation systems

24	are approved and are -- excuse me, reviewed and

25	approved.
1	

1	What are the different approval status?	Fully

2	approved, conditionally approved, denied.	What's

3	the broad definitions of each of these?	Each of

4	these are outlined within the rule.	The conditions

5	at which they are granted, and then how a system

6	can move from conditionally approved or denied into

7	full approval.

8	We also discuss in these two sections,

9	Sections 4 and 5, how districts can make

10	modification to their systems.	So districts -- as

11	the districts have been doing them since they began

12	in 2011 under the law.

13	So what are the procedures for those things?

14	The law talks about districts submitting to the

15	Department when they have made substantial changes

16	of their evaluation systems.	So within the rule,

17	we provide a definition of what we -- what is meant

18	by substantial so districts can know why do I have

19	to submit it to the Department again for review and

20	when is it appropriate to just make these changes

21	on my own and then repost it to the web?

22	We also in Section 7 of the rule have gone

23	into the monitoring process, how we monitor a

24	district's implementation.	So we thought it was

25	very important to set forth a monitoring procedure
1	

1	or process in the rules so the districts would

2	understand what this process was about.	We modeled

3	that monitoring process for evaluation systems on

4	the same process the Department is currently using

5	and is in -- is also in another rule for monitoring

6	professional development systems.	We have had that

7	process, the monitoring of professional development

8	systems, since 2001.

9	So we provide within the rule a cycle of

10	on-site visits where we will review each district's

11	system through monitoring once every five years.

12	Going on to Section 8 within the rule, it

13	provides the basic information about how annual

14	reporting is going to be done.	The law requires

15	that the Department report evaluation results from

16	all districts at the school and district level, so

17	this reporting section outlines very briefly how

18	districts -- how districts submit that data so that

19	they can -- that -- so that you could fulfill the

20	obligation to the Department to provide that data

21	annually, as specified in law.

22	The last section of this particular rule,

23	Section 9, provides guidelines for -- for training

24	evaluators.	Those are there because in Section

25	1012.34 of the Florida Statutes, it mentions that
1	

1	districts need to include in their systems training

2	for evaluators, anybody that is conducting

3	evaluations in their school districts.

4	It indicates in this rule that both training

5	processes that districts adopt and implement have

6	to be based on guidelines developed by the

7	Department.	They don't have to be exactly the same

8	as the guidelines the Department has provided, but

9	based on them, so we felt it was very important we

10	put those guidelines into this rule as well.	So

11	you will see them in Section 9, or a reference to

12	them.

13	All of those sections, 1 and 2, and in 4

14	through 9 of the rule are what you see on this

15	particular slide.	So how -- it goes into how do I

16	submit?	What are you going to do when you get my

17	evaluation system?	How will it be approved?	What

18	does it mean when I get approval?	What is -- what

19	is the different designations, fully approved,

20	conditionally approved, denied mean?	How can I

21	modify?	How am I supposed to report?	All of --

22	all of those questions are answered in those

23	sections.

24	The next part of the presentation deals with

25	the content of the evaluation system.	We are now
1	

1	talking about Section 3, which is the lengthy part

2	of 6A-5.030.	Again, it deals with the content of

3	the evaluation system, as prescribed by the law,

4	Section 1012.34, and how the Department will

5	collect evidence from the school district on its

6	evaluation system to actually make a decision of

7	whether the system is approved and meets the

8	requirements that are in the law.

9	The first thing the law says is that for the

10	purpose of district evaluation systems, whether

11	you're talking about instructional personnel or

12	school administrator evaluations, they are designed

13	to support effective instruction and student

14	learning growth.	The results are supposed to be

15	used at districts for developing school level

16	improvement plans, and they are supposed to be used

17	to identify professional development.	All of these

18	things are in the law.

19	Another important section that's in the law

20	says that we need to have evaluations that are

21	based on four levels of performance, and it

22	describes what those are.	So part of the

23	district's evaluation system needs to know, or

24	needs to include, how the district will determine

25	that someone has achieved highly effective
1	

1	performance, effective performance, needs

2	improvement, performance rating or developing, and

3	one for unsatisfactory.

4	The law also states we are going to establish

5	standards for -- for performance targets, and the

6	Commissioner should consult with experts, including

7	instructional personnel, school administrators,

8	stakeholders in developing the criteria for the

9	performance levels.	And that's one of the reasons

10	why we have you here today as well.

11	We are holding workshops.	We are providing

12	opportunity for public input.	We are putting out

13	draft rule text and gaining combat -- comments back

14	from you all to -- to ensure that we all have an

15	understanding what those standards are.

16	On Slide 10, the law also divides evaluations

17	into three sections, three criteria:	Performance

18	of students, instructional practice for

19	instructional personnel or instructional leadership

20	for school administrators and professional and job

21	responsibility.	It also indicates that the

22	evaluation needs to be based on sound educational

23	principles and contemporary research.	So these

24	things also need to be included in the district's

25	evaluation plan.
1	

1	On Slide 11, this is just a reminder of what's

2	included in instructional practice, as defined by

3	the law.	For classroom teachers, it includes the

4	Educator Accomplished Practices, and for other

5	instructional class -- for other instructional

6	personnel who are not classroom teachers, it

7	includes the Educator Accomplished Practices and

8	individual job expectations that the district may

9	develop related to supporting students.

10	For instructional leadership, the law provides

11	that these evaluations are based on standards for

12	instructional leaders, which were adopted under

13	Section 1012.98(6) of the Florida Statutes, and the

14	Florida Principal Leadership Standards.	And then

15	lays out additional criteria that are specific to

16	administrators' role in faculty development at the

17	schools.

18	Slide 13, the performance of students section

19	in the -- in the statute; we will review that.

20	This is -- this is a reminder of what that says

21	within the statute.

22	We are looking for this kind of content in the

23	district's evaluation system, at least 50 percent

24	of a performance evaluation is based on data

25	indicators of student learning growth assessed
1	

1	annually and measured by statewide assessments, or

2	for subjects that are not measured by statewide

3	assessments, by district assessments under Section

4	1008.22, which is the student assessment section of

5	the law.

6	It also provides that the percentage of the

7	evaluation based on the performance of students can

8	be reduced to 40 percent in the absence of three

9	years of data for either the teacher or

10	instructional personnel or for the principal.	It

11	provides for non-classroom instructional personnel.

12	But for performance in the student's criteria

13	can be split between statewide assessments and

14	local measures of student outcome that are specific

15	to their jobs, for instance, the guidance

16	counselor, and it provides the districts some

17	options to choose from to combine state and local

18	assessments.

19	It can also -- the district can also choose

20	performance measures or achievement measures over

21	measures of learning growth if it choose to do so

22	when it feels performance measures are more

23	appropriate for that particular job.

24	On Slide 14, finally, the law provides a

25	timeline with which evaluations should be fully
1	

1	developed and for classroom teachers for courses of

2	which the district have not selected appropriate

3	assessments under 1008.22.	Then, it provides

4	options for districts to use other measures of

5	substituted growth that are based on that classroom

6	teacher's students, or as the last sentence

7	provides, a superintendent can assign to

8	instructional personnel the student learning growth

9	of a team of student on statewide assessments.	And

10	that is until July 1st, 2015, as the law specifics.

11	Slide 15, then the law goes on to provide

12	additional components of district evaluation

13	systems that are in a list on this slide:

14	Observation instruments with performance indicators

15	or ways to collect evidence on performance, at

16	least to two evaluations and observations per year

17	for newly hired personnel, evaluator training, as

18	we mentioned earlier, methods to inform personnel

19	about the evaluation system, use of multiple data

20	sources, use of system data for professional

21	development and school improvement, as we also

22	mentioned earlier, parental input, teaching fields

23	that may need special procedures and annual review

24	process by the district of that evaluation system.

25	And there is some optional procedures that
1	

1	districts may or may not include.	All of these are

2	outlined in this section of the rule.	These can be

3	peer reviews -- peer reviews, assistance processes,

4	input from additional personnel into the evaluation

5	system, what you do about evaluation amendments and

6	additional professional responsibility beyond what

7	was -- what are those in the State Board rule.	For

8	our purposes, the professional responsibilities and

9	State Board rules are those that pertain to ethics

10	and professional conduct.

