1

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP PUBLIC INPUT ON DRAFT RULE TEXT

Rule 6A-5.030:	District Instructional Personnel

and School Administrator Evaluation Systems

Rule 6A-5.0411: Calculations of Student Learning

Growth for Use in School Personnel Evaluations

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Florida State College at Jacksonville
Advanced Technology Center Room T-112
401 West State Street
Jacksonville, Florida

Cindy Danese, Court Reporter

- - -

STATEWIDE REPORTING SERVICE
233 East Bay Street, Suite 606
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
(904) 353-7706

2

1	I N D E X

2			PAGE	
3				
4	Overview Presentation by	Eileen McDaniel	4	
5				
6	Clarifying Questions and	Answers:		
7	SPEAKERS			
8	Susan Voorhees		44	
9	Rich Grady		48	
10	Dawn Chapman		50	
11	Terrie Brady		53	
12	Robert Beach		59	
13	Bianca Sotelo		61	
14	Brad Gianneschi		62	
15	Robert Beach		64	
16	Connie McDonald		65	
17	Grace Neville		68	
18	Misty Muesing		69	
19	Gary Avery		73	
20	Bianca Sotelo		74	
21	Suzanne Davis		77	
22	Robert Beach		76	
23	Pat Curren		77	
24				
25				

1

2

3	Public Comments:

4	SPEAKERS

I N D E X (CONTINUED)

3

PAGE

5	Brad Gianneschi	79
6	Dawn Chapman	80
7	Ginger Barbee	82
8	Laurie Blanchard	83
9	Misty Muesing	84
10	Tammy Whitaker	85
11	Gary Avery	85
12	Connie McDonald	86
13	Terrie Brady	88

14

15

16

17
- - - 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3
16:06:28
16:06:28	4

16:10:28	5

16:10:30	6

16:10:32	7

16:10:34	8

16:10:38	9

16:10:38	10

16:10:42	11

16:10:46	12

16:10:48	13

16:10:52	14

16:10:56	15

16:10:58	16

16:11:00	17

16:11:02	18

16:11:02	19

16:11:10	20

16:11:16	21

16:11:18	22

16:11:22	23

16:11:24	24

16:11:26	25

4

P R O C E E D I N G S

February 26, 2013	4:00 p.m.

- - -

MS. MCDANIEL:	My phone says it's 4:00, so we're going to go ahead and get started and, as others arrive, they can go ahead and take a seat.
Thank you for coming today.	Good afternoon,

ladies and gentlemen.	My name is Eileen McDaniel, I'm Bureau Chief For Educator Recruitment, Development and Retention.		And with me today is Anna Schultz in the back.	She's the Assistant Deputy Chancellor For Educator Quality.	And also greeting at the door was Denise Scheidler, who is also in our bureau.	She's a program specialist that works with the evaluation systems.
What we're going to do this afternoon is I'm

going to walk you through two rules.	The first rule that we'll talk about is Rule 6A-5.030, District Instructional Personnel and School Administrator Evaluation Systems, and Rule
6A-5.0411, Calculations of Student Learning Growth

For Use in School Personnel Evaluation.

Can everybody hear me okay?

With me today also is Cindy, who is a court reporter.	She's going to take down the entire

	
5	

16:11:28	1	proceedings today.	The transcript will be sent to	

16:11:34	2	us and we will post that on our website.	And I'll	

16:11:36	3	talk to you a little bit about what's on our	

16:11:40	4	website, if you haven't discovered it yet, where	

16:11:40	5	all these rules are posted.	

16:11:44	6	We had two webinars on February 14th.	The	

16:11:48	7	transcript and the webinar itself is actually	

16:11:50	8	online for your viewing.	You don't have to go	

16:11:52	9	through the video webinar, you can actually read	

16:11:56	10	through the transcript, if you wish, or do a	

16:11:58	11	combination of both.	

16:12:00	12	We are conducting workshops in two different	

16:12:04	13	places yesterday and today.	Yesterday was in	

16:12:08	14	Panama City, and also in Broward regionally, and	

16:12:12	15	then today we are presenting in Jacksonville and at	

16:12:14	16	Fort Myers at Florida Gulf Coast University.	And	

16:12:20	17	then there will be one more rule development	

16:12:22	18	workshop that will begin on Thursday in the Orlando	

16:12:26	19	area at Valencia College.	

16:12:30	20	We're going to conduct our workshop in three	

16:12:32	21	different sections today.	

16:12:34	22	The first one is the overview of the	

16:12:36	23	presentation, and today you picked up, if you	

16:12:38	24	didn't already have it, a copy of the presentation	

16:12:42	25	has been given to you, if you'd like to take notes	

	
6	

16:12:44	1	with it, and a copy of each of the rules that we'll	

16:12:46	2	be reviewing.	

16:12:48	3	We do this for two reasons, these rule	

16:12:52	4	development workshops: to provide people an	

16:12:54	5	opportunity to see what the law requires that we	

16:12:56	6	put into the rule, and also so that we can provide	

16:13:00	7	you with an overview of what we're intending to say	

16:13:04	8	in that draft rule text.	

16:13:06	9	That's extremely important for everybody to	

16:13:08	10	understand, this is draft rule text.	It's	

16:13:10	11	extremely important for you all to know that your	

16:13:14	12	input is critical to this process.	And I'll say it	

16:13:16	13	now and I will continue to say it several times	

16:13:20	14	throughout the next two hours, that if you have any	

16:13:24	15	suggestions for rule changes, you don't agree with	

16:13:28	16	something, you do agree with something, you don't	

16:13:30	17	like the wording here, you would suggest substitute	

16:13:34	18	wording in another place, anything like that,	

16:13:38	19	that's the kind of input that we're looking for.	

16:13:40	20	You'll have an opportunity today to talk about	

16:13:42	21	those things, but there will be opportunities	

16:13:46	22	beyond today to do that.	

16:13:50	23	So I've just gone over what we'll do in Part	

16:13:54	24	1.	

16:13:54	25	In Part 2, we're going to give you an	

	
7	

16:13:56	1	opportunity to ask questions, clarifying questions.	

16:14:02	2	Whether you're asking questions or making public	

16:14:04	3	comments, it's going to be extremely important that	

16:14:08	4	you identify yourself and what your affiliation,	

16:14:12	5	organization, district, or whatever that is, to	

16:14:14	6	speak very loudly because the court reporter needs	

16:14:18	7	to pick up your comments.	That is going to the	

16:14:20	8	record for us to review as we take a look at this	

16:14:24	9	rule in the next couple of months and make	

16:14:26	10	adjustments to it based on your input.	

16:14:30	11	After the question-and-answer period has	

16:14:32	12	ended, Part 3 will begin, and that's where you will	

16:14:36	13	have actual public comments.	During this time, you	

16:14:40	14	as an audience may participate in the comment time.	

16:14:44	15	You do not have to make a comment out loud.	If you	

16:14:46	16	want to make a comment and put it into writing,	

16:14:50	17	there is a form for you to fill out to submit that	

16:14:52	18	form.	We also want you to submit that form if	

16:14:56	19	you're going to make a public comment to the record	

16:14:58	20	out loud today.	

16:15:00	21	If you decide later you didn't pick up a	

16:15:04	22	speaker's card but you come later and say during	

16:15:06	23	that time:	I want to make a public comment, one of	

16:15:08	24	our staff members will come to you and bring you	

16:15:10	25	that speaker's card to make sure we have accurate	

16:15:14	1

16:15:16	2

16:15:18	3

16:15:22	4

16:15:24	5

16:15:28	6

16:15:30	7

16:15:32	8

16:15:38	9

16:15:40	10

16:15:42	11

16:15:44	12

16:15:48	13

16:15:52	14

16:15:54	15

16:15:58	16

16:16:02	17

16:16:06	18

16:16:10	19

16:16:12	20

16:16:16	21

16:16:18	22

16:16:22	23

16:16:24	24

16:16:26	25

8

information about you.

During that time for comment, there are no responses nor questions, it's just a comments section.	Your comments will stand as you provide them, but it's extremely important we get those comments down so that we will have a record of them.
So a little bit more about today's process

and how we are looking for your input and participation.
As I mentioned, when you're asking a question or making a comment, please make sure you state your name and your affiliation or anything else you want us to know about you.	If you want to ask a question or make a public comment during this time, again make sure you complete a speaker's card, and when we get to the public comments section we will
-- perhaps, we don't know yet, we may need to limit

the amount of time for your public comment.

This presentation takes about an hour to go through the two rules.	Then we will allow for a half an hour of questions.	If we don't have that many questions, we'll go immediately into the comments section.	If there is a number of people that want to make comments and it doesn't appear we

	
9	

16:16:30	1	have sufficient time before 6:00 p.m., which is the	

16:16:32	2	closing time for the workshop, we will tell you and	

16:16:36	3	we will limit the time, whether it's three minutes,	

16:16:40	4	five minutes or whatever it is.	

16:16:46	5	One last thing about your participation.	

16:16:50	6	This, again, is draft rule text.	

16:16:54	7	There are two main types of input that we're	

16:16:58	8	looking for in this workshop.	First, any	

16:17:00	9	suggestions for changes or notes where you agree	

16:17:06	10	with something, or you want something else put into	

16:17:08	11	the rule.	We want to know what you think about	

16:17:12	12	this rule, but we want to make sure you put it in	

16:17:16	13	context and tell us how it might be changed.	

16:17:20	14	You might make a comment like:	Keep this	

16:17:24	15	section, or delete this section, or delete these	

16:17:26	16	words, substitute this word for another one, a	

16:17:30	17	portion of this rule is not clear to me.	

16:17:32	18	And we're listening very carefully for that.	

16:17:36	19	We perhaps will hear it today in your questions and	

16:17:38	20	your comments.	We will want to go back to that	

16:17:42	21	rule in order to clarify those sections, obviously.	

16:17:44	22	We're not going to send this to the State	

16:17:46	23	Board of Education for their consideration until we	

16:17:50	24	have been through all the public workshops, so it's	

16:17:54	25	very important that we get your suggestions from	

16:17:56	1

16:18:00	2

16:18:06	3

16:18:08	4

16:18:10	5

16:18:14	6

16:18:18	7

16:18:20	8

16:18:24	9

16:18:28	10

16:18:30	11

16:18:34	12

16:18:36	13

16:18:40	14

16:18:44	15

16:18:48	16

16:18:48	17

16:18:52	18

16:18:56	19

16:18:56	20

16:19:00	21

16:19:04	22

16:19:08	23

16:19:10	24

16:19:16	25

10

you. In order to improve this rule or both of these rules, your input is important. I can't emphasize that enough.
Lastly, we're very interested in whether the rule text we have drafted actually accomplishes what the statute said it was supposed to do.
In our presentation, we're intending to make

sure that we're collecting a specific kind of evidence from districts, particularly in 6A-5.030 on district evaluation systems.	That's what that rule is all about.	If we're not clear, we need to know that.	And if it doesn't say what you thought it says after you listen to the explanation again, we want to hear that as well and anything that you feel that may be important to the changes to the rule.
So let's take a look at the timeline so you

know where we're intending on going, but it's always subject to change, obviously.
The first thing we will need to know is the

rule adoption timeline.	Right now we're in rule development.	I'm going to emphasize one more time it's draft text.	So during the month of February, we have had two webinars on February 14th, and then five additional public workshops face to face like

16:19:18	1

16:19:24	2

16:19:26	3

16:19:30	4

16:19:34	5

16:19:38	6

16:19:40	7

16:19:44	8

16:19:46	9

16:19:50	10

16:19:54	11

16:19:58	12

16:20:00	13

16:20:04	14

16:20:08	15

16:20:12	16

16:20:18	17

16:20:22	18

16:20:26	19

16:20:32	20

16:20:34	21

16:20:38	22

16:20:46	23

16:20:50	24

16:20:58	25

11

this one throughout the state.

During the months of March and April when the workshops are over, we'll be reviewing the public comments, and we're also going to be looking or listening very carefully to the legislative sessions to see bills that have been introduced into the legislature that impact either one of these rules.
We will leave the public comments section on our website open all during this period.	It will be open all the way to the time of the State Board meeting.
And on the next slide, I believe it is, and we will emphasize it again, there is a place where you can go for public comment.
In May, once the legislative session is over,

we will review the rule with the rule changes that you all have provided through public comment, then we'll revise the rule text at that point and then we'll provide it to the State Board.
Our intention today -- and it may change -- is

to present it to the State Board in the June's regularly scheduled State Board of Education meeting.	We will let you know when that happens.
If the Board approves the two rules at that

	
12	

16:21:02	1	point, then the rules will take effect in	

16:21:08	2	2013-2014.	It would not impact in any way any of	

16:21:12	3	the evaluations that are going on during 2012-2013.	

16:21:20	4	So let me begin.	

16:21:22	5	The first rule we're going to talk about is	

16:21:24	6	6A-5.030, District Instructional Personnel and	

16:21:30	7	School Administrator Evaluation Systems.	For those	

16:21:34	8	of you who are following along, I'm on slide 6,	

16:21:38	9	about ready to go into slide 7.	We're going to	

16:21:40	10	talk about rule authority first and what the law	

16:21:44	11	says is in the current rule.	

16:21:46	12	So on slide 7, the first thing we see is what	

16:21:50	13	the law says we're supposed to put into this	

16:21:54	14	particular rule.	

16:21:56	15	In subsection (8) of Section 1012.34, Florida	

16:22:04	16	Statutes, the law prescribes the types of things	

16:22:06	17	the State Board is required to adopt rules on.	

16:22:10	18	Because we have two rules today, what we've done is	

16:22:14	19	divided the portions of that subsection, subsection	

16:22:20	20	(8), that pertain to each rule, and we'll talk	

16:22:22	21	about each in succession, so we'll talk about this	

16:22:26	22	rule first and then the one properly called the VAM	

16:22:30	23	rule.	

16:22:30	24	For this particular rule, though, we have to	

16:22:34	25	establish the uniform procedures for the	

16:22:38	1

16:22:40	2

16:22:44	3

16:22:46	4

16:22:50	5

16:22:52	6

16:22:56	7

16:23:00	8

16:23:02	9

16:23:08	10

16:23:10	11

16:23:12	12

16:23:16	13

16:23:22	14

16:23:24	15

16:23:30	16

16:23:32	17

16:23:34	18

16:23:38	19

16:23:42	20

16:23:48	21

16:23:50	22

16:23:54	23

16:23:56	24

16:23:58	25

13

submission, the review and approval of district evaluation systems.
In addition, the reporting requirements for the annual evaluation of instructional personnel and school administrators, and the process for monitoring school district implementation of those evaluation systems in accordance with this section of the law.
The way that 6A-5.030 is constructed at this time is -- and you've got the rule before you -- looking at Sections 1 and 2 of the rule begin to explain what are those uniform procedures of a district evaluation system.
We'll skip Section 3 for right now because we're going to go back to that much more in depth, and we'll go on to Sections 4 and 5 of that rule which deal with how those are reviewed and approved.	What are the different approval  standards:		Fully approved, conditionally approved, denied?	What's the broad definitions of those as written into the rule?	The conditions in which they are granted and how a system could move from denied to conditionally approved, or conditionally approved to fully approved.
We also discuss in those particular sections

	
14	

16:24:00	1	how districts can make modifications to their	

16:24:06	2	systems as districts have been doing since they	

16:24:08	3	were first submitted to the Department.	

16:24:14	4	This section talks about what those procedures	

16:24:16	5	are.	The law talks about how districts submitting	

16:24:20	6	to the Department when they've made substantial	

16:24:24	7	changes in the evaluation system.	The rule talks	

16:24:26	8	about what that is, what do we mean by "substantial	

16:24:30	9	changes."	So the rule specifies what do we mean by	

16:24:34	10	that, so districts will know how to submit or why	

16:24:38	11	they have to submit to the Department when they	

16:24:40	12	have substantial changes, and when can they just go	

16:24:44	13	ahead and make those minor changes and then post on	

16:24:46	14	on their website or re-post to their website.	

16:24:50	15	We also in Section 7 of this rule have gone	

16:24:54	16	into the monitoring process, how will we monitor	

16:24:58	17	implementation.	The law specifies there will be a	

16:25:04	18	monitoring process.	

16:25:06	19	So we thought it was very important that we	

16:25:08	20	outline what that monitoring process would look	

16:25:10	21	like within the rule so districts would understand	

16:25:14	22	what that process would entail, what kinds of	

16:25:18	23	things it would be doing, and what they're doing	

16:25:22	24	and what they would be looking for and the State	

16:25:24	25	would be looking for in that monitoring the	

16:25:28	1

16:25:28	2

16:25:32	3

16:25:34	4

16:25:36	5

16:25:40	6

16:25:46	7

16:25:50	8

16:25:54	9

16:25:56	10

16:26:00	11

16:26:04	12

16:26:06	13

16:26:10	14

16:26:12	15

16:26:16	16

16:26:18	17

16:26:24	18

16:26:28	19

16:26:30	20

16:26:34	21

16:26:40	22

16:26:44	23

16:26:46	24

16:26:50	25

15

process.

We modeled that monitoring process on a current process that we already have in place, the monitoring of our district professional development systems.	That particular system has been in place since 2001.	So we provide a cycle of reviews or site visits where we would review each district's system through monitoring every five years.	That's written into the rule.
Then in Section 8 of the rule, it provides the

basic information of how annual reporting will be done.	The law requires that the Department report evaluation results from all districts at the school and district level.
So this reporting section you see in Section 8 outlines very briefly how districts should submit their data to us, to the Department, so that we can fulfill our requirements per law.
And then the last section of this particular rule, Section 9, provides guidelines for training evaluators. These are here because in Section
1012.34 of the Florida Statutes, it mentions the districts need to include in their systems training for evaluators, anybody that's conducting evaluations in their systems.	It indicates that

16:26:54	1

16:26:56	2

16:27:00	3

16:27:02	4

16:27:08	5

16:27:10	6

16:27:14	7

16:27:18	8

16:27:18	9

16:27:22	10

16:27:26	11

16:27:32	12

16:27:34	13

16:27:38	14

16:27:42	15

16:27:44	16

16:27:48	17

16:27:54	18

16:27:58	19

16:28:04	20

16:28:06	21

16:28:08	22

16:28:12	23

16:28:14	24

16:28:16	25

16

those training processes the districts adopt and implement have to be based on guidelines that are presented by the Department.	They don't have to be exactly the same as provided by the Department, but the district can consider those guidelines.	So we felt it was very important we put those guidelines in the rule so districts can find them all in one spot.
All of those Sections 1 and 2 and in 4 through

9 of the rule are what you see on this particular slide right now, slide 7:	How do I submit, what's going to happen when my evaluation system for the school, how it will be approved, when will it be approved, what does it mean, how can I modify how it will be monitored, and so forth.
So those sections answer all those questions.

So the next part of the presentation deals with the content of the evaluation section, and that is Section 3 of the rule.	It talks about how the Department will collect evidence from the school district on its evaluation system to actually make a decision on whether the evaluation system is approved and meets the requirements that are in law.
The first thing that the law says, the same

	
17	

16:28:18	1	law, 1012.34, is:	The purpose of the evaluation	

16:28:24	2	systems are that they are designed to support	

16:28:30	3	effective instruction and student learning growth.	

16:28:36	4	The results are supposed to be used in districts	

16:28:40	5	for developing your school improvement plans, and	

16:28:40	6	they're supposed to be used to identify	

16:28:44	7	professional development.	

16:28:48	8	Another important section is that the law says	

16:28:52	9	that we need to have evaluations that are based on	

16:28:54	10	four levels of performance, and it describes what	

16:28:58	11	those are in the law.	

16:29:00	12	So part of the district's evaluation system	

16:29:04	13	needs to include how they will determine that	

16:29:06	14	someone has achieved one of those fourth ratings:	

16:29:10	15	Highly effective performance, effective	

16:29:14	16	performance, needs improvement performance or	

16:29:16	17	developing, and one for unsatisfactory.	

16:29:22	18	The law says we're going to establish	

16:29:24	19	standards for performance levels, and the	

16:29:28	20	Commissioner should consult experts, including	

16:29:32	21	instructional personnel, school administrators,	

16:29:36	22	stakeholders in developing the criteria for the	

16:29:40	23	performance levels.	Those performance levels are	

16:29:42	24	outlined in the other rule that we will be talking	

16:29:46	25	about today.	Gaining input from the public, you as	

16:29:52	1

16:29:54	2

16:30:00	3

16:30:04	4

16:30:10	5

16:30:14	6

16:30:20	7

16:30:22	8

16:30:24	9

16:30:26	10

16:30:30	11

16:30:34	12

16:30:36	13

16:30:38	14

16:30:44	15

16:30:46	16

16:30:52	17

16:30:54	18

16:30:58	19

16:31:04	20

16:31:06	21

16:31:08	22

16:31:12	23

16:31:16	24

16:31:18	25

18

experts, it's extremely important, and that's part of this process as the law has stipulated as well.
Slide 10.	The law also divides evaluations into three parts or three sections with three criteria:	Performance of students, instructional practice for instructional personnel or instructional leadership for school leaders or school administrators, and the third one, professional and job responsibilities.
It also indicates that the evaluation needs to

be based on sound educational principles and contemporary research.
So those things need to be included in the district's evaluation plan.
This is just a reminder on slide 11 of what's included in instructional practice as defined in law.	For classroom teachers, the educator accomplished practices, and for other instructional personnel who are not classroom teachers, the educator accomplished practices and individual job expectations that the district may develop related to supporting students.
Slides 12 talks a little about instructional

leadership, also part of the law and of the rule. The law provides that these evaluations are based

16:31:22	1

16:31:26	2

16:31:30	3

16:31:34	4

16:31:38	5

16:31:44	6

16:31:48	7

16:31:52	8

16:31:56	9

16:32:04	10

16:32:08	11

16:32:10	12

16:32:14	13

16:32:14	14

16:32:16	15

16:32:20	16

16:32:24	17

16:32:28	18

16:32:32	19

16:32:36	20

16:32:40	21

16:32:42	22

16:32:44	23

16:32:48	24

16:32:52	25

19

on standards for instructional leaders which were adopted under Section 1012.986 of the Florida Statutes and includes the Florida principal leadership standards, and then lays out additional criteria that are specific to the school administrator's role in faculty development in our schools.
Slide 13 goes into the performance of students

section in the statute, paragraph (7).	This is a reminder of what that says in the law.
So we're looking for this kind of content in the district's evaluation system as outlined in law.
At least 50 percent of the performance evaluation is based on data indicators of student learning growth assessed annually and measured by statewide assessments, or for subjects in grade levels and subjects not measured by statewide assessments by district assessments under Section
1008.22 of the Florida Statutes, which is the

student assessment section of the law.

It also provides that the percentage of the evaluation based on the performance of students can be reduced to 40 percent if there is not three years of data for a teacher or a principal

16:32:58	1

16:32:58	2

16:33:00	3

16:33:02	4

16:33:06	5

16:33:08	6

16:33:12	7

16:33:14	8

16:33:18	9

16:33:20	10

16:33:24	11

16:33:28	12

16:33:32	13

16:33:34	14

16:33:38	15

16:33:42	16

16:33:48	17

16:33:50	18

16:33:54	19

16:33:56	20

16:34:00	21

16:34:04	22

16:34:08	23

16:34:10	24

16:34:14	25

20

available.