11	So I am going to move on to the second rule.

12	Remember, in part two, we will go back to questions

13	on either one of these rules.	So let's continue

14	with this part when we will review what is in

15	6A-5.0411, which are the Calculations in Student

16	Learning Growth for Use in School Personnel

17	Evaluations.

18	We are workshopping these two particular rules

19	in conjunction with each other because though the

20	first rule holds all the criteria we would use to

21	approve a district evaluation system, we also need

22	a rule in place that talks about the statewide

23	calculations and student learning growth that need

24	to be adopted.

25	So the rule authority for 6A-5.0411 comes from
1	

1	the same sections of the law which we just reviewed

2	for 6A-5.030.	In 1012.34 of the Florida Statutes,

3	particularly parens (7) and (8), these are the

4	things that need to be in the rule according to the

5	statute.

6	Each formula for measuring student learning

7	growth, as approved by the Commissioner, and the

8	formula and the calculation itself, two, the

9	measurement of student learning growth and

10	associated learning implementation procedures, and,

11	three, a process by which teachers may review their

12	class rosters.

13	Additionally, there are specific discrete

14	standards for each performance level to ensure

15	clear and sufficient differentiation in the

16	performance levels and to provide consistency in

17	meaning across school districts.

18	Then, within those discrete standards, the

19	fifth one, that specifically establishes student

20	learning growth standard that, if not met, will

21	result in the employee receiving an unsatisfactory

22	performance evaluation rating.	And then the last

23	one, also establishing student learning growth

24	standards that must be met in order for an employee

25	to receive a highly effective or effective rating,
1	

1	as determined by the school district.

2	The Department also has some responsibility to

3	the student learning growth in educator evaluation.

4	As I mentioned, there are two types of learning

5	growth formulas, as depicted in this particular

6	slide, Slide 19.

7	First formula is for student assessment, which

8	is the one that has to be adopted into rule once

9	they have approved -- they have been approved by

10	the Commission.	You can see by the bullets on this

11	slide that the formula that we have currently is

12	the one that's associated with FCAT.	So that's the

13	one you're going to see in this rule at this time;

14	only the one for FCAT is in the rule.

15	As other learning growth formulas are adopted

16	for statewide assessments, we will go back to the

17	rules and those formulas to the rules once they are

18	approved by the Commission.

19	Second, learning growth formulas for local

20	assessments will be decided by the school district.

21	The law says that districts must adopt equally

22	appropriate learning growth formulas for local

23	student assessments.	This rule takes, for example,

24	after it sets forth the statewide assessment

25	formula, and as I walk you through the content on
1	

1	this particular rule, there is a section of the

2	rule that briefly describes the criteria that

3	districts could choose to set equally appropriate

4	learning growth formulas for their assessments.

5	There is actually two, and then there is a -- an

6	option for you to pick something different.

7	Because we had to put the formulas in the

8	rule, we have added some slides here to remind us

9	where that formula for FCAT came from, since that's

10	the one the statewide assessment formula that has

11	been approved by the Commissioner to date comes

12	from.

13	It was developed by the Student Growth

14	Implementation Committee, which is composed of 27

15	members from across the state.	You will see it,

16	the website, that's pointed out in the lower part

17	of this slide, who the members are and where they

18	are from.	In fact, the Student Growth

19	Implementation Committee will be meeting again

20	later this week on the 27th to examine some new

21	statewide formulas for use where assessments, such

22	as the Algebra I, Geometry and Biology.	But so

23	far, the Student Growth Implementation Committee

24	recommended only the model for FCAT; it was

25	ultimately approved as they recommended by the
1	

1	Commission in June of 2011.

2	The model that the Student Growth

3	Implementation Committee approved, which is a model

4	with some draft text today that we are reviewing,

5	is a covariant adjustment model, which means it

6	begins with establishing student growth for each

7	individual student that's assigned to a teacher

8	based on that student's historical data, typical

9	growth by grade and subject in our state as

10	assessed in this case by FCAT because this is the

11	model that works with FCAT.	And based on how

12	students perform who share similar characteristics

13	that are identified by the committee and are

14	included in the -- in the model.

15	Those characteristics fall into three types of

16	categories:	Student characteristics, classroom

17	characteristics and school characteristics.

18	And Slide 23 is an example of how the

19	individual student might perform.	You have

20	probably seen this slide over and over again.	By

21	looking at an individual student how they might

22	perform and by taking the different in how they

23	actually performed and what they were predicted to

24	perform on the assessment, based on their prior

25	score and all those character -- characteristics
1	

1	that we know about that are included in the model,

2	this is -- this yields a value-added score.	All

3	the differences between actual and predicted

4	performance are what are put together and are

5	combined for all students that are assigned to a

6	teacher and produces that value-added score.

7	All of the other character -- characteristics

8	that go into that predictive score are the other

9	influences the model accounts for in student

10	learning.	The residual, or the difference, is

11	what's attributed to the teacher.	That's what the

12	teacher adds to student learning.

13	So here's the characteristics that are in the

14	model and these are the ones that are enumerated in

15	the rule and defined in the rule.	Up to two years

16	of prior achievement scores, which is the strongest

17	predictor according to research.	The committee

18	decided it had -- if we had two prior achievement

19	scores, that that would help us well, so there

20	are -- if there are two available, then it is used

21	in the formula.

22	The number of subject relevant courses in

23	which a student is enrolled, so if a student has

24	multiple reading courses or -- or multiple

25	mathematics courses, the student -- that is taken
1	

1	into -- into account within the formula.

2	The student's disability status as an

3	indicator of a specific disability, not that just

4	they have a disability like yes or no, but what

5	that specific disability is.	It takes into account

6	the English Language Learner status of the

7	students.

8	Student attendance, their annual attendance,

9	yearly attendance.

10	The gifted status.

11	Mobility, which is the number of transitions

12	in and out of the school, whether it's the same

13	school or multiple schools.	And then districts

14	report those things to us across the State, and

15	those are considered within the formula.

16	And the difference from both age and grade,

17	which could be the indicator retention or promotion

18	or anything else that's causes the student in the

19	class to be significantly different in age from the

20	rest of his or her peers.

21	Moving on to classroom characteristics, these

22	include the class size and the homogeneity of

23	students entering test scores in the class.	The

24	committee discussed when they were developing this

25	model -- we had our contracts go ahead and run the
1	

1	date -- data for consideration, whether it would

2	matter if classes were made up of students who have

3	similar entering test scores.	For example, most

4	students in my class were level four and five or

5	most students in my class were levels one and two

6	or I have a mix of students in my class, so the

7	data was run on that.

8	The committee wanted to know if that seemed to

9	make a difference, almost like a peer effect.	So

10	that was studied, and it turns out it does make a

11	difference sometimes, so that's included within the

12	formula as well.

13	Then finally, the school characteristics,

14	which is related to the overall performance of the

15	school.	The committee was concerned and quite

16	convinced that when schools significantly performed

17	different from other schools in the state, whether

18	they were very high-performing or very

19	low-performing, that there is something in that

20	school that has an influence on student learning

21	beyond the influence of that teacher.	So that is

22	also included within the model.

23	So Slide 25 reminds us that the value-added

24	model is just one part of multifaceted teacher

25	evaluation system, as you have already seen in the
1	

1	previous rule.	The last bullet here talks about

2	how to the Student Growth Committee, the Department

3	and our contractor, AIR, will continue to annualize

4	data annually.	So we have written into the rule

5	that we are going to have an annual review process

6	of all statewide student growth data.

7	The next part of the rule that we will review

8	now that we -- what we -- now that we have

9	established what's in the FCAT formula because

10	that's the one statewide formula that we are

11	reviewing today, so it's the remaining requirements

12	which we are talking about what's the score?

13	What's the value-added score?	What's all the data

14	that districts receive and how we actually

15	calculate value-added scores for teachers and other

16	personnel?

17	So the first thing we have in the rule, as

18	explained, as you will be familiar with to make

19	sure it's codified in rule that when you run

20	value-added scores, they are based on typical

21	learning growth in the state by grade and by

22	subject.	A score of zero means that students, on

23	average, perform typically as other students that

24	share their char-- characteristics performed across

25	the State.
1	

1	A score above zero means that the students

2	performed on average better than what was expected.

3	And a negative score, which means a score below

4	zero, would indicate that students, on average,

5	performed less than expected.

6	Other data that are gleaned from value-added

7	model -- modeling in addition to the value-added

8	score, we also know the number and percent of

9	students in a class, or in a school or in a

10	district that met or exceeded their statistical

11	performance expectations.

12	So if we go back to Slide 23 -- of course, if

13	I would go the right direction.	If we go back to

14	Slide 23, how many students exceeded, met or did

15	not meet the predictive score, that's something we

16	can predict -- that's something we can glean from

17	running a value-added model so we know that -- that

18	data will be used for looking at performance,

19	additional data that teachers can consider.