It provides for non-classroom instructional personnel.
It talks about the performance and students' criteria can be split between statewide assessments and other local measures of student outcomes that are specific to their jobs.
And it provides the districts some options to

choose from to combine state and local assessments when the teacher teaches a local assessment subject, and can choose performance measures or achievement over measures of learning growth when they feel that performance measures are more appropriate for those particular teachers who are teaching those specific types of courses.
Finally, the law provides a timeline by which

evaluations will be fully developed and for classroom teachers of courses for which the district has not selected appropriate assessments under 1008.22.	Then it provides options for the districts to use other measures of student growth that are based on that classroom teacher's students
-- and I'll emphasize that again -- based on that

classroom teacher's students, or, as the last sentence provides here, a superintendent can assign

	
21	

16:34:16	1	to instructional personnel the student learning	

16:34:20	2	growth of the team's students on statewide	

16:34:24	3	assessments.	

16:34:24	4	And you'll note the law states, and it's	

16:34:26	5	stated here in this slide as well, that option,	

16:34:30	6	that particular paragraph in law, expires on July	

16:34:32	7	1st of 2015.	

16:34:36	8	Slide 15 continues with the law that goes on	

16:34:40	9	to provide additional components of district	

16:34:44	10	evaluation systems, and here they are in a list on	

16:34:48	11	this slide.	

16:34:52	12	Briefly summarized, it talks about observation	

16:34:54	13	instruments with performance indicators or ways to	

16:34:58	14	collect evidence on performance:	

16:35:02	15	At least two evaluations and observations per	

16:35:06	16	year for newly hired personnel;	

16:35:08	17	Evaluator training, as we mentioned earlier;	

16:35:12	18	Methods to inform personnel about the	

16:35:16	19	evaluation system;	

16:35:16	20	Use of multiple data sources, use of system	

16:35:20	21	data for professional development and school	

16:35:22	22	improvement, as we talked about a little bit	

16:35:26	23	earlier as well;	

16:35:26	24	Parental input;	

16:35:28	25	Teaching fields that may need special	

22

16:35:32	1	procedures;	

16:35:32	2	An annual review process by the district of	

16:35:36	3	its evaluation system.	

16:35:36	4	And there's some optional procedures that are	

16:35:40	5	in the law right here that districts may or may not	

16:35:42	6	include.	That could be peer reviews, assistance	

16:35:48	7	processes, input from additional personnel,	

16:35:50	8	evaluation amendments, and additional professional	

16:35:54	9	responsibilities beyond those that are in the State	

16:35:56	10	Board rule.	

16:35:56	11	For our purposes, the professional	

16:36:00	12	responsibilities in the State Board rules are those	

16:36:04	13	that pertain to ethics and professional conduct.	

16:36:10	14	So that concludes 6A-5.030 and walking through	

16:36:16	15	that particular rule.	

16:36:16	16	And now we're going to move on to the second	

16:36:18	17	rule that we're going to discuss today, 6A-5.0411,	

16:36:24	18	Calculations of Student Learning Growth For Use in	

16:36:28	19	School Personnel Evaluations.	And we'll do a	

16:36:30	20	similar thing, again we'll walk through this rule.	

16:36:34	21	We're workshopping these two rules together in	

16:36:38	22	conjunction with each other, because even though	

16:36:40	23	the first rule holds all the criteria that are to	

16:36:44	24	be in district evaluation systems, we also need to	

16:36:50	25	place that rule in the context of what the	

	
23	

16:36:52	1	statewide calculation is for student learning	

16:36:56	2	growth.	

16:36:56	3	So the rule authority and content for	

16:37:02	4	6A-5.0411, this rule that we're talking about,	

16:37:08	5	again comes from those same sections of the law	

16:37:10	6	that we talked about, 1012.34 and it's in (7) and	

16:37:16	7	(8).	And these are the things that the law says	

16:37:22	8	that need to be included in the rule.	

16:37:24	9	Number one:	Each formula for measuring	

16:37:28	10	student learning growth that's approved by the	

16:37:32	11	Commissioner and the formula and calculation	

16:37:36	12	itself.	

16:37:36	13	Number two:	The measurement of student	

16:37:40	14	learning growth and associated learning	

16:37:42	15	implementation procedures.	

16:37:44	16	And, three:	A process by which teachers may	

16:37:48	17	review their class rosters.	

16:37:54	18	Continuing, number four:	Specific, discrete	

16:37:58	19	standards for each performance level to ensure	

16:38:02	20	clear and sufficient differentiation in the	

16:38:06	21	performance levels and to provide consistency in	

16:38:08	22	meaning across school districts.	

16:38:12	23	Then within those discrete standards, number	

16:38:16	24	five:	Specifically establish a student learning	

16:38:18	25	growth standard that if not met will result in the	

16:38:22	1

16:38:26	2

16:38:28	3

16:38:32	4

16:38:34	5

16:38:36	6

16:38:40	7

16:38:48	8

16:38:52	9

16:38:56	10

16:38:58	11

16:39:02	12

16:39:04	13

16:39:08	14

16:39:12	15

16:39:16	16

16:39:20	17

16:39:22	18

16:39:24	19

16:39:28	20

16:39:32	21

16:39:36	22

16:39:40	23

16:39:44	24

16:39:48	25

24

employee receiving an unsatisfactory performance evaluation rating.
And then six:	Also establish a student learning growth standard that must be met in order for an employee to receive a highly effective rating or effective rating as determined by the school district.	And we'll go into that more.
We're on slide 19.	The Department has some

responsibilities for student learning growth in educator evaluations per the law.
As I mentioned, there's two types of learning growth formulas.
First, formulas for statewide assessment, which is the one that has to be adopted into rule once they are approved by the Commissioner.
You can see by the bullets on this particular

slide that the formula that we currently have that's been approved by the Commissioner is the one that's associated with FCAT.	Currently, that is the only formula that has been approved.
As other learning growth formulas are adopted

for statewide assessments, we will need to go back to the rules and add those formulas to the rules once they're approved by the Commissioner.
The second type of learning growth formula is

	
25	

16:39:50	1	for local assessments, and these are decided by the	

16:39:56	2	local school district.	The law says districts must	

16:40:00	3	adopt equally appropriate learning growth formulas	

16:40:02	4	for local student assessments.	This rule takes,	

16:40:08	5	for example, after it sets forth the statewide	

16:40:12	6	assessment formula -- and we'll walk through that	

16:40:14	7	content in the rule in just a minute -- there is a	

16:40:18	8	section of the rule that briefly describes how	

16:40:20	9	districts could choose to set equally appropriate	

16:40:24	10	learning growth formulas for their assessments.	

16:40:30	11	And if you've got page numbers on your rule,	

16:40:36	12	it's on page 7, but, if not, for this particular	

16:40:40	13	section you're looking at 4(c).	We'll go into that	

16:40:46	14	a little bit later, but that's where it talks about	

16:40:50	15	the local district assessments and the districts	

16:40:54	16	having an equally appropriate learning growth	

16:41:00	17	formula.	

16:41:00	18	On slide 20, because we have to put the	

16:41:02	19	formulas in rule, we've added some slides here that	

16:41:06	20	remind us where the formulas for FCAT came from	

16:41:10	21	since that's the one statewide assessment formula	

16:41:12	22	that has been approved by the Commissioner at this	

16:41:16	23	time.	It was actually developed by the Student	

16:41:20	24	Growth Implementation Committee, which is a	

16:41:24	25	statewide committee composed of 27 members from	

16:41:26	1

16:41:30	2

16:41:32	3

16:41:36	4

16:41:38	5

16:41:40	6

16:41:44	7

16:41:48	8

16:41:54	9

16:41:58	10

16:42:00	11

16:42:04	12

16:42:08	13

16:42:10	14

16:42:14	15

16:42:18	16

16:42:22	17

16:42:24	18

16:42:28	19

16:42:32	20

16:42:36	21

16:42:40	22

16:42:44	23

16:42:50	24

16:42:54	25

26

across the state, and you can see at this website that's on this particular slide, if you were to go to that website, you'll see where the members are and where they actually come from.
In fact, the Student Growth Implementation Committee will be meeting again later this week, tomorrow, in Orlando, to examine some new statewide formulas for use with our assessments, such as algebra I, geometry and biology.	And I'll remind you again today those are not on the table on this rule at this point because the only one that the Student Growth Implementation Committee has recommended so far and the Commissioner approved is the one for FCAT.	The Commissioner approved it in June of 2011.
Slide 22.	The model the Student Growth

Implementation Committee approved, which is the model that's in this draft text, is a covariate adjustment model, which means it begins with establishing expected growth for each individual student that's assigned to a teacher based on that student's historical data, typical growth by grade and subject area in our state as assessed in this case by FCAT, because, as I said, that's the model we're working from within this particular rule,

	
27	

16:42:58	1	and based on how students perform who share similar	

16:43:02	2	characteristics that are identified by the	

16:43:04	3	Committee that are included in this model.	

16:43:08	4	Those characteristics fall into three	

16:43:12	5	different categories:	Student characteristics,	

16:43:20	6	school characteristics, and classroom	

16:43:24	7	characteristics.	

16:43:30	8	Slide 23 for many of you is a slide you've	

16:43:32	9	seen before.	It's an example of looking at how an	

16:43:38	10	individual student might perform and then taking	

16:43:40	11	the difference between how they actually performed	

16:43:42	12	and what they were predicted to perform on the	

16:43:46	13	assessment based on their prior score.	And all	

16:43:50	14	those characteristics that we know about that are	

16:43:54	15	included in the model, all the differences between	

16:43:56	16	actual and predicted performance are what are put	

16:44:00	17	together and constructed or combined for all	

16:44:02	18	students assigned to a teacher to produce a value-	

16:44:06	19	added score.	

16:44:10	20	All the other characteristics that go into	

16:44:12	21	that predicted score are the other influences the	

16:44:16	22	model accounts for in student learning.	The	

16:44:20	23	residual or the difference between what's	

16:44:24	24	attributed to the teacher, that's what the teacher	

16:44:28	25	adds to student learning.	

	
28	

16:44:34	1	So here are those characteristics that were	

16:44:38	2	decided upon by the Student Growth Implementation	

16:44:40	3	Committee and recommended to the Commissioner.	

16:44:42	4	They're within the model and they're enumerated	

16:44:46	5	within the rule, and we'll walk through those.	

16:44:50	6	First, up to two prior years of achievement	

16:44:56	7	scores.	The strongest predictor identified in	

16:44:58	8	research is the previous score on the same	

16:45:02	9	assessment.	The Committee decided if we had two	

16:45:06	10	prior achievement scores, that would help as well.	

16:45:10	11	So if there are two previous scores available, they	

16:45:14	12	are part of the formula.	

16:45:18	13	The number of subject-relevant courses in	

16:45:22	14	which a student is enrolled.	So the student could	

16:45:24	15	have multiple courses in reading and have multiple	

16:45:28	16	courses in mathematics, and that's taken into	

16:45:32	17	account in the formula.	

16:45:34	18	The student's disability status as an	

16:45:38	19	indicator of specific disability, not a yes or a no	

16:45:42	20	they have a disability or not, what is that	

16:45:46	21	specific disability, and that's accounted for in	

16:45:48	22	the formula.	

16:45:50	23	English language learner status;	

16:45:52	24	Student attendance, annual attendance, yearly	

16:45:56	25	attendance;	

16:45:58	1

16:45:58	2

16:46:00	3

16:46:02	4

16:46:08	5

16:46:10	6

16:46:14	7

16:46:16	8

16:46:20	9

16:46:24	10

16:46:26	11

16:46:32	12

16:46:34	13

16:46:38	14

16:46:40	15

16:46:44	16

16:46:48	17

16:46:52	18

16:46:58	19

16:47:00	20

16:47:04	21

16:47:06	22

16:47:10	23

16:47:14	24

16:47:16	25

29

Gifted status of the student;

The mobility, which is the number of transitions in and out of school, whether it's the same school or multiple schools, districts report that data to us across the state, and all of those are considered within the formula;
And then, finally, the difference from modal

age and grade, which could be an indicator of retention, or promotion, or anything else that causes a student in the class to be significantly different in age from the rest of his or her peers.
So moving on to classroom characteristics that

are taken into account within the formula and recommended by the Student Growth Committee, it includes class size, and the homogeneity of the students entering test scores in the class.	The Committee discussed quite heavily when they were developing this model and the contractors that worked with the Department and with the Student Growth Implementation Committee, ran the data for them because they had an interest in the area, what was the impact, whether it mattered if the classes were made up of students who have similar entering test scores, for instance they are scoring at level
4 or 5 or scoring at level 1 or 2, or if the class

30

16:47:20	1	was made up of mixed levels.	

16:47:24	2	The Committee wanted to know if that kind of	

16:47:26	3	information would make a difference, almost like a	

16:47:32	4	peer effect.	So that was studied, and it turns out	

16:47:34	5	it does make a difference sometimes, so that's also	

16:47:38	6	included in the model.	

16:47:40	7	Then finally the third one, the school	

16:47:42	8	characteristics are part of the formula, which is	

16:47:46	9	related to the overall performance of a school.	

16:47:48	10	The Committee was concerned and very convinced that	

16:47:52	11	when schools significantly perform different than	

16:47:56	12	other schools in the state, whether they're very	

16:47:58	13	high performing or low performing, that there's	

16:48:02	14	something in that school that has had an influence	

16:48:06	15	on student learning beyond the influence of that	

16:48:10	16	individual teacher.	So that is included in the	

16:48:14	17	formula as well.	

16:48:18	18	This next slide is going to remind us that the	

16:48:20	19	value-added model is one part of a multifaceted	

16:48:26	20	teacher evaluation system as you've already seen in	

16:48:28	21	the previous rule.	

16:48:30	22	The last bullet talks about how the Student	

16:48:32	23	Growth Committee, the Department, and our	

16:48:34	24	contractor, AIR, American Institutes For Research,	

16:48:40	25	is going to continue to analyze the data annually,	

16:48:44	1

16:48:46	2

16:48:58	3

16:49:02	4

16:49:04	5

16:49:08	6

16:49:10	7

16:49:14	8

16:49:20	9

16:49:22	10

16:49:26	11

16:49:26	12

16:49:30	13

16:49:36	14

16:49:40	15

16:49:44	16

16:49:46	17

16:49:56	18

16:50:00	19

16:50:04	20

16:50:08	21

16:50:10	22

16:50:14	23

16:50:18	24

16:50:30	25

31

so we've written into the rule that the data will be reviewed each and every year.
The next part of the rule that I'll discuss with you, now that we've established the FCAT formula, because that's the one statewide formula that we have to date, shows the remaining requirements which are talking about what is the score, what's the value-added score, what's all the data the districts receive and how we actually calculate the value-added score for teachers and other personnel.
The first thing we have to do in this rule is

to explain what we mean by that so we can codify it into the rule, that when we run value-added scores they are based on typical learning growth in the state by subject and grade level.
A score of zero means that students on average

performed typically as other students that share their characteristics performed across the state.
A score above zero means that students

performed on average better than expected.

And then a negative score, which means a score below zero, would indicate that the students on average performed less well than expected.
Other data that are gleaned from the

	
32	

16:50:32	1	value-added model, in addition to value-added score	

16:50:36	2	we also know the number and the percent of students	

16:50:42	3	in a class or the number and percent in a school	

16:50:42	4	that met or exceeded their statistical performance	

16:50:46	5	expectations.	

16:50:52	6	So if we went back to slide 23, which I'll go	

16:50:56	7	back to very quickly here, go back to this	

16:51:10	8	particular slide, we can know how many students met	

16:51:14	9	or exceeded that predicted score.	That is data	

16:51:30	10	that could be gleaned from this value-added	

16:51:36	11	modeling and could be used by the teacher in	

16:51:38	12	looking at his or her performance.	

16:51:42	13	One of the things that we don't get from	

16:51:44	14	looking at that percent, though, is how far a	

16:51:48	15	teacher may have brought student learning in that	

16:51:50	16	particular class.	You don't get to see the	

16:51:52	17	magnitude of the gains or how much student	

16:51:54	18	performance has declined.	We only know whether or	

16:52:00	19	not, yes or no, if students met expectations, but	

16:52:04	20	that can be still useful information.	

16:52:10	21	One of the other things that we do with value-	

16:52:12	22	added modeling, because it is a statistical	

16:52:16	23	process, is we employ really good solid statistical	

16:52:20	24	procedures.	

16:52:22	25	One of the things we gleaned from the	

16:52:24	1

33

value-added results and the value-added model is a

16:52:26	2	standard error.	That's just a statistical term	

16:52:30	3	that describes variability in your scores or in the	

16:52:32	4	teacher's scores.	

16:52:34	5	Teaching and learning are a human process.	We	

16:52:36	6	get different students every year, or there are	

16:52:40	7	some teachers that may have students for a number	

16:52:42	8	of years for a variety of reasons.	Things happen	

16:52:46	9	in different years.	

16:52:46	10	So just like when you see on TV that there's a	

16:52:50	11	presidential poll and it says we've polled a	

16:52:54	12	section of registered voters in five states, for	

16:52:58	13	instance, and the president's popularity is plus or	

16:53:00	14	minus three points around 50 percent, for example,	

16:53:04	15	that means if we went back and polled a similar	

16:53:06	16	group of people in those five states that are	

16:53:10	17	registered voters, it could be a different group of	

16:53:12	18	people but they had those same characteristics,	

16:53:16	19	then we're sure within three points that the	

16:53:22	20	results would be the same.	

16:53:24	21	So the standard error of a variability lets us	

16:53:26	22	look at the teacher's value-added score and provide	

16:53:30	23	some certainty around whether the teacher had been	

16:53:34	24	assigned a similar group of students, even though	

16:53:36	25	they are different, we're sure within this many	

16:53:40	1

16:53:42	2

16:53:44	3

16:53:50	4

16:53:54	5

16:53:58	6

16:54:00	7

16:54:04	8

16:54:06	9

16:54:08	10

16:54:10	11

16:54:14	12

16:54:16	13

16:54:20	14

16:54:24	15

16:54:28	16

16:54:32	17

16:54:34	18

16:54:36	19

16:54:40	20

16:54:42	21

16:54:46	22

16:54:50	23

16:54:54	24

16:55:00	25

34

points of the confidence interval plus or minus that the score would have been the same.
We look at the standard error and construct a confidence interval, because what we're using this information for is to determine teacher performance.	It's not based on the specific score for that confidence interval to help us to establish those performance standards.
So it's important that we be as sure as we can when we're looking at this, because we're dealing with teacher performance here and making judgments about that particular performance, that we're using all the good statistical procedures that we have in our pocket that are available to us and those processes are available to us in implementing or drafting this draft text for suggestions to you to take a look at in setting those performance standards.
So, as I've just alluded to, we now go into the part that talks about the performance standards.	That's the next part of the rule.	We have to establish performance standards that would be used statewide, in this case statewide performance on the FCAT model, that every district then would implement.	Each district would then

16:55:06	1

16:55:10	2

16:55:14	3

16:55:14	4

16:55:18	5

16:55:22	6

16:55:24	7

16:55:28	8

16:55:32	9

16:55:38	10

16:55:42	11

16:55:46	12

16:55:50	13

16:55:52	14

16:55:56	15

16:55:58	16

16:56:00	17

16:56:04	18

16:56:06	19

16:56:12	20

16:56:14	21

16:56:18	22

16:56:20	23

16:56:24	24

16:56:30	25

35

classify performance in the same manner.

So how do we go about doing that?	What's our intent?
This is one of the sections of the rule that we want you to pay particular attention to, as if you're not going to pay attention to any other part, but this is the part that we need to make sure is clear, does it need clarification, do you have any suggestions for alternate language here, are we doing what we thought we were intending on that we were doing?
As you know from what I've said earlier that

zero means typical performance for a grade and subject.	That means when you run a value-added result, half of the people would be above that and half would be below.
So it's important for us that, even though we

want to use a model that takes into account all these differences and influences on learning like a covariate analysis model will do or adjusted model will do -- excuse me -- that we have a system for evaluation that's based on performance criteria rather than on a normed approach.	Because if we just use that distribution every year, then even if everybody gets better, it could be that folks down

	
36	

16:56:32	1	at the bottom are still classified as poor	

16:56:34	2	performance when in fact they could have greatly	

16:56:38	3	improved from year to year.	

16:56:42	4	So what we tried to do in this particular	

16:56:44	5	value-added model is to establish the standards on	

16:56:48	6	2011-2012 data.	2011-2012 data would then be	

16:56:58	7	anchored to, or that's your anchor or your	

16:57:00	8	benchmark, against what we would measure	

16:57:02	9	performance in the future so that every year all	

16:57:06	10	teachers have an opportunity to exceed the points	

16:57:10	11	for effective and highly effective as they were	

16:57:12	12	established in 2011-2012 based on typical learning	

16:57:18	13	growth for that particular year.	

16:57:22	14	So let's talk about that.	To just review how	

16:57:30	15	this works, remember we talked about confidence	

16:57:32	16	intervals several slides before and we talked about	

16:57:36	17	the standard error to establish or to construct a	

16:57:40	18	confidence interval.	Using one standard error on	

16:57:44	19	either side of the confidence interval provides a	

16:57:46	20	68-percent assurance that the teacher's performance	

16:57:50	21	would have been the same or within that range given	

16:57:52	22	another set of students that were not identical but	

16:57:56	23	similar to those students she taught that year.	

16:58:00	24	And then using two standard intervals to construct	

16:58:04	25	a confidence interval that is -- what we mean by	

16:58:10	1

16:58:14	2

16:58:18	3

16:58:18	4

16:58:22	5

16:58:26	6

16:58:28	7

16:58:32	8

16:58:34	9

16:58:36	10

16:58:40	11

16:58:42	12

16:58:50	13

16:58:58	14

16:59:06	15

16:59:10	16

16:59:12	17

16:59:20	18

16:59:22	19

16:59:26	20

16:59:30	21

16:59:32	22

16:59:36	23

16:59:40	24

16:59:44	25

37

95- percent sure, that it will be somewhere in this range if we were given a different group of students.
The VAM score really does represent what happened that year, but what you're trying to use is use that confidence interval when you're classifying performance, because students are not willingly assigned to the teacher, and you want to make sure you're getting an idea of how that teacher would typically perform.
So given the way that we've set the standards

and the rule trying to use 2011-12 data as a benchmark, the dark line where I'm pointing right here (indicating), the dark line in the center is a typical performance by grade and by subject, for instance, seventh grade math, seventh grade reading, separately from sixth grade math.	Each of them have their own scale.
Based on the typical learning growth for 2011-2012 going forward, a teacher, if you look at the standard for highly effective -- that's this top one here (indicating) -- if you look at the standard for highly effective, the teacher's confidence interval, using a 95-percent confidence interval or confidence level, completely cleared

16:59:46	1

16:59:50	2

16:59:56	3

17:00:00	4

17:00:04	5

17:00:06	6

17:00:14	7

17:00:20	8

17:00:26	9

17:00:30	10

17:00:38	11

17:00:40	12

17:00:48	13

17:00:52	14

17:00:54	15

17:00:58	16

17:01:02	17

17:01:06	18

17:01:10	19

17:01:18	20

17:01:24	21

17:01:28	22

17:01:34	23

17:01:36	24

17:01:40	25

38

that typical growth -- remember, typical growth is here on the solid line -- to standard deviation. Two confidence intervals above would be highly effective, as proposed in the draft text.
If you look at the bottom of the screen, the standard for unsatisfactory is this one down here (indicating).	The teacher would have completely cleared the solid line or typical performance line, and we're 95-percent confident that her performance that year completely cleared that line.
This is only for student performance.	We're

talking about student performance here.