20	What are the things that we don't get by

21	looking at the percent meeting expectation is how

22	far a teacher may have brought a student or how the

23	student learning growth in the class.	You don't

24	get to see the magnitude of the gains or how much

25	student performance has declined; you only know
1	

1	whether or not if students met expectations or did

2	not.	But, again, that can be useful information

3	for the teacher.

4	One of the other things that we do with

5	value-added modeling, because it is a statistical

6	process, is we employ really good, solid

7	statistical procedures.	One of the things we glean

8	from value-added results and the value-added

9	modeling is a standard error.	That's a statistical

10	term that describes variability in the scores.

11	Teaching and learning are a human process

12	obviously.	We get different students every year,

13	and there is some teachers that may have students

14	for a number of years if they are looping or having

15	the same students teaching courses -- a variety of

16	courses.	Things happen in different years.

17	So just like when you see on TV a presidential

18	poll that says we have polled a section of the

19	country, five states, let's say, of registered

20	voters in those states, the president's popularity

21	is plus or minus three points around 50 percent.

22	That means we went back and polled a similar group

23	of people from those five states but not the same

24	people who are registered voters; they are sure

25	within three points that the results would be the
1	

1	same.

2	So the standard error of a variability lets us

3	look at the teacher value-added score and provide

4	some certainty around whether this teacher has been

5	assigned a similar group of students.	Even though

6	they are different, we are sure that within this

7	many points, even though they are different, that

8	confidence is plus or minus of that score would

9	have been the same, and we will look at an example.

10	We look at the standard error and construct

11	confidence intervals because we are using this

12	information to help us to determine teacher

13	performance.	This is for individual folks'

14	evaluation, so it's extremely important that we get

15	it right.	We use it for making judgments about

16	teachers and about the performance and using all

17	the good statistical properties that are available

18	to us; these have been built into the value-added

19	modeling.

20	Then the rule goes into, on Slide 29, the

21	performance standards.	We have to establish

22	performance standards that will be used statewide

23	for using -- in this case, statewide performance on

24	FCAT.	Every district will then need to implement;

25	they will classify performance in the same manner.
1	

1	So how they go about doing that?	What's our

2	intent?	This is one of the sections of the rule

3	where it's very important that we explain what we

4	try to do with the rule text and let you consider

5	it and provide feedback as to whether it is clear,

6	it is doing what it's intended to do.	And if it's

7	not, as much specificity as possible, how it might

8	be reworded or how it needs to be changed.	Keeping

9	in mind whatever the text say -- says, is it doing

10	what we intended for it to do?

11	As you know what I said earlier, that zero

12	means typ-- typical performance for a grade and

13	subject, that means when you run a value-added

14	result, half of the people would be above zero and

15	half of the folks would be below that typical

16	performance.	So it's important for us so that even

17	though we want to use a model that takes into

18	account all these differences and influences, like

19	a covariant adjustment model does, that we also

20	have a system for evaluation that's based on

21	performance criteria, rather than normed approach.

22	Because if we just use a distribution of --

23	every year, then even if everybody gets better, it

24	could be that folks at the bottom are still

25	classified as poor performers when, in fact, they
1	

1	could have greatly improved from year to year.	So

2	what we tried to do with this rule is to use the

3	information from the value-added model but

4	establish standards-based on 2011-2012 data.

5	That would then be used as an anchor, or a

6	benchmark, against what we -- against which we

7	could then measure performance in the future so

8	that every year, all teachers have an opportunity

9	to exceed the points for effective and highly

10	effective, as they were established in 2011-2012,

11	based on typical learning growth for that

12	particular year.

13	So to review to how that -- that would happen,

14	remember -- remember, we just talked about

15	confidence intervals, and we talked about the

16	standard error to construct a confidence interval.

17	Using one standard error on either side of a

18	confidence interval provides 68 percent assurance

19	that the teacher's performance would have been the

20	same or within that range given another set of

21	students that were not identical but similar to the

22	students she taught that year, and then using two

23	standard intervals to construct a confidence

24	interval means that I am 95 percent sure that it

25	would be somewhere in this range if she were given
1	

1	a different group of students.

2	The VAM score really does represent what would

3	happen that year, but what you're trying to do here

4	is to use the confidence interval when you're

5	classifying performance because students are not

6	randomly assigned to the teacher and to make sure

7	that you're getting an idea for how that teacher

8	would typically perform.

9	So given the way we set the standards in the

10	rule -- remember, this is draft text -- and trying

11	to use the 2011-2012 data as a benchmark, the dark

12	line that you see on this particular slide, the

13	black line on the -- on the screen, is in the

14	center within the typical performance by grade and

15	subject, which that would take 7th grade math --

16	7th -- 7th grade reading separately from 6th grade

17	math, et cetera; it's for each and every grade and

18	subject.

19	And based on the typical learning growth for

20	2011, 2000 -- 2012, and then going forward, a

21	teacher, if you look at the standard for highly

22	effective, the teacher's confidence interval using

23	a 95 -- 95 percent confidence level, completely

24	cleared that typical growth.

25	Then, if you look at the bottom of the screen,
1	

1	the standard for unsatisfactory would be that the

2	teacher completely cleared with a 95 percent

3	confidence level, or confidence interval, we are

4	95 percent confident that her performance that year

5	based on student learning growth at least -- not

6	the rest of the evaluation, but just the student

7	learning growth part -- was, in fact,

8	unsatisfactory because it was definitely below

9	typical for all of her students.

10	Then --

11	MS. TIBBETTS:	I know you're going to take

12	questions --

13	MS. McDANIEL:	And I am going to have to wait

14	for the question.

15	MS. TIBBETTS:	I understand.

16	MS. McDANIEL:	I'm going to have to wait.

17	MS. TIBBETTS:	But the -- what you are

18	reading, will we ever get a copy of that?

19	MS. McDANIEL:	Being recorded.

20	MS. TIBBETTS:	What she's saying.

21	MS. McDANIEL:	Being recorded.

22	MS. TIBBETTS:	Exactly.	This slide, they are

23	hard to get your arms around.

24	MS. McDANIEL:	And that's one reason why I am

25	using a script today to make sure that we are
1	

1	consistent from workshop to workshop with exactly

2	what you are seeing.

3	MS. TIBBETTS:	Very good.

4	MS. McDANIEL:	So we have looked at highly

5	effective, completely clearing, 90 -- 95 percent

6	confidence interval, completely clearing the

7	target, unsatisfactory, 95 percent interval,

8	completely below the target.

9	Let's talk about effective.	We actually

10	defined effective in two ways.	How you expect --

11	which is the score itself was above zero -- above

12	zero or higher above typical growth, say, and even

13	with a confidence interval, even if the bottom part

14	of the confidence interval goes below zero, that's

15	okay.	And you will see that on -- on the screen.

16	UNIDENDIFIED SPEAKER:	Which one?

17	MS. McDANIEL:	The top one.

18	UNIDENDIFIED SPEAKER:	Okay.

19	MS. McDANIEL:	We are talking about the top

20	one right now.	Okay.	Well, actually the second

21	one, excuse me.

22	UNIDENDIFIED SPEAKER:	That's what I was

23	asking.

24	MS. McDANIEL:	The middle two -- the middle

25	two are the effective one, but --
1	

1	UNIDENDIFIED SPEAKER:	That's what I was

2	trying to clarify.

3	MS. McDANIEL:	-- the first one we are talking

4	about is the second one where most of it is

5	above --

6	UNIDENDIFIED SPEAKER:	95?

7	MS. McDANIEL:	-- with -- with -- most of it

8	is above, but there is a portion of it that falls

9	below, okay?	That would be effective performance.

10	But what if that score -- what -- what if the

11	value-added score for that teacher was below zero?

12	Would those teachers to have to be determined for

13	that section of the evaluation to need improvement

14	or developing?	What we defined in this rule was

15	another definition for effective that we want you

16	to -- to think about for your consideration.

17	If the score is below zero but the confidence

18	interval allowed that score to have possibly

19	been -- and if she had been assigned a different

20	set of students, she would still be classified as

21	effective.	So using the confidence interval allows

22	us to move around that typical performance in a

23	standardized statistical way so we can bring more

24	teachers into that effective realm considering

25	their student performance.
1	

1	The law says we have to define those standards

2	highly effective, effective and unsatisfactory.	So

3	what about needs improvement or developing?	You

4	notice we have not defined needs improvement or

5	developing, so the remainder from the effective

6	down to the -- and the gap between the effective

7	and the unsatisfactory would be your needs

8	improvement or developing section if it falls into

9	that area.