Then we actually defined "effective" in two ways, and that's these remaining two.	We'll take this upper one first.
How you would expect, which is a score itself

which is above zero, this little mark right here is the actual value-added score the teacher had, but with a confidence interval that they are above or typically above the line, and part of it extends below the line you'll notice here.	This would be effective rating, as proposed as draft text again.
So as long as the score itself was above zero,

that's good.	That would be effective performance.

But what if the score was below zero, such as

17:01:44	1

17:01:50	2

17:01:54	3

17:01:56	4

17:02:00	5

17:02:04	6

17:02:08	7

17:02:10	8

17:02:14	9

17:02:20	10

17:02:24	11

17:02:30	12

17:02:36	13

17:02:40	14

17:02:42	15

17:02:46	16

17:02:50	17

17:02:52	18

17:02:58	19

17:03:02	20

17:03:06	21

17:03:28	22

17:03:34	23

17:03:34	24

17:03:34	25

39

this one right here (indicating)?	Would those teachers then be determined to be needs improvement or developing?
What we defined in this rule for your consideration today is that if the score is below zero but the confidence interval allowed that score to have possibly been, if she had been assigned to another group of students, to have been above zero or at zero, then that performance would be considered effective also.
This is highly effective, effective,

unsatisfactory, as proposed.

The law stated that we had to define those standards for highly effective and effective and unsatisfactory.	It did not specify that we had to set performance standards for needs improvement or developing.
So what about needs improvement?	So what we

will tell you then is from here to here (indicating) is your needs improvement or developing, the space in between.
Let me go back a couple of slides, slide 29, just to make sure that we are all clear.
MS. BRADY:	We're not all clear.	Go back to that one.

17:03:42	1

17:03:42	2

17:03:44	3

17:03:46	4

17:03:50	5

17:03:52	6

17:03:54	7

17:03:56	8

17:04:00	9

17:04:02	10

17:04:06	11

17:04:08	12

17:04:10	13

17:04:14	14

17:04:18	15

17:04:22	16

17:04:24	17

17:04:28	18

17:04:36	19

17:04:38	20

17:04:42	21

17:04:48	22

17:04:50	23

17:04:52	24

17:04:54	25

40

MS. MCDANIEL:	Go back to that one?	Well, you're going to have an opportunity to ask questions.
One of the things that we -- one of the other things we tried to do with this rule, as I explained to you, is it says that we have to set the standards, set the standards, period, so that we're consistent across the state, so that's what we've attempted to do within this particular rule.
What I'm explaining to you now is our proposal

for what those standards would look like for your comments and for your consideration.
So if that text language goes into effect, then what that means then for the performance of students criterion alone -- students performance criterion alone, I'll repeat that -- everybody would use those standards across the state for this model, remember, FCAT.	All the rest would be combined.
However, the district's approved system

combines things, and the summative rating is based on a combination of both instructional practice and student performance data.
So that's the first thing we propose these standards to be used for, to meet that bar of

17:04:58	1

17:05:06	2

17:05:10	3

17:05:12	4

17:05:16	5

17:05:22	6

17:05:24	7

17:05:28	8

17:05:34	9

17:05:36	10

17:05:40	11

17:05:42	12

17:05:50	13

17:05:52	14

17:05:54	15

17:05:58	16

17:06:04	17

17:06:06	18

17:06:10	19

17:06:16	20

17:06:22	21

17:06:24	22

17:06:28	23

17:06:32	24

17:06:38	25

41

consistency across all districts.	You'll see that slide again, I promise you.	We'll go back to it.
The next part that I want to review with you, though, and to take care of is supplying those performance standards and when we do apply those performance standards to actually impact the summative ratings.	That goes back to the part of the law where it says districts have to establish a student growth standard that if not met will result in an unsatisfactory overall evaluation regardless of whatever else may have been determined in the other parts, and then set a performance standard that has to be met in order for a district to, once everything else has been taken care of or combined, consider the individual to have effective performance and the same for highly effective.	It also specifies for unsatisfactory.
So you can think of the unsatisfactory part as

an automatic unsatisfactory if the student growth is below a certain level.	And likewise you can think of effective and the highly effective application of the standard as a floor.	You have to reach at least this threshold to be considered effective or have to reach this particular threshold to be highly effective (indicating).

17:06:40	1

17:06:44	2

17:06:46	3

17:06:50	4

17:06:52	5

17:06:56	6

17:06:58	7

17:07:02	8

17:07:04	9

17:07:10	10

17:07:12	11

17:07:16	12

17:07:18	13

17:07:20	14

17:07:24	15

17:07:28	16

17:07:32	17

17:07:38	18

17:07:40	19

17:07:44	20

17:07:50	21

17:07:56	22

17:08:08	23

17:08:10	24

17:08:14	25

42

In doing so, what we considered were conditions around which those would actually do. What are those conditions when this would take effect?	We went back to the law itself to determine what those conditions might be.
One of the things you know about the law, as I

mentioned earlier, it sets the standard for the percentage of evaluation based on student performance at 50 percent, but the law does say if you do not have three years of student performance data for a teacher, you can reduce that to 40 percent.	So we took that into consideration in setting the conditions.
In our mind, that is a condition of

diminishing emphasis on the student performance, because if you only have one year of data or two years of data, then you don't have all that you need.
So then we took that and applied it as a condition:	When would these standards for highly effective, effective and unsatisfactory apply to the final summative rating, or highly effective, effective, unsatisfactory?
These standards would not impact a teacher's summative rating or become the unsatisfactory

17:08:18	1

17:08:22	2

17:08:26	3

17:08:32	4

17:08:36	5

17:08:40	6

17:08:44	7

17:08:48	8

17:08:50	9

17:08:54	10

17:08:58	11

17:09:02	12

17:09:08	13

17:09:10	14

17:09:14	15

17:09:14	16

17:09:20	17

17:09:24	18

17:09:26	19

17:09:32	20

17:09:36	21

17:09:40	22

17:09:44	23

17:09:48	24

17:09:52	25

43

rating or set the threshold for effective and highly effective unless the teacher has three years worth of data.	Important to remember that.
Second condition, those three years of student data must be based on what the teacher is actually teaching.	We know that in the first years people are using the option for student performance data in those grades and subjects where the district isn't comfortable using local assessments yet, such as team results and school results, statewide assessments for teachers that are not associated specifically with statewide assessment, rather than the data based on the content that they are doing. Those are temporary measures in your school districts.
Since this is an exception to use those

temporary measures as I stated earlier when we went over the first rule, those exceptions do expire on July 1st of 2015.	So if a teacher is being evaluated on those temporary measures, then these performance level standards would not impact the summative rating.	They would not result in an automatic unsatisfactory.	They would not be required to use the threshold for effective and highly effective unless you've got those two

44

17:09:54	1	conditions in place.	

17:09:56	2	We would still expect districts would use the	

17:10:00	3	performance standards, those cut points, just for	

17:10:06	4	the performance of students once the rule goes into	

17:10:12	5	place, particularly for those teachers that are	

17:10:18	6	associated with FCAT, because that's what this	

17:10:22	7	model, the value-added score model, is designed	

17:10:26	8	for, but not for other teachers under these	

17:10:30	9	conditions or not even for those teachers that	

17:10:34	10	don't have three years of data.	

17:10:44	11	So the rest of the slides that you have in	

17:10:48	12	your PowerPoint presentation there talk about the	

17:10:52	13	support, information, technical assistance that the	

17:10:56	14	State has provided for school districts about the	

17:11:00	15	evaluation process and the value-added model and	

17:11:06	16	the calculations.	

17:11:12	17	At this time we're going to open the floor up	

17:11:14	18	for questions.	I'll remind you again that if you	

17:11:20	19	have questions, you'll need to please state your	

17:11:24	20	name, your affiliation, and please speak loud and	

17:11:28	21	clearly so we can capture it in our recording.	

17:11:32	22	Does anyone have a question?	

17:11:36	23	Yes, ma'am.	

17:11:38	24	MS. VOORHEES:	Hi.	My name is Susan Voorhees	

17:11:40	25	and I'm with Baker County school district.	

17:11:42	1

45

One question I have is in regards to a survey

17:11:48	2	2-3 match requirement.	If the course the teacher	

17:11:52	3	is teaching is year long, would it be tied that	

17:11:56	4	they must have had that student in their class	

17:11:58	5	under their instruction for an entire year?	And if	

17:12:02	6	it is a semester-bound course, we can understand	

17:12:06	7	whichever semester.	I don't see any provision for	

17:12:10	8	the same thing that we have for a school grade	

17:12:12	9	criteria.	

17:12:14	10	MS. MCDANIEL:	And that's something that you	

17:12:16	11	will want to make note for us, particularly if you	

17:12:18	12	don't see that clarified in the rule.	

17:12:22	13	MS. VOORHEES:	I have additional, but I don't	

17:12:24	14	want to hog if somebody else has a question.	

17:12:26	15	MS. MCDANIEL:	We're doing fine on time, and	

17:12:28	16	we will make sure that people's questions are	

17:12:30	17	answered.	

17:12:30	18	MS. VOORHEES:	All right.	Another question I	

17:12:32	19	had when I read this is that the appeal process,	

17:12:36	20	once this is released, the time frame is 30 days.	

17:12:38	21	That's problematic for smaller school districts	

17:12:42	22	because we have to hire our work out to a	

17:12:46	23	consortium, and then by the time reports come to	

17:12:48	24	us, our administrators conduct their final	

17:12:50	25	evaluation with the instructors, we feel that 30	

17:12:54	1

17:12:56	2

17:13:00	3

17:13:04	4

17:13:04	5

17:13:04	6

17:13:06	7

17:13:08	8

17:13:12	9

17:13:14	10

17:13:16	11

17:13:18	12

17:13:22	13

17:13:24	14

17:13:26	15

17:13:28	16

17:13:32	17

17:13:34	18

17:13:34	19

17:13:34	20

17:13:36	21

17:13:40	22

17:13:42	23

17:13:44	24

17:13:46	25

46

days is not an adequate time period for that actual teacher to get their real data and review it and to report any discrepancies they think may have occurred.
MS. MCDANIEL:	I'm going to remind you, this is a question time, so --
MS. VOORHEES:	I'm sorry.	The question is: Are they open to the possibility of longer than a 30-day appeal process?
MS. MCDANIEL:	Again, this is proposed text at

this point, it is draft text, so we encourage you to make recommendations, that perhaps you do not like the 30 days, so what would you propose instead, and then put that in context with your reasons.
So that's when -- I know it's going to be very

hard for people to understand the difference, but --
MS. VOORHEES:	That's fine.

MS. MCDANIEL:	-- let's keep it to clarifying questions on the either the rule or the statute.
MS. VOORHEES:	Now, I did have a question about how the reports come to the school district for each teacher with VAM within the rule.	And it appears that it is basically still pretty much just

17:13:50	1

17:13:56	3	description they put in here, how is that received	

17:13:58	4	by the school district to distribute?	

17:14:02	5	MS. MCDANIEL:	It comes as a file and it	

17:14:04	6	provides more than just a score.	So I would check	

17:14:08	7	with your school district to see what those various	

17:14:12	8	areas are.	But it has a great deal of detail.	

17:14:16	9	What you share with your teachers is up your school	

17:14:20	10	district how you're going to do that.	