10	Let me go back just to Slide 29 for a second.

11	I want to make sure we make this clear before I go

12	on to the next slide.	One of the other things we

13	tried to do with this particular rule, as I

14	explained to you before, we -- it says -- the --

15	the law says we have to set the standards so that

16	they are consistent across the State.	So that's

17	the third -- first thing that we needed to do.

18	What I am explaining you to now, then, is our

19	proposal for those standards would look like for

20	your comments and for your consideration.	If those

21	go into effect, that what that means then for the

22	performance of students -- for the students'

23	criteria and the students' performance criteria

24	alone, everybody would use those standards when

25	they are using data from this model for just that
1	

1	portion of the evaluation.	All the rest would be

2	combined for your summative rating, both your

3	instructional practice and your student

4	performance.

5	How are the district's approved system

6	combines things in the summative rating is based on

7	a combination of all those things that I just said,

8	so that's the first thing we proposed those

9	standards to use for to meet the consistency part

10	of the law that says it would need to be

11	established within the rule.

12	The next part, though, we are going to have to

13	take care of is the applying those performance

14	standards, and when we do apply those performance

15	standards, do they actually impact -- how they

16	actually impact the summative ratings.

17	That goes back to the part of the law that

18	says we have to establish a student growth standard

19	that it's not met with -- met with result in an

20	unsatisfactory overall evaluation rating regardless

21	of whatever else may have been determined in the

22	other parts of the evaluation and then set a

23	performance standard that has to be met in order

24	for a district to, once everything else has been

25	combined, consider the individual to have effective
1	

1	performance and the same thing for highly

2	effective.	Now, we are talking about the summative

3	rating and what are those conditions.

4	So let's talk about the unsatisfactory part

5	first.	You can think of the unsatisfactory part as

6	an automatic unsatisfactory if the student growth

7	is below a certain level.	So on this one, the

8	lowest -- the lowest bar is where unsatisfactory

9	is -- is as specified currently in the draft text.

10	You can think of the effective and highly

11	effective applications of the standard as a floor;

12	you have to reach at least this threshold to be

13	considered effective or at least this threshold to

14	be considered highly effective.	In doing so, we

15	are considering conditions around -- what are those

16	conditions we have to actually have that needs to

17	go into effect and needs to be used for this

18	particular purpose?

19	We gathered those conditions from the law

20	itself.	We went back to the law.	One of the

21	things you may know about the law is whereas it

22	sets the standard for the percentage of students

23	based on the student evaluation or student

24	performance is at least 50 percent, as you well

25	know.
1	

1	The law does say if there is less than three

2	years of student data available for a teacher, you

3	can reduce it down to four percent, so in our mind,

4	that was a consideration; that was a condition of

5	diminishing the emphasis on the student performance

6	data in the evaluation because you only have one

7	year of data or two years of data.	That was our

8	reasoning.

9	We used that same condition when these

10	standards would actually apply to impact the final

11	summative rating.	These standards would not impact

12	a teacher's performance final summative rating or

13	become the unsatisfactory rating or set the

14	threshold for effective and highly effective

15	ratings unless that teacher had three years worth

16	of data.

17	And the second condition, those three years

18	must be based on what the teacher is actually

19	teaching.	We know that in the first years, people

20	are using the option on student performance data in

21	those grades and subjects where the district

22	doesn't have district assessments in place and does

23	not feel comfortable in using statewide assessment

24	data in all aspects, including performance.	Or you

25	may be using team results, school results,
1	

1	statewide assessment data for the assigned

2	students, rather than the data that's based on the

3	content of the courses they teach, all those

4	conditions.

5	Since that's an exception, since that's a

6	temporary measure that expires July 1st of 2015, we

7	use that as a condition as well.	So if a teacher

8	is being evaluated on those temporary measures,

9	then these performance evaluations -- or excuse me,

10	these performance level standards would not impact

11	the summative rating.	They would not result in an

12	automatic unsatisfactory.	They would not be

13	required to use this performance standard, or

14	threshold, for effective and highly effective.

15	Again, we would still expect the district to

16	use the performance standards just for the

17	performance of students until such time those two

18	conditions go into effect for those teachers that

19	were teaching the courses associated with FCAT data

20	because that's what this model is defined for, for

21	FCAT data, but not for other teachers under these

22	conditions or not even for those teachers if they

23	didn't have three years worth of data.

24	The rest of the slides that are in the

25	presentation are just reminders for people who have
1	

1	not been involved in the process with all of our

2	other districts, and since we have done -- done

3	technical assistance and provided assistance and

4	either face-to-face or in regional groups, I am not

5	going to go into all of that detail today; but it

6	is here for the record.

7	So we have used up a good hour of time.	That

8	provides us with about an hour to begin with the --

9	with the second phase of today, is to take a look

10	at what specific questions, clarifying questions

11	that you may have about the rule or the statute.

12	And if you would like to speak, Anna, would you

13	mind taking the speaker cards for them, for anybody

14	who would like to have a question?

15	UNIDENDIFIED SPEAKER:	Is that Anna?

16	MS. McDANIEL:	Anna is right back here.	She

17	will take your speaker cards.

18	And I will begin by just asking if anyone has

19	a question, if you would like to raise your hand,

20	we will make sure we get to you.	We will continue

21	with the questions for about a half an hour unless

22	there is a lot more questions, but I would like to

23	allow a half -- at least -- about a half an hour

24	for the comment section.	Unless you say there are

25	no other comments, we will go back to the
1	

1	questions.

2	So does anyone have a question for today?	And

3	when you pose your question, please tell us who you

4	are and your affiliation, and speak loudly for the

5	court reporter, please.

6	Yes, sir.

7	MR. LEONARD:	My name is Keith Leonard from

8	Escambia County School District, and this is just a

9	clarifying question.

10	MS. McDANIEL:	Yes.

11	MR. LEONARD:	If you go to Rule 6A-5.0411 and

12	it's in the page right before the listing of the

13	courses.

14	MS. McDANIEL:	Yes, sir.

15	MR. LEONARD:	And go to paren (3).	And

16	explain to me, please, ma'am, A, B, C and D in

17	particular because I believe the law speaks to four

18	different -- four different performance ratings

19	levels?

20	MS. McDANIEL:	Yes.

21	MR. LEONARD:	And here, they only mention

22	three.

23	MS. McDANIEL:	That's correct.

24	MR. LEONARD:	And I get the difference on

25	what's in between?
1	

1	MS. McDANIEL:	That's correct.

2	MR. LEONARD:	But I really can't pick up on

3	what they are trying to tell us in A, B, C and D.

4	MS. McDANIEL:	What we are trying to tell you

5	there is the law -- the law specified we need to --

6	to establish performance standards, not the

7	ratings.	The ratings the law delineated, as you

8	said, the ratings for four different levels, but

9	performance standards for unsatisfactory and for

10	highly effective and effective.	And that's what

11	this particular slide was doing.

12	Just a second, slowly but surely getting

13	there.

14	That's what this particular slide is doing, so

15	it's showing you the performance standard for

16	performance of students section of -- of what would

17	be -- as we are proposing in this text for today,

18	what it would be for satisfactory, what would be

19	for highly effective and what would be -- the two

20	in the middle are effective.

21	The -- the difference between effective and

22	unsatisfactory would be your needs improvement or

23	developing; the law did not specify that we had to

24	establish that.

25	MR. LEONARD:	Okay.	Then if you look at A and
1	

1	B, it basically tells you to ignore the majority of

2	performance of students measurements; what am I

3	going to ignore?

4	MS. McDANIEL:	So you're talking about for

5	classroom teachers who evaluation includes a

6	majority of performance of students measured

7	implemented under 1012.34(7)(e), and we -- we need

8	to review again what (7)(e) says.	(7)(e) says, I

9	will pull the law.

10	MR. LEONARD:	Okay.

11	MS. McDANIEL:	(7)(e) refers to, for classroom

12	teachers of courses which the district has not

13	implemented appropriate assessments under 1008.	We

14	are not talking about the teachers who are

15	associated with FCAT here.	We are talking about

16	for those that this does not apply, okay?

17	MR. LEONARD:	Yes, ma'am.

18	MS. TIBBETTS:	This is a just a procedural

19	question --

20	COURT REPORTER:	Sorry.	I'm having difficulty

21	hearing you.

22	MS. McDANIEL:	Yeah.	Alexis, a little louder

23	or please come forward.

24	MS. TIBBETTS:	Alexis Tibbetts, Walton County.

25	If you're taking notes but you have written notes,
1	

1	are we going to have to listen to this event again?

2	MS. McDANIEL:	It is not --

3	MS. TIBBETTS:	You're going to actually

4	transcribe these notes so we can access them from a

5	website?

6	MS. McDANIEL:	It will -- it is a written

7	transcript.		

8	
MS. TIBBETTS:	
Okay.	

9	
MS. McDANIEL:	
It is not listening.	The	

10	webinars, same thing.	The webinars, you could

11	listen to it, but there is a written transcript

12	there as well.	But you do not have to listen; you

13	can just read it.	That's what you will have here

14	as well.

15	MS. TIBBETTS:	Thank you.

16	MS. McDANIEL:	Yes, sir.

17	MR. FAIRCLOTH:	Leon Faircloth, Bay County

18	Schools.

19	COURT REPORTER:	I'm sorry.	I can't hear.

20	MR. FAIRCLOTH:	Leon Faircloth, Bay County

21	Schools.

22	You are setting all these measurements on the

23	norm reference of 10-11?	How do you --

24	MS. McDANIEL:	Or 11-12 -- excuse me, 2011,

25	2012.

1	MR. FAIRCLOTH:	2011-2012.	How did you intend

2	to set that reference for the EOCs when they come

3	online.

4	MS. McDANIEL:	Well, they are -- they are --

5	they are considering them this week at the Student

6	Growth Committee for a -- a value-added model for

7	those this week.	They then get recommended to the

8	Commission.	If the Commissioner then sets the

9	formula, we go back to the rule, and we will need

10	to add this to the rule.	So the rule will need to

11	be revisited each and every time a new formula

12	being added.	Right now, the current text of the

13	rule only addresses the FCAT model.

14	MR. FAIRCLOTH:	So that's not being included

15	into the FCAT model; it's being handled separately?

16	MS. McDANIEL:	For EOCs Algebra I, Geometry

17	and Biology, each of them will have their own

18	formula.	Then, what's the base year for them?

19	Well, the base year will be for when it's

20	established, and then this rule will then go into

21	effect for three years of data.	And they need to

22	be teaching the specific courses for the --

23	And remember, that is for the summative

24	rating, not the fact of where -- of where they are

25	with the performance standard for whether they are
1	

1	for student performance score highly effective,

2	effective, needs improvement and so forth, because

3	it is for the summative rating, whether the three

4	years of data aggregated for that teacher and the

5	teacher is teaching that course for which they are

6	being assessed, then that part of the rule goes

7	into effect.

8	MS. TIBBETTS:	What about kids that take --

9	MS. McDANIEL:	Alexis, if you could say your

10	name again.

11	MS. TIBBETTS:	Alexis Tibbetts, Walton County.

12	What about kids who take the Algebra I and the

13	8th grade FCAT?	And once you establish the end of

14	course or even when you get the courses that are

15	like courses that meet the requirements of science,

16	how can is that going to be factored?

17	MS. McDANIEL:	That -- that is factored into

18	the -- in to the -- not necessarily into the

19	formula because the formula is specific to Algebra

20	I, and there is a formula specific to math, 8th

21	grade.	But the district will need to determine

22	what portion of the -- of the student performance

23	is attributed back to that individual.

24	So if they are teaching three 8th grade

25	classes and two Algebra I classes, then it
1	

1	proportionately needs to be figured out.	You will

2	outline that within your evaluation system.

3	Yes, ma'am?

4	MS. BREAKALL:	Kathy Breakall, Escambia.

5	MS. McDANIEL:	You've got --

6	MS. BREAKALL:	Kathy Breakall, Escambia.

7	For clarification, I am an art teacher, and I

8	teach students who take the FCAT.	So am I using

9	FCAT scores for that art teacher, or what am I

10	doing?

11	MS. McDANIEL:	If that is what your district

12	has determined they would use if they do not have

13	another assessment at this point, then that -- it

14	may be that that is that was one of the options

15	that the district may have chosen than they were

16	going to use FCAT scores.

17	MS. BREAKALL:	So we have to use some score?

18	MS. McDANIEL:	You have to use some form of

19	student performance measured for all instructional

20	personnel, but the law does provide for other

21	options, such as instructional teams and so forth.

22	Yes, sir?

23	MR. LEONARD:	Okay.

24	MS. McDANIEL:	Name, rank.

25	MR. LEONARD:	Leonard, Escambia County.	I am
1	

1	on Slide 25, the top bullet.	It's a clarifying

2	question.

3	The value-added model is one part of a

4	multifaceted teacher evaluation system.	However,

5	what I am hearing today, at least in this draft

6	rule, it's really the whole part if a certain

7	standard isn't met on student achievement.	Is that

8	a yes -- or I guess that's a yes or no question; I

9	am sorry.

10	MS. McDANIEL:	I really don't want to answer

11	yes or no because I think it's a little bit more

12	multifaceted than that, but it could be.	If all

13	the conditions that are in place -- and let's

14	say -- remember 11-12 is the -- is the benchmark

15	year.	Go three years forward.	We have a teacher 16	in 20 -- got 11-12, 12-13, 13-14.
17	At the end of 13-14, we have three years of

18	data.	You get an aggregate score.	The aggregate

19	score for student performance places them at the

20	unsatisfactory level.	No matter what their score

21	for instructional practice is, the law says that

22	they will be unsatisfactory.

23	MR. LEONARD:	Okay.

24	MS. McDANIEL:	Does that answer your question? 25
17	

1	MR. LEONARD:	Oh, yeah.	Absolutely.

2	MS. McDANIEL:	Okay.	But one other

3	condition -- one other condition had to be

4	considered there; the teacher had to have been

5	teaching the courses for which they are being

6	assessed.	For this model right now, all we have is

7	FCAT.	If they are teaching art, it's not in place.

8	MR. LEONARD:	Yes, ma'am.	Thank you.

9	MS. McDANIEL:	You're welcome.

10	MS. BOEHME:	I believe --

11	MS. McDANIEL:	Cathy?

12	MS. BOEHME:	Cathy Boehme, Escambia County.

13	I chair our evaluation revision committee, and

14	we brainstormed some questions.	So I actually have

15	10 questions for you.

16	MS. McDANIEL:	Okay.

17	MS. BOEHME:	So can we start at the top and

18	just -- I know.

19	MS. McDANIEL:	Sure.	No, we have -- I was

20	looking at my watch.	We are fine.

21	MS. BOEHME:	Okay.	So the first question was

22	how do we incorporate three years of data if we are

23	using different assessments each year?	So perhaps

24	in two years we will have FCAT 2.0, and then we

25	will have EOC data.	And so will those meet the
1	

1	three-year requirement, and is there a particular

2	requirement for how we are going to combine those

3	scores?

4	MS. McDANIEL:	Well, the State provides to you

5	the value-added score for the individual based on

6	the data that we have, so right now, all we have is

7	FCAT.		

8	
How your other assessments may	
come	
in other	

9	
than FCAT will be based on what you	
have	
got in	

10	your district and how you determine what percentage

11	will be based on FCAT and whatever depending on

12	what that teacher is teaching, again.

13	Now, whatever -- let's say the teacher in

14	11-12 based on F -- let's use FCAT -- based on FCAT

15	data received a -- an effective rating, effective

16	rating both in student performance and in

17	instructional practice, that -- that performance --

18	that rating stands.	It does not go back and change

19	it.

20	The following year, we add another year of

21	data on there and aggregate the data for two years,

22	not just one year of data for 11-12.	Now, we have

23	aggregated data for two years; based on FCAT only,

24	we are going to aggregate the two.	If you have got

25	other performance measures there that need to be
10	

1	added for that particular teacher, that will be

2	added there.

3	For instance, for the example we heard

4	earlier, they are teaching both 8th grade

5	mathematics, which is FCAT, which will eventually

6	change, and then we also have -- they -- they are

7	teaching Algebra I, so they -- a portion of the

8	student performance would be for -- for the FCAT

9	and a portion of it would be for the EOC.

10	But you only have one year of data on the EOC

11	and you have two years on the FCAT now, correct?

12	And we get into 13-14, three years of data on the

13	FCAT and only two years on the Algebra I.

14	MS. BOEHME:	So then, would that mean the

15	standard for three years of student growth data?