17:14:22	11	MS. VOORHEES:	So there's no proposed changes	

17:14:24	12	over the current format how VAM has been given to	

17:14:28	13	the school districts.	

17:14:30	14	MS. MCDANIEL:	I have not heard anything, but	

17:14:32	15	if you have some recommendations, that certainly is	

17:14:34	16	something we want to know as well.	

17:14:36	17	I will tell you that the Department is working	

17:14:38	18	on a tool, let's call it, electronic tool, where	

17:14:42	19	teachers may be able to access their scores with	

17:14:44	20	explanation.	But that's something we'll want to	

17:14:48	21	work with school districts on as well that may be	

17:14:52	22	helpful to teachers for understanding their score	

17:14:54	23	and all the other facets that go with it as well.	

17:14:56	24	MS. VOORHEES:	I have two others.	

17:14:58	25	MS. MCDANIEL:	That's fine.	

17:13:52	2

47

one single value that comes to them.	It's like a zero or a one.	How is that final -- based on the

17:14:58	1

17:15:00	2

17:15:02	3

17:15:06	4

17:15:08	5

17:15:08	6

17:15:10	7

17:15:12	8

17:15:14	9

17:15:18	10

17:15:20	11

17:15:22	12

17:15:24	13

17:15:28	14

17:15:28	15

17:15:30	16

17:15:30	17

17:15:34	18

17:15:34	19

17:15:36	20

17:15:40	21

17:15:44	22

17:15:46	23

17:15:48	24

17:15:52	25

48

MS. VOORHEES:	It appears that the common metric portion is in the new proposed rule, so it's going to single down to one method, where previously districts had an option between weighted averages method or a common metric.
MS. MCDANIEL:	That is correct, that is

proposed in the rule.

MS. VOORHEES:	Okay.	I'm trying to think what the other one had to do with.	Roster verification.
MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, ma'am.

MS. VOORHEES:		I understand that they do give a minimum amount.	They're going to have a minimum of two roster verifications under the proposed rule.
MS. MCDANIEL:	That's correct. MS. VOORHEES:	Thank you.
THE COURT:	Next question, please?	Yes, sir. MR. GRADY:	Yes.	She just mentioned the -- MS. MCDANIEL:	Name, please, and affiliation? MR. GRADY:	I'm sorry.	Rich Grady, Florida
Education Association.

You mentioned at the end of your presentation, you said the valued-added model is designed for FCAT teachers, and my understanding statewide and mostly districts throughout the state, there's only

	
49	

17:15:56	1	approximately about 40 percent who are considered	

17:15:58	2	FCAT teachers and that may change a little bit.	

17:15:58	3	MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, sir.	

17:16:00	4	MR. GRADY:	What about the other 60 percent?	

17:16:02	5	MS. MCDANIEL:	That's where you're going to	

17:16:04	6	have additional EOCs, which will be state	

17:16:08	7	assessments.	We'll continue to grow up on that.	

17:16:10	8	And then the rest of the teachers are through the	

17:16:14	9	local district assessments.	

17:16:16	10	MR. GRADY:	Second question is:	We understand	

17:16:18	11	the law, 1012.34(3)(d) requires a 90-day time	

17:16:26	12	period for amended evaluations at the end of the	

17:16:30	13	school year.	At the close of the school year, I	

17:16:32	14	should say.	

17:16:34	15	MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, sir.	

17:16:34	16	MR. GRADY:	That did not happen last year.	

17:16:40	17	Most all VAM came back to the school districts	

17:16:40	18	after the 90-day time period, which made, in my	

17:16:42	19	opinion, all those evaluations null and void.	We	

17:16:46	20	were wondering if that's going to change this year,	

17:16:50	21	or will VAM scores be back in a timely period so	

17:16:52	22	they can be amended and there can be some type of	

17:16:56	23	remediation?	

17:16:56	24	MS. MCDANIEL:	It's certainly our intent to	

17:17:00	25	get the VAM scores out as expediently as possible	

17:17:02	1

17:17:02	2

17:17:02	3

17:17:04	4

50

so that school districts have them much earlier.

MR. GRADY:	Very good.  MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, ma'am?
MS. CHAPMAN:	Dawn Chapman, president of St.

17:17:04	5	Johns Education Association.	

17:17:08	6	I have a question about you using the 11-12 as	

17:17:10	7	a baseline.	

17:17:10	8	MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes.	

17:17:12	9	MS. CHAPMAN:	I don't understand how that	

17:17:12	10	could be a baseline when it takes three years worth	

17:17:16	11	of data, and the first two years of data was not	

17:17:18	12	verified rosters, and we had teachers who had	

17:17:20	13	students on their rosters that they never taught or	

17:17:24	14	on their VAM scores and students they did teach	

17:17:26	15	that were excluded.	So how can that be a viable,	

17:17:30	16	accurate baseline to use to go forward with?	

17:17:34	17	MS. MCDANIEL:	That, to me, is a comment, and	

17:17:34	18	I appreciate your comment.	I'm not sure if that's	

17:17:38	19	a question for me.	

17:17:42	20	You did say that there wasn't any class roster	

17:17:46	21	verification during 2011-2012?	

17:17:48	22	MS. CHAPMAN:	No.	I said there's three years	

17:17:50	23	worth of data, and the first two years there wasn't	

17:17:52	24	any verification and those were inaccurate rosters	

17:17:56	25	for those first two years.	So I'm asking how can	

17:17:58	1

17:17:58	2

17:18:00	3

17:18:02	4

17:18:04	5

17:18:06	6

17:18:08	7

17:18:08	8

17:18:10	9

17:18:10	10

17:18:14	11

17:18:18	12

17:18:20	13

17:18:22	14

17:18:24	15

17:18:28	16

17:18:30	17

17:18:34	18

17:18:34	19

17:18:38	20

17:18:40	21

17:18:44	22

17:18:48	23

17:18:50	24

17:18:52	25

51

you -- this is a question -- MS. MCDANIEL:	I hear you.
MS. CHAPMAN:	-- how can you use that as a baseline when it's inaccurate?
MS. MCDANIEL:	I think I understand. 2011-2012, there were classroom roster verifications for that year.
MS. CHAPMAN:	For that third year.

MS. MCDANIEL:	That's the first year.	We're saying that is the floor.	That is our first year of data we're going to count.	So year two will be 2012-2013 --
MS. CHAPMAN:	But it's three years worth of rolling data, isn't it?
MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes.	Let me finish.	And I understand.	We're doing this together, but I want to make sure that you and everybody else understands.
2011-2012 will be the first year.	It's our baseline data.	In 2012-2013, it will be the second year for that teacher's data.	Not talking about previous year's data.	Some school districts use the previous year's data.	The vast majority determined that 11-12 will be the first year of data they're using, so it's only one year of data.

	
52	

17:18:54	1	2012-2013 run again -- that's the second year --	

17:18:58	2	will be an aggregate for the first and the second	

17:19:00	3	year.	2013-14 will be the third year.	

17:19:04	4	For the performance standard to kick in for	

17:19:08	5	the final summative rating, the first time, per the	

17:19:10	6	rule language as it stands right now, the first	

17:19:14	7	time that will kick in is at the end of the 13-14	

17:19:18	8	year because that's the first possible year you	

17:19:20	9	would have three years of data.	And that data then	

17:19:22	10	also has to be tied back to the teacher actually	

17:19:26	11	teaching a course that data was tied to, which is	

17:19:30	12	your FCAT subjects.	

17:19:36	13	Did that answer your question?	

17:19:38	14	MS. CHAPMAN:	Well, yes and no.	But I still	

17:19:42	15	thought, and maybe I misunderstood, I thought the	

17:19:44	16	value-added score that our teachers received for	

17:19:46	17	this year included three years worth of data --	

17:19:46	18	MS. MCDANIEL:	No, ma'am.	

17:19:48	19	MS. CHAPMAN:	-- and that it was a rolling --	

17:19:50	20	MS. MCDANIEL:	Only 11-12.	Now, there was	

17:19:54	21	historical data that was provided in the past with	

17:19:58	22	a score, but it was only used by that school	

17:20:02	23	district if that was what was in their district	

17:20:04	24	evaluation system that they are planning on using	

17:20:08	25	data from 9-10, 10-11, even 08-09.	They wanted to	

17:20:14	1

17:20:16	2

17:20:18	3

17:20:20	4

17:20:20	5

17:20:26	6

17:20:26	7

17:20:28	8

17:20:30	9

17:20:32	10

17:20:34	11

17:20:36	12

17:20:40	13

17:20:42	14

17:20:46	15

17:20:48	16

17:20:50	17

17:20:52	18

17:20:54	19

17:20:56	20

17:20:58	21

17:21:00	22

17:21:02	23

17:21:04	24

17:21:06	25

53

use that.	Very rare we did see that.

MS. CHAPMAN:	Thank you.	And I do have one more question on 2(b)(6) on the student attendance piece, where it says, "This variable indicates a percentage of days a student was in attendance during the school year."
MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes.

MS. CHAPMAN:	I think it's a very broad statement, and we were wondering, especially in high schools and things like that, with sports and different field trips, they're missing a lot of classes, not necessarily the whole school day, so again they're not getting an accurate count of attendance.	So one class or one teacher may have students constantly missing and that's not being accounted for.	It is there a way that could be --
MS. MCDANIEL:	And that's perhaps a

recommendation you would like to see changed, and we would want you to submit that recommendation, although it's already been submitted right now. It's written into the record.
You're not the first.	We've heard each and

every workshop.	We hear you.

Next question?

MS. BRADY:	Terrie Brady, Duval Teachers

17:21:12	1

17:21:12	2

17:21:16	3

17:21:18	4

17:21:24	5

17:21:28	6

17:21:28	7

17:21:30	8

17:21:32	9

17:21:36	10

17:21:36	11

17:21:38	12

17:21:42	13

17:21:44	14

17:21:48	15

17:21:48	16

17:21:50	17

17:21:50	18

17:21:50	19

17:21:54	20

17:21:58	21

17:22:00	22

17:22:02	23

17:22:06	24

17:22:10	25

54

United.

Would you believe -- that's my question -- that currently right now, based on the Department of Education's data, you've got 18,393 teachers who were not evaluated for 11-12 based on your data?
MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, ma'am.

MS. BRADY:	And we understand because we have some in Duval, and we know why for all the other --
MS. MCDANIEL:	Many reasons, that's correct.

MS. BRADY:	I have to again build -- if you don't mind, my question is going to be building on what you answered for Dawn, Ms. Chapman.
If you are using a three-year rolling average starting with 11-12 data -- which this is 11-12 data.
MS. MCDANIEL:	That's correct.

MS. BRADY:	Then it goes 12-13, 13-14.

MS. MCDANIEL:	That's correct.

MS. BRADY:	We in Duval I think have a double- edged sword.	We're trying to comply to the purest of the ability of what the intent of this law is by the large number of end-of-course-work tests that we have developed beyond FCAT, because only 45 percent of our teachers are tested with FCAT.
So my concern is, if you're going to use data

55

17:22:12	1	from 11-12 as the first year of the three-year	

17:22:16	2	rolling average which Ms. Chapman stated, then are	

17:22:20	3	you telling me that 18,393 teachers will not be	

17:22:26	4	using the first year but they possibly would use	

17:22:30	5	the second or third year?	Because your statement	

17:22:32	6	was:	If they could not use three years of rolling	

17:22:34	7	data, they would drop from the 50-percent threshold	

17:22:38	8	down to the 40-percent threshold.	That's my first	

17:22:42	9	A question.	