16	MS. McDANIEL:	Only on the FCAT portion and

17	for those -- for those courses that she is teaching

18	that is associated with FCAT mathematics or

19	reading.

20	MS. BOEHME:	Okay.

21	MS. McDANIEL:	And that's, again, something --

22	we will go back to the other rule, 6A-5.030.	You

23	will have to explain what are you going to do in

24	those situations when you have multiple measures

25	that affect student performance for that teacher
1	

1	and how you're going to -- how you're going to

2	address that.

3	MS. BOEHME:	And --

4	MS. TIBBETTS:	Can we stay on this for a

5	second?

6	MS. BOEHME:	Sure.

7	MS. TIBBETTS:	I have a followup question.	If 8	a --
9	MS. McDANIEL:	Alexis, name.

10	MS. TIBBETTS:	Alexis, Walton County.

11	If a student is taking -- if one student, if I

12	am taking the 8th grade FCAT and the Algebra I EOC,

13	I am kind of back to her, are we going to give the

14	teacher the greatest advantage on that?	How does

15	the State --

16	MS. McDANIEL:	It's by percentage of courses

17	they are teaching.	That's how you're dividing it

18	up.

19	MS. TIBBETTS:	Okay.	Let's say at this teach

20	Algebra I all day long to 8th graders who end up

21	taking both exams, they take the 8th grade math

22	test and they take the Algebra I, aren't most of

23	y'all doing that?

24	UNIDENDIFIED SPEAKER:	We don't have to take

25	that.
9	

1	MS. McDANIEL:	No, I -- I would think that the

2	EOC is what you are going to basing it on the EOC.

3	(Multiple speakers.)

4	MS. TIBBETTS:	Let me ask you this question.

5	Okay.	So you are just basing it on the EOC?	Okay.

6	I didn't know if you were going to teaching that.

7	MS. McDANIEL:	Cathy?

8	MS. BOEHME:	Okay.	In 6A-5.0411 you use the

9	term "equally appropriate?"

10	MS. McDANIEL:	Yes.

11	MS. BOEHME:	So who is going to review the

12	individual assessments for every course, every

13	subject all 67 counties and six special districts?

14	UNIDENDIFIED SPEAKER:	I vote --

15	(Multiple speakers.)

16	MR. LEONARD:	I second.

17	MS. McDANIEL:	That's my office.

18	MS. BOEHME:	Our -- our concern is, of course

19	how do we meet that standard, and what kind of

20	timeline is involved and who is going to make the

21	decision?

22	MS. McDANIEL:	Of course, none of those have

23	been specified yet, so if you want more specificity

24	in the rule, you certainly want to suggest that.

25	But the law -- the -- the rule provides for two
1	

1	options in how to go about that and plus a third

2	option.	If you feel that there is another way to

3	get at equally appropriate, then you can make --

4	you can provide a justification for that.

5	MS. BOEHME:	So it's the district's decision

6	about whether?

7	MS. McDANIEL:	The district's decision that

8	they will need to submit for approval, and with

9	appropriate justification, may be approved.

10	MS. BOEHME:	So DOE still is going to have to

11	review to make those decisions?

12	MS. McDANIEL:	That's correct.

13	MS. BOEHME:	Okay.	And the same thing goes

14	for the student growth calculation, so let's go --

15	if we can go there.	Are the growth formula going

16	to be provided for local assessments.	I know it

17	says specifically that they will be -- we will have

18	assistance from DOE.	Are they going to be

19	available for districts to examine?	Are they going

20	to be available for us to use?

21	MS. McDANIEL:	Anything that is -- that is

22	shared by anyone, we certainly want it shared with

23	all so that we can all benefit from what's

24	happening.	Now, there -- there will not be -- the

25	State is not going to develop a formula for those,
1	

1	but there will be -- the data will be available.

2	MS. BOEHME:	So you're are going to share the

3	variables and the covariant data from the AIR

4	models with all the districts?

5	MS. McDANIEL:	With -- with local district

6	assessment formula, no, I don't believe so.	They

7	will be examined and AIR will provide some

8	recommendations.		

9	
MS. BOEHME:	
So --	

10	MS. McDANIEL:	But there will there be a model

11	that is specifically for -- for a local assessment

12	on art, no.

13	MS. BOEHME:	You see, our concern is going

14	back to resources.	We are not trained as

15	psychometricians.	We don't have the data warehouse

16	that the district has access to be able to develop

17	those formulas, and some of our courses are in

18	maybe six -- you know, we have over 300 courses in

19	our district that are not covered in this and not

20	covered by state assessments.	And so how do we do

21	this?

22	MS. McDANIEL:	As -- as you probably know,

23	Cathy, there are a number of projects going on

24	across the State from developing many of these

25	assessments, particularly for hard to measure
10	

1	areas.	Those are the ones that will be shared with

2	everyone, but the Department will provide

3	assistance for -- to provide assistance for

4	developing a formula for that, but we will not set

5	the formula.

6	MS. BOEHME:	Because, you know, you gave us a

7	list.	The Excel spreadsheet had all of the

8	courses, and we went back through we have over 300

9	courses, 200 simply in career technical, that are

10	not covered by the consortium and not covered by

11	anything.

12	MS. McDANIEL:	Right.	Right.

13	MS. BOEHME:	Little kids, adults, we have got

14	lots and lots of those.

15	MS. McDANIEL:	Yes.	Yes.

16	MS. BOEHME:	So we -- we do not expect

17	assistance from DOE on developing those?

18	MS. McDANIEL:	You -- no, I do not want to say

19	that.	We will provide as much assistance as we can

20	and -- because these concerns not just for Escambia

21	but many school districts across the state.	We

22	will have career technical area; we will be working

23	with school districts in helping you to get to

24	that.

25	And many times, other districts have developed
1	

1	some measure that others could use with an equally

2	appropriate model to be used.

3	MS. BOEHME:	You are doing a study with

4	several of the counties, and so Escambia County is

5	one of those counties.

6	MS. McDANIEL:	Part -- part of the Race to the

7	Top study; is that correct?

8	MS. BOEHME:	Some kind of survey.

9	MS. McDANIEL:	That's correct.	That's part of

10	the evaluation of Race to the Top.

11	MS. BOEHME:	So is -- is that data going to be

12	released?	When will it be released, and will we

13	see anything preliminary before we have the final?

14	MS. McDANIEL:	I don't have the answer to

15	those questions.	They -- it's part of the

16	evaluations for all of Race to the Top, and the

17	progress that we are making is being produced

18	particularly for the U.S. Department of Education.

19	But anything that we receive is public record and

20	will certainly be shared.	We hope to learn a great

21	deal in what you all are telling the evaluators

22	about this whole process and how we can improve it.

23	MS. BOEHME:	Okay.	And my final question --

24	until I think of something else, I'm sure -- but on

25	my list, has DOE run impact data using the proposed
1	

1	rules yet?

2	COURT REPORTER:	I'm sorry.

3	MS. BOEHME:	Run impact data using the

4	proposed rules?

5	MS. McDANIEL:	I don't have the answer to that

6	question.

7	MS. BOEHME:	So you don't know?

8	MS. McDANIEL:	I don't know.

9	MR. ALFORD:	We have got ours.

10	UNIDENDIFIED SPEAKER:	You don't want to see

11	it.

12	MR. ALFORD:	On to questions.	Greg Alford,

13	from Panhandle Area Education Consortium.

14	First question is, how the outliers -- by

15	that, I mean, individual students' projections

16	where they miss the projection wildly -- have those

17	been removed from the data?	Where a normal

18	student's projection would be plus two or plus

19	four, we have a student with 400, obviously

20	something happened.	Have those -- and that can --

21	that can wipe out an entire teacher's data.

22	MS. McDANIEL:	That --

23	MR. ALFORD:	Have those been removed or

24	addressed in any way?

25	MS. McDANIEL:	And I can't answer that
1	

1	question.	That's certainly a question that needs

2	to be answered, and I would suggest you put that in

3	writing to me or -- or e-mail to Cathy Hebda.	And

4	if you got it there, we will make sure we get it

5	back to you.

6	MR. ALFORD:	All right.	My second question is

7	on the aggregate data on the teacher, the aggregate

8	scores for a teacher, are those being weighed on

9	the number of students in each class, or is it

10	record by record?	An algebra class where a teacher

11	had four students and then a general math class

12	where a teacher had 40 students, are those weighted

13	50/50, or are they based on the number of students?

14	MS. McDANIEL:	Based on the number of students

15	with each class.