17:22:42	10	And then B question is:	If the teachers don't	

17:22:44	11	change their job spec, like:	I'm a pre-K teacher,	

17:22:50	12	or I am an AP teacher with no blended classrooms,	

17:22:52	13	or I have dual enrollment with college versus	

17:22:54	14	public schools, or I'm at a low-incident ESE	

17:22:58	15	classroom, and I don't change that position code	

17:23:00	16	for 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, how am I going to have a	

17:23:06	17	benchmark for the next year, for that fourth year	

17:23:08	18	when we start?	Because right now it doesn't seem	

17:23:12	19	like these numbers are changing much statewide.	

17:23:14	20	That was just a question as it relates to this	

17:23:16	21	particular rule, would you believe?	

17:23:18	22	MS. MCDANIEL:	I would believe.	

17:23:22	23	MS. BRADY:	I just need you to clarify because	

17:23:26	24	I know you're the geek that can do this and explain	

17:23:28	25	it.	

17:23:28	

1	
56

MS. MCDANIEL:	Well, I will tell you -- let me	

17:23:30	2	make a couple of comments back to you maybe to	

17:23:30	3	answer some questions out there, remembering that	

17:23:34	4	as the rule text as it states right now, we're	

17:23:38	5	talking about two different things here.	We've got	

17:23:40	6	the cut scores -- let's call it cut scores -- which	

17:23:42	7	will apply to all teachers no matter what they're	

17:23:46	8	teaching, and then we got the conditions for what	

17:23:48	9	will be highly effective summative rating,	

17:23:52	10	effective and whatever.	

17:23:54	11	As the rule now stands for that summative	

17:23:56	12	rating, it only will impact those teachers who are	

17:24:00	13	associated with FCAT assessed course work.	For	

17:24:04	14	everybody else, the district is going to have to	

17:24:06	15	determine how they are going to figure their	

17:24:10	16	summative rating.	

17:24:12	17	MS. BRADY:	Say that one more time for me,	

17:24:12	18	please?	

17:24:12	
19	
MS. MCDANIEL:	I'm not sure if I can say that	

17:24:12	20	again.	

17:24:16	
21	
MS. BRADY:	The district is going to --	

17:24:18	22	MS. MCDANIEL:	The district, as it does now,	

17:24:20	23	tells us how they are going to -- how do they	

17:24:26	24	figure their summative rating.	That is currently	

17:24:28	25	in place right now.	

17:24:30	1

17:24:32	2

17:24:36	3

17:24:40	4

17:24:44	5

17:24:46	6

17:24:50	7

17:24:52	8

17:24:56	9

17:25:02	10

17:25:04	11

17:25:08	12

17:25:08	13

17:25:10	14

17:25:12	15

17:25:16	16

17:25:18	17

17:25:20	18

17:25:20	19

17:25:22	20

17:25:26	21

17:25:28	22

17:25:30	23

17:25:30	24

17:25:32	25

57

MS. BRADY:	Would you believe that I question what you just stated, with much respect, because in this county, even though it has been a very trying process, we have worked very closely with our technology department and our testing and measurement department, and even our teachers who got those non-evaluated or those VAM scores at zero level when the first scores came in from the State, and we do have end-of-course-work tests, and I don't believe what you just stated is applicable to a district of this size, or any district, to my knowledge.
Now, I can't speak for other districts.	And

I'm looking at my tech people over here and the data people here in the district, and I just don't
-- I don't know if that's going to work, what you

just stated, because we're trying to make this work.
MS. MCDANIEL:	What I'm stating here is that each teacher has an instructional practice rating.
MS. BRADY:	We've got that.

MS. MCDANIEL:	And a student performance rating.
MS. BRADY:	No, that's not true. MS. MCDANIEL:	That is not true?

17:25:32	1

17:25:34	2

17:25:34	3

17:25:36	4

17:25:40	5

17:25:42	6

17:25:44	7

17:25:52	8

17:25:54	9

17:25:56	10

17:26:00	11

17:26:02	12

17:26:06	13

17:26:08	14

17:26:10	15

17:26:12	16

17:26:16	17

17:26:20	18

17:26:22	19

17:26:24	20

17:26:28	21

17:26:32	22

17:26:36	23

17:26:36	24

17:26:36	25

58

MS. BRADY:	No, ma'am.

MS. MCDANIEL:	But in school district instructional personnel evaluation systems, the district has outlined for the State how they have determined that for all categories of teachers. How it's implemented is something that, within the rule of course, will be monitored.
MS. BRADY:	Would you believe -- I mean, I

really have to ask this because I'm very concerned over my county's 800-and-something teachers that were not evaluated.	And it wasn't because we didn't want to evaluate them in a collaborative team effort.
It's because they couldn't be evaluated based on what they taught, or they had students less than 10, or for whatever the makeup of that environment of that learning community was, and in no way were we trying to get the largest number of non- evaluated teachers that we possibly could.
But I will tell you, just because you say it

in law does not mean it is applicable in a district that's trying to work for the diversity of our teaching force --
MS. MCDANIEL:	I do.

MS. BRADY:	-- and, frankly, meet the diverse

	
59	

17:26:38	1	needs of our academic learning of our students.	

17:26:40	2	And I don't believe -- everything is not cut and	

17:26:42	3	dried, and based on your new formula, I don't	

17:26:46	4	believe -- would you believe I don't believe your	

17:26:48	5	new formula is going to meet the needs on a better	

17:26:50	6	scale of our students learning gains and a true	

17:26:54	7	measurement of what our teachers are doing every	

17:26:56	8	day in the classrooms.	

17:26:58	9	MS. MCDANIEL:	Thank you for your comments.	I	

17:27:00	10	appreciate that.	

17:27:00	11	MS. BRADY:	I do mean that with all sincerity.	

17:27:02	12	MS. MCDANIEL:	And we support you just as	

17:27:04	13	much.	I hope you believe that as well.	

17:27:04	14	MS. BRADY:	I do believe it.	

17:27:08	15	MS. MCDANIEL:	We would like you and others	

17:27:08	16	who have those similar concerns to go back to the	

17:27:12	17	rule and determine if there are ways the rule can	

17:27:16	18	be improved in order to get that.	Or if you're	

17:27:18	19	talking about the law that needs to be improved or	

17:27:22	20	changed, there's avenues for that as well.	

17:27:26	21	Sir, you were next.	

17:27:28	22	MR. BEACH:	Robert Beach, Duval County.	

17:27:30	23	Up here and on another slide, it says that the	

17:27:38	24	measure of student learning growth should be	

17:27:40	25	transparent, and here it talks about calculated by	

	
60	

17:27:44	1	the model.	And my question is:	The value-added	

17:27:48	2	model -- which I've looked at the actual formula --	

17:27:52	3	how can that possibly be considered transparent?	

17:27:56	4	How is that measurement tool transparent when the	

17:28:00	5	data goes into a black box, is magically worked on,	

17:28:06	6	and then a number comes out that the teacher says:	

17:28:10	7	Boom, this is how your kids did.	How is that	

17:28:12	8	transparent?	

17:28:12	9	MS. MCDANIEL:	Sir, I will tell you I am	

17:28:16	10	not the -- I will not be able to have that	

17:28:20	11	conversation with you because that is not my role	

17:28:22	12	for today.	

17:28:22	13	I would certainly tell you there are people at	

17:28:26	14	the State Department that do have the role that	

17:28:28	15	would love the opportunity to speak with you about	

17:28:30	16	the formula, the transparency of the formula.	It	

17:28:34	17	is written into the State Board rule.	

17:28:36	18	Understanding of that formula may be another issue.	

17:28:42	19	MR. BEACH:	Well, understanding and	

17:28:44	20	transparent is different.	

17:28:46	21	And this is probably more a comment than a	

17:28:50	22	question:	If I were to grade my students the way I	

17:28:54	23	am being graded, I would be raked over the coals by	

17:29:00	24	the students, the principal and the parents.	

17:29:06	25	MS. BRADY:	Tell them what you teach,	

61

17:29:08	1	Mr. Beach.	

17:29:10	2	MR. BEACH:	I teach math and my specialty is	

17:29:10	3	statistics, so I do understand a lot of the model.	

17:29:10	4	MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, sir.	

17:29:14	5	MR. BEACH:	However, most people don't.	

17:29:14	6	MS. MCDANIEL:	Right.	

17:29:16	7	MR. BEACH:	And it would take a huge	

17:29:18	8	computational database, which the technical paper	

17:29:22	9	explained, to crank out the numbers, which, as I	

17:29:26	10	said, is in no way whatsoever transparent.	

17:29:32	11	MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, sir.	Thank you.	

17:29:34	12	Next question?	Yes, ma'am.	

17:29:34	13	MS. SOTELO:	Hi.	Bianca Sotelo, Florida	

17:29:40	14	Education Association.	

17:29:42	15	I wanted to go back to the question about	

17:29:44	16	data, three years of data, how that's applied.	

17:29:44	17	MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, ma'am.	

17:29:50	18	MS. SOTELO:	How will the VAM perform when we	

17:29:52	19	transition from the FCAT to the park assessments in	

17:29:54	20	2015-16?	

17:29:54	21	MS. MCDANIEL:	I can't answer that for you	

17:29:56	22	today.	I just don't have that answer.	It's	

17:30:00	23	certainly not taken into account, particularly in	

17:30:02	24	this particular rule.	

17:30:04	25	I can only assure you that those things will	

17:30:08	1

17:30:10	2

17:30:14	3

17:30:16	4

17:30:20	5

17:30:24	6

17:30:24	7

17:30:28	8

17:30:30	9

17:30:32	10

17:30:36	11

17:30:40	12

17:30:44	13

17:30:44	14

17:30:44	15

17:30:48	16

17:30:50	17

17:30:52	18

17:30:54	19

17:30:56	20

17:30:56	21

17:31:00	22

17:31:00	23

17:31:04	24

17:31:08	25

62

happen, and certainly school districts and personnel will be informed of the transition from one to the next, as we do with any type of test scores, FCAT to FCAT 2.0 and whatever.	All those things need to be taken into account.
Yes, sir?

MR. GIANNESCHI:	Hi.	My name is Brad Gianneschi.	I'm a teacher in Duval County and a parent of a Duval County student.
My question, the first one, is about numbers,

too. It's the two years of -- two prior years of achievement scores used as a predictor of student growth.
MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, sir.

MR. GIANNESCHI:	My understanding of the FCAT is it is summative but it is not diagnostic or prescriptive in nature.
MS. MCDANIEL:	That's correct.

MR. GIANNESCHI:	How are we determining then that as the strongest predictor and using those numbers as to what we can achieve?
MS. MCDANIEL:	As it states, prior performance, prior performance on the FCAT, let's say in grade 4, prior performance in grade 5, 4 and 5, as a predictor for grade 6 performance if we

17:31:12	1

17:31:16	3	MR. GIANNESCHI:	Okay.	The one clear number	

17:31:18	4	was the 50 percent.	

17:31:20	5	MS. MCDANIEL:	50 percent of the evaluation,	

17:31:24	6	that's correct.	

17:31:24	
7	
MR. GIANNESCHI:	How was that number -- why	

17:31:26	8	that number?	And does it show that that amount	

17:31:30	9	helps teachers help kids?	It seems just kind of a	

17:31:34	10	bit --	

17:31:34	11	MS. MCDANIEL:	That is in statute, so we'd	

17:31:36	12	have to go back to the logic of the legislature	

17:31:42	13	perhaps and the bill and look through why -- I	

17:31:48	14	don't have the answer for you today why the 50	

17:31:50	15	percent.	

17:31:50	16	MR. GIANNESCHI:	I have one more question, and	

17:31:52	17	that's about really job responsibilities in	

17:31:58	18	non-classroom instructional personnel.	Who does	

17:32:00	19	that apply to?	

17:32:00	20	I am an exceptional student education teacher,	

17:32:02	21	so I'm not the class teacher of record for a lot of	

17:32:06	22	those students.	My cast evaluation is going to	

17:32:10	23	look exactly the same as the classroom teacher's.	