16	MR. ALFORD:	Okay.

17	MS. McDANIEL:	Question?

18	MR. EMERSON:	Bill Emerson, Santa Rosa County.

19	Just on a question he just said being weighted

20	by the number of students, weighted by who?

21	MS. McDANIEL:	It's not -- it's not weighted.

22	It's part of the formula for a consideration within

23	the formula the number of students in the class.	A

24	class of four students versus a class of 35

25	students, it's part of the formula.
1	

1	MR. EMERSON:	Okay.	Followup question, so

2	conceivably on the three-year rule, if the teacher

3	teaches the FCAT courses two years in a row and

4	gets unsatisfactory for students performance, if

5	they plead to get out of an FCAT course to an EOC

6	course, then they stop that mechanism; is that

7	correct?

8	MS. McDANIEL:	If they -- they didn't receive

9	an unsatisfactory?

10	MR. EMERSON:	If they say I don't want any

11	FCAT courses; put me in EOC courses so I start a

12	new records, and therefore you won't have three

13	consecutive?

14	MS. McDANIEL:	Right.	Two conditions in the

15	rule as it states right now, calls for those two

16	conditions.

17	Any further questions?

18	Okay.	We are ready for comments.	Sir?

19	SUPERINTENDENT HUSFELT:	Bill Husfelt,

20	Superintendent of Schools, Bay County.

21	I have several points here.	I know I am just

22	supposed to give them and you are not supposed to

23	comment; is that the way it's supposed to work?

24	MS. McDANIEL:	That is correct, sir.

25	SUPERINTENDENT HUSFELT:	I also have handouts
1	

1	I am going to give you, and most of this

2	information is what we have been talking about.

3	First, I need to go on record that Debra P.

4	vs. the State of Florida, which is a court study

5	that all of us have done; it's going to come into

6	big time impact on giving tests to kids that we

7	know aren't valid.

8	There were $350 million of the $700 million

9	that Florida got from Race to the Top went to the

10	State Department of Education.	Part of that was to

11	develop EOCs for all courses, and so I just want to

12	make sure we get that on record.	And that was

13	three commissioners ago, but it was -- that was

14	stated.

15	First, the Governor and the Legislatures have

16	been praising Florida's education system for the

17	last month, month-and-a-half about the reading

18	gains and -- and how we are so far above everyone

19	else in the nation and how great we are doing.	And

20	I wonder if there is a discussion about how all

21	that occurred prior to the implementation of all of

22	this we are talking about right now, and I think

23	that needs to be looked at.

24	The second thing is the limiting -- all this

25	is tied into evaluation of school grades, and it's
1	

1	all tied in together, believe it or not, but

2	limiting the number of A's a district or the state

3	can have.	If we did that to students, you would

4	have parents beating down the doors of DOE, and I

5	don't think that makes any sense either.

6	I don't see how we can realistically measure

7	teachers that don't touch students, art and music,

8	and we are never going to get to the EOC in that

9	part.	We are wasting a lot of time.	You are

10	wasting a lot of time.	We are wasting a lot of

11	money talking about the EOCs for all these courses,

12	adult education, electives, special schools.

13	And I want us to go back -- and all of this

14	information can be shared with the legislators and

15	the Governor's Office, but I want us to go back to

16	the premise of what this was all about.	Now,

17	publicly it was about rewarding good teachers and

18	about helping teachers get better.	When we all

19	know it was really about it getting rid of the bad

20	teachers we can't improve, and we are beating up

21	our best teachers to do this.

22	And if you -- and I don't think any of you

23	caught it, but if you look on the handout, you

24	would see on the second page that you have there --

25	we left the schools names off on purpose because we
1	

1	are not trying to embarrass anybody, but if you

2	look at the fifth school, I think it's school E on

3	there.	I think it's school E on yours, where it

4	shows the proposed will be 79.4 percent needs

5	improvement, that is an A school, one of our top

6	schools in the district right now.

7	And if you look down to the 90 -- same column,

8	93.3 percent, needs improvement with the proposed,

9	which school is that?	Very bottom, I am sorry.

10	All the way at the bottom, that is another one of

11	our top functional schools in 93.3 percent.

12	I mean, I think this data is very important to

13	look at.	The correlation between the teacher

14	assessment and school grades is nonexistent, and

15	there is major flaws in it.	And I know the

16	legislators feel that way, and it's just -- it's

17	causing havoc with the classroom teachers.	They

18	are just being beaten up over this, and when this

19	becomes public and these measures are released

20	after a year and their scores it's -- we are going

21	to lose a lot of good teachers.

22	There is part -- I am going to go back to what

23	I said a minute ago about highly effective

24	teachers.	Parts of Senate Bill 736 was about

25	rewarding highly effective teachers.	The
1	

1	Governor's budget doesn't have anything in there

2	for that.	We have had no talk about that.	There

3	is no money on the table.	We are going to give

4	everybody a $2,500 raise, but it didn't address

5	highly effective teachers.	I mean, so obviously

6	that's not what it was all about or there would be

7	real money in it.	That has to be addressed.

8	There is no money to sustain what we are doing

9	right now.	We have several full-time people, as

10	other districts do, they are being paid for Race to

11	the Top funds just to track all this, and we are

12	barely at the -- at the tip of the iceberg on this.

13	And if this comes to fruition the way it looks like

14	it's supposed to, you're going to need a whole

15	office building of people just to keep up with all

16	the data.	I mean, it's -- it's nuts.	So I think

17	people need to step back and look and -- and pay

18	attention to data.

19	If you look at the handouts that we gave you.

20	As I said, this has been sent out.	Option C is the

21	one that we are -- we think is the most fair.	If

22	you look at the ratings, you will see highly

23	effective, effective, needs improvement,

24	unsatisfactory.

25	If the proposed rule goes into effect, we are
1	

1	going to have more than half of our teachers will

2	be needs improvement or un -- unsatisfactory in our

3	district.	And that's nowhere near accurate.	But

4	if you continue to look across the Proposed Option

5	A, Proposed Option B, and Proposed Option C, you

6	will see some of the changes we are recommending.

7	I don't want to bore everybody with it because I

8	know they can read, I am pretty sure, or they

9	wouldn't be in this room.

10	But, you know, thank you for allowing me to

11	share my comments, and I appreciate you being in

12	Panama City.

13	MS. McDANIEL:	Thank you, sir.

14	Another comment?

15	MS. BREAKALL:	Kathy Breakall, Escambia --

16	COURT REPORTER:	I'm sorry.	I can't hear you,

17	ma'am.

18	MS. BREAKALL:	Kathy Breakall, Escambia.

19	My grandmother used to have a statement that

20	she used that sometimes we put the cart before the

21	horse.	I think there are a lot of good intentions

22	that we are -- are doing a failure because that's

23	exactly what we are doing, and a lot of it has to

24	do with he resources.

25	For example, this year, my -- my district had
1	

1	to have six schools with the extended day.	It cost

2	us over $2 million to do that.	We were not sent $2

3	million, not nearly $2 million from the State to

4	implement that program.	It was a mandated program.

5	And what -- what we have here, we are supposed

6	to be developing EOCs.	We don't have the money to

7	do that.	And what every program -- I know you are

8	talking about the developing all across the state.

9	As Cathy said, we have over 300 subjects that we

10	need that for.	The State is not going to send us

11	the money to develop that, and they are not going

12	to be there.

13	So what we are doing here is we are violating

14	our own premise that says that evaluation should be

15	based on sound educational principles.	It is not

16	sound educational principle to evaluate someone who

17	is in a career tech program who teaches our

18	students cuisine -- and we have those programs in

19	some of our high schools and they are great

20	programs -- or an arts teacher or a music teacher

21	to evaluate them on district-wide or school-wide

22	reading scores.

23	Or an Algebra teacher or an advanced Calculus

24	teacher in high school that is evaluated on reading

25	scores.	That is not sound evaluation principles,
1	

1	and basically, it's just not fair.	So if we want

2	to be, I think, be respected across the nation for

3	having good -- good schools and leading the

4	forefront in good evaluation systems, we need to

5	step back and look at what we have done in the last

6	couple of years to, I think, actually eradicate

7	some of the good that we had already done because

8	we certainly are not going to have the funding in

9	Florida to do what we are requiring our districts

10	to do.

11	MS. McDANIEL:	Cathy?

12	MS. BOEHME:	I'm sorry.	Cathy Boehme,

13	Escambia County.

14	I have our committee's list again, so I have

15	issues.	And then I also have recommendations, and

16	so let's start with the issues.	We have already

17	addressed them.	Several people have addressed

18	them, but we are very concerned about resources and

19	being able to develop the tests that we need to be

20	able to meet the law.

21	When we met as the a committee, when we

22	started, and this is a joint committee, district

23	staff, teachers, school-based administrators, we

24	are working very hard.	And what we said we want to

25	improve our practice in the classroom.	We want to
1	

1	improve student achievement, and we want to comply

2	with the law.

3	And we have complied with the law even though

4	we believe that the results of that compliance has

5	hurt our teachers.	When we look at our student --

6	I mean, when we look at our VAM scores and we

7	compare them to the rest of the state and we look

8	at our scores for our teachers in highly effective,

9	you will see Lake, Liberty, Charlotte, Escambia,

10	Taylor, Orange and Okeechobee by county's with less

11	than one percent highly effective teachers because

12	we incorporated the VAM as it was given us from

13	DOE.

14	And we do not feel that those numbers reflect

15	accurately the quality of teachers in our county,

16	and I am sure it does not reflect the quality of

17	the teachers in these other counties.	We did that

18	with our best of intentions, but we are kind of

19	stuck right now because we don't have the resources

20	to develop the tests we need.

21	We need access to the consortia's database,

22	which have not been released yet even though we are

23	probably going to have to implement them next year,

24	and we do need time to vet questions to develop all

25	these things.	You know exactly what I am talking
1	

1	about, and we just don't have the time to do that

2	and have it ready to go this fall.

3	We are -- we are concerned about using the VAM

4	at all because it's not useful in making

5	instructional decisions for our students.	I get a

6	VAM score -- I got my VAM score in December of this

7	year.	That's halfway through the school year.

8	It's not fine enough in detail for me to make any

9	instructional decisions, and it's not timely enough

10	for me to make any kind of instructional decisions.

11	And so it seems to be a little bit of a push

12	for us to try to be using our VAM in order to make

13	these high stakes decisions because, you know, in

14	two years, we are going to be making tremendously

15	decisions.	We are not talking about salary.	We

16	are talking about termination.	And potentially,

17	when we have a VAM score that's at a 0.76 for

18	reliability, that means one in four is wrong, and

19	that's just not good enough for the teachers in our

20	counties or in our state.

21	Because the VAM scores are based on

22	comparisons among teachers, and because they

23	penalize teachers at schools with the high school

24	affect, the method assessment probably creates a

25	disincentive for people who are collaborating.	And
1	

1	again, we don't think that's the right message to

2	sent.

3	The VAM scores don't adequately isolate the

4	effectiveness of a teacher.	For example, students

5	participating in after school tutoring may master

6	more than a student who is not participating in

7	tutoring, but the work of the tutor is not

8	reflected in the teacher's VAM score.	And it's not

9	reflected in the tutor's evaluations either.

10	The decisions for teachers may including, and

11	we don't believe the variability of the VAM

12	calculation.	It is -- is it's kind of mathematical

13	magic, and it's to make a decision that the data

14	was never, ever meant to be used to make.

15	Now, we do have some recommendations because,

16	again, we are trying to work within -- within the

17	law, so we do believe there is an improvement over

18	the last time we did a draft, in that there is more

19	flexibility in the observation process.	There is

20	not all of the requirements for documentation or

21	delivery practice and all of these kinds of things,

22	checklist, getting kind of messy paperwork wise.

23	We do suggest limiting the impact of the

24	student for the VAM score to one step below the

25	observation score, and I understand that that's a
1	

1	legislative issue that will have to be addressed.

2	But I would pass on that several us of us are in

3	agreement.

4	We would ask that the State DOE repurpose,

5	perhaps, some of their resources to help us develop

6	test assessments, provide score -- calculation

7	formulas, that kind of stuff, for all courses grade

8	subjects.	Again, because we are -- we don't need

9	to do the 67 plus six times the same thing.

10	We strongly, strongly encourage that you delay

11	the implementation of these rules until there are

12	sufficient resources, training, time provided for

13	districts to develop and field test the necessary

14	assessments.

15	We would suggest as in 34(7)(e) that we

16	restrict the use of VAM data to students assigned

17	to teachers who are responsible for delivering

18	instruction measured by the assessment and used to

19	calculate the VAM score and prohibit the use of VAM

20	student growth data for students who do not teach

21	students taking the assessments, and that would be

22	adults, K through 3, 11th and 12th grade

23	specifically; and I am sure there are other areas.

24	We would suggest that you prohibit the use of

25	the VAM student growth data for teachers who do not
1	

1	directly instruct students, such as technology

2	coordinators, teachers on special assignments,

3	deans who are instructional in our county, guidance

4	counselors, media specialists.

5	We would also suggest that in rule --

6	incorporated in rule that you hold harmless

7	teachers who are out for an extended leave or who

8	agree to take intern teachers.	We are hearing over

9	and over again from higher ed that they are having

10	difficulty finding teachers who are, by law,

11	required to be effective and highly effective, who

12	are willing to take student teachers, and perhaps,

13	by adding that in the rule, then we would be able

14	to get better mentors for our intern teachers.

15	We also ask that you record and report

16	attendance by period and by subject when they are

17	used in the VAM calculation, and I think that's it.

18	MS. McDANIEL:	Thank you.

19	MS. BOEHME:	Thank you.	And thank you for

20	coming closer.

21	MS. McDANIEL:	Yes, sir.

22	MR. ALFORD:	Greg Alford, Panhandle Area

23	Education Consortium.

24	The consortium represents 15 small and rural

25	school districts, and having an opportunity to work
1	

1	with them over the last year concerning the VAM, I

2	witnessed firsthand that they do not have the

3	resources, even combined, that one of our larger

4	school districts have.	And my recommendation would

5	be for the State to consider some special resources

6	for these school districts.

7	Just being honest with you, if special

8	consideration is not given -- by that, I mean

9	special help -- is not a task force put together

10	for these small little districts, it's just

11	literally not going to get done.	Escambia County

12	probably has two or three times the number of

13	students that all of these districts that we

14	represent put together have, and so it's just not

15	going to happen without some special effort on the

16	part of the DOE for these school districts.

17	MS. RAMIREZ:	Mona Ramirez.	I am also from

18	the Panhandle --

19	COURT REPORTER:	I'm sorry.	Can you speak up,

20	please?

21	MS. RAMIREZ:	Mona Ramirez, PAEC.

22	I wanted to reiterate what Greg is saying, is

23	that that with the small rural districts, there

24	math person might also be the person who is in

25	charge of the buses and the cafeteria, so that's --
1	

1	you know, the same thing with the language arts

2	person.

3	Talk about not having the money to develop

4	assessments.	They don't have the -- they don't

5	have the personnel to develop the assessments, to

6	collect the data.	They don't have anybody there

7	that really may know how aggregate, disaggregate

8	the data, evaluate the date, so that would mean

9	adding a good bit of additional, highly paid

10	personnel, because you're not going to get any data

11	experts cheaply.	And they can't afford it.

12	They can't afford what they are doing now.	So

13	they are going to need help.	I am sure the big

14	districts do, too, but my job is working with these

15	small districts.	And they are already so stretched

16	money wise.

17	MS. McDANIEL:	Any further comments?

18	I want to thank each and every one of you

19	being here today.	We were a little concerned with

20	the rain that people may not come, but you did.

21	Thank you.

22	I do want to remind you that the web is also

23	open.	You might want to go back and look at the

24	transcript again because sometimes looking at in

25	writing helps you understand it better, but to go
1	

1	to the web and add additional comments.	All of the

2	workshops are being recorded, as this one is, and

3	will be posted on our website at that website.

4	Thank for you having us here today in Bay

5	County.

6	(Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded at 7	6:42 P.M.)
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3	CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

4	STATE OF FLORIDA	) COUNTY OF LEON	)
5

6	I, DEBRA R. KRICK, Professional Court

7	Reporter, certify that the foregoing proceedings were

8	taken before me at the time and place therein

9	designated; that my shorthand notes were thereafter

10	translated under my supervision; and the foregoing

11	pages, numbered 3 through 79, are a true and correct

12	record of the aforesaid proceedings.

13	I further certify that I am not a relative,

14	employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor

15	am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'

16	attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I

17	financially interested in the action.

18	DATED this 10th day of March, 2013. 19
20

21
DEBRA R. KRICK
22	COMMISSION #EE212307
EXPIRES JULY 13, 2016
23	PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTER
(850) 894-0828
24

25