17:32:14	24	Are we planning on redefining those roles and	

17:32:18	25	responsibilities?	And does it apply to ESE	

17:31:14	2

63

have two years.	That is accounted for in the formula.

	
64	

17:32:22	1	teachers, guidance counselors who are	

17:32:24	2	non-instructional?	

17:32:24	3	MS. MCDANIEL:	The non-instructional classroom	

17:32:26	4	teachers are actually defined by the school	

17:32:30	5	district who are those people.	So when a district	

17:32:34	6	submits their evaluation system for approval, they	

17:32:38	7	outline who are those individuals and how they will	

17:32:42	8	be evaluated.	It may vary even in the class of	

17:32:44	9	non-classroom instructional personnel on how they	

17:32:48	10	do different ones.	It varies from district to	

17:32:50	11	district.	And others, they may just have one way	

17:32:54	12	to do it.	

17:32:56	13	It is a system that certainly will, as	

17:33:00	14	districts continue to implement the law, they will	

17:33:04	15	continue to look back at that and continue to work	

17:33:08	16	on developing the system to be better and better.	

17:33:12	17	And, in fact, each year the districts have been	

17:33:14	18	resubmitting their evaluation systems and, quote,	

17:33:18	19	tweaking them to get at some of these questions.	

17:33:26	20	MR. GIANNESCHI:	Thank you.	

17:33:26	21	MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, sir?	

17:33:28	22	MR. BEACH:	Robert Beach, Duval County.	

17:33:32	23	On slide 11, the bottom paragraph:	

17:33:48	24	Instructional framework goal and expectation that	

17:33:52	25	all teachers can increase their expertise from year	

65

17:33:54	1	to year producing gains in student achievement and	

17:33:58	2	with a powerful cumulative effect.	

17:34:02	3	What is the source of that?	Where did that	

17:34:04	4	come from?	Is that statutory?	

17:34:04	5	MS. MCDANIEL:	No.	It comes from contemporary	

17:34:06	6	research on evaluation systems from the work of	

17:34:12	7	Robert Rosano is one of the sources, Charlotte	

17:34:16	8	Danielson is another source.	Both agree upon that	

17:34:20	9	particular statement.	

17:34:20	10	MR. BEACH:	My question was:	Where did it	

17:34:22	11	come from, because that flies directly in the face	

17:34:26	12	of the new pay scale that the State wants to	

17:34:30	13	develop.	

17:34:32	14	Increase their expertise from year to year	

17:34:34	15	producing gains with a powerful cumulative effect,	

17:34:38	16	versus every year you get paid the same because you	

17:34:42	17	don't get any better.	

17:34:46	18	MS. BRADY:	Would you believe.	

17:34:50	19	MS. MCDANIEL:	Other questions?	

17:34:52	20	Yes, ma'am.	

17:34:52	21	MS. MCDONALD:	I'm Connie McDonald, and I'm	

17:34:54	22	going to try --	

17:34:56	23	MS. MCDANIEL:	And you're from where?	

17:34:56	24	MS. MCDONALD:	The media specialist at Kirby	

17:34:56	25	Smith Middle School.	

17:35:00	1

17:35:00	2

17:35:02	3

17:35:04	4

17:35:10	5

17:35:12	6

17:35:16	7

17:35:20	8

17:35:22	9

17:35:28	10

17:35:32	11

17:35:38	12

17:35:44	13

17:35:50	14

17:35:52	15

17:35:52	16

17:35:54	17

17:35:58	18

17:36:02	19

17:36:06	20

17:36:10	21

17:36:12	22

17:36:16	23

17:36:18	24

17:36:18	25

66

MS. MCDANIEL:	In Duval?

MS. MCDONALD:	Duval County Public Schools.

I have taught for 40 years.	I'm national board certified in English, secondary, and perhaps
-- I've been an instructional coach.	I've worked with all subject areas, but I'm not a statistician. But ever since I've seen this -- I don't know what slide this is -- but I would like for you to explain to me how the zero rating does not indicate that if a teacher works well with a student to produce the expected gains, because we assume that the child has been receiving education up until then, why is it zero if the child makes a year's growth?	That does not make sense to me.
MS. MCDANIEL:	I understand that.	I understand.
Zero is just your baseline for us to come to a decision.	If we're at zero, that is what the student would be predicted to have attained at that point.	It's just a starting point, and it's a starting point for that teacher.	That zero will be something else for another teacher teaching something else.
MS. MCDONALD:	I understand that.

MS. MCDANIEL:	For us to be able to say:	Was

17:36:22	1

17:36:24	2

17:36:26	3

17:36:30	4

17:36:32	5

17:36:34	6

17:36:36	7

17:36:40	8

17:36:46	9

17:36:46	10

17:36:52	11

17:36:58	12

17:37:02	13

17:37:06	14

17:37:10	15

17:37:12	16

17:37:18	17

17:37:22	18

17:37:28	19

17:37:30	20

17:37:32	21

17:37:34	22

17:37:36	23

17:37:38	24

17:37:42	25

67

there a positive effect?	Did they improve more than what was expected so it's a positive number? Or if the students did not improve as much as what was expected, then it will be a negative number. It gives us a point to discuss.
MS. MCDONALD:	If the child were left without

an educator, as if a child were left without food or a plant were left without air and water, that growth would be negative.
To say that a teacher's value added is zero

when a child makes a full year's growth in approximately eight months between tests -- I guess to phrase that, I do not agree with that.	And to phrase that as a question:	How would the State or the people who came up with this -- because this has severely demoralized people across this state and will continue to do so -- is there anything that the State can do to reevaluate even how they're calling these things?	Because that's not a zero value added.
MS. MCDANIEL:	That's a very good point.

We'll certainly discuss that.

MS. MCDONALD:	Is there some way that can be addressed for people who disagree from the very beginning?

17:37:42	

1	
68

MS. MCDANIEL:	I will tell you that anything	

17:37:44	2	is possible.	And I sincerely mean that, I'm not	

17:37:44	3	just telling you that.	Anything is possible.	

17:37:46	4	That's why we're here today, we want to hear from	

17:37:50	5	you.	

17:37:52	6	Yes, ma'am.	

17:37:52	7	MS. NEVILLE:	Grace Neville, Duval County.	

17:37:54	8	I'm pre-K.	

17:37:58	9	There's major confusion with the pre-K	

17:38:02	10	teachers, which I know is going to be a county	

17:38:04	11	thing, I think, but --	

17:38:06	12	MS. BRADY:	State.	

17:38:08	13	MS. NEVILLE:	A state thing.	Okay.	It says:	

17:38:10	14	Up to two years prior achievement scores.	That's	

17:38:14	15	for the student.	

17:38:16	16	We don't have that.	And also our attendance	

17:38:20	17	is not mandatory.	So, I mean --	

17:38:26	18	MS. MCDANIEL:	I would agree.	From what I	

17:38:28	19	just heard, this is a district level discussion	

17:38:32	20	that needs to be had, and it's a state level one as	

17:38:36	21	well, because it's affecting many, many people.	

17:38:38	22	MS. NEVILLE:	Right, because nobody knows what	

17:38:42	23	assessments to use.	

17:38:44	
24	
MS. MCDANIEL:	Sure.	

17:38:46	25	MS. NEVILLE:	So across the board we're very	

	
69	

17:38:48	1	unequal.	

17:38:50	2	MS. MCDANIEL:	Absolutely.	I do understand	

17:38:50	3	that.	I don't have an answer for you today.	I'm	

17:38:54	4	sorry.	But it is an issue that is not -- it's not	

17:38:56	5	the first time we've heard this.	

17:38:58	6	MS. NEVILLE:	And my second question is:	Who	

17:39:02	7	decides the school characteristics?	I mean, is	

17:39:04	8	there a checklist someone comes in and checks?	

17:39:06	9	MS. MCDANIEL:	There is, and I didn't bring it	

17:39:10	10	with me today, but there are school characteristics	

17:39:12	11	that are part of each and every school that is	

17:39:14	12	gathered as part of the data that's been presented	

17:39:16	13	to the State.	

17:39:18	14	A great deal of data is collected each and	

17:39:20	15	every year several times a year that includes those	

17:39:22	16	characteristics that they're looking for.	

17:39:24	17	Yes, ma'am.	

17:39:26	18	MS. MUESING:	Misty Muesing, LaVilla School of	

17:39:28	19	the Arts, Duval County.	

17:39:30	20	I just have a couple of questions.	School	

17:39:32	21	characteristics is one of them.	

17:39:34	22	Am I correct in understanding that, because	

17:39:38	23	you're at a school with good characteristics across	

17:39:44	24	the board, that the teachers are what make that	

17:39:48	25	school those good characteristics?	Because --	

17:39:52	1

17:39:52	2

17:39:54	3

17:39:56	4

17:39:58	5

17:40:02	6

17:40:04	7

17:40:08	8

17:40:10	9

17:40:12	10

17:40:16	11

17:40:18	12

17:40:20	13

17:40:24	14

17:40:30	15

17:40:32	16

17:40:36	17

17:40:40	18

17:40:42	19

17:40:44	20

17:40:48	21

17:40:50	22

17:40:54	23

17:40:56	24

17:40:56	25

70

MS. MCDANIEL:	The characteristics -- oh, I'm sorry.
MS. MUESING:	-- in my growth standard of what I'm supposed to achieve, by not even being there, apparently, can happen, because they're at LaVilla with or without teachers, and then mine is just a little bit above that?	That's what I'm trying to understand as a teacher.
So the school characteristics, the teachers are what make that school have those characteristics, from the way I understand teaching over the last 13 years.
My other question is:	Does the State protect for while the school district is figuring out how we're going to be evaluated and change evaluations? For example, I teach theater.	I was evaluated on FCAT last year at 50 percent, when I didn't have three years of data before that.	Will the law protect for me to go back and have that retroactively examined at 40 percent since they didn't have data before?
And then as I get my three years and it's

adjusted, it would be a firm three years of the same criteria?
MS. MCDANIEL:	And I can't answer your

17:41:00	1

17:41:02	2

17:41:06	3

17:41:06	4

17:41:10	5

17:41:12	6

17:41:14	7

17:41:18	8

17:41:18	9

17:41:20	10

17:41:22	11

17:41:24	12

17:41:28	13

17:41:28	14

17:41:32	15

17:41:36	16

17:41:38	17

17:41:38	18

17:41:44	19

17:41:48	20

17:41:50	21

17:41:52	22

17:41:56	23

17:41:58	24

17:42:00	25

71

question for your specific reason because -- those are very valid questions, taking a look at what was the system that was approved for your school district, taking a look was it 50 percent, was it
40 percent? If it says 50 percent, that's what you should be evaluated at. Did it say it was going to look at three years of data, or was it just looking at one year of the data?
MS. MUESING:	Well, last year it was just, yeah, one year.	But as it grows to three, is there going to be something in place to protect for those first two years are not going to match?
MS. MCDANIEL:	And I will tell you again that what the rule says, what the rule text says right now, a monitoring system has to be in place both at the district level and then monitoring at the state level.
So there's going to be instances that you will

question what your final rating was, and you should, and you should have those discussions beginning first with your building level principal and moving on up until you get answers to your questions.		Are they in compliance with what the law said?	Are they in compliance with what the district has an approved system for?	Those are all

17:42:02	1

17:42:04	2

17:42:06	3

17:42:06	4

17:42:08	5

17:42:12	6

17:42:12	7

17:42:14	8

17:42:18	9

17:42:22	10

17:42:24	11

17:42:28	12

17:42:30	13

17:42:34	14

17:42:36	15

17:42:40	16

17:42:44	17

17:42:46	18

17:42:48	19

17:42:52	20

17:42:54	21

17:42:56	22

17:43:00	23

17:43:04	24

17:43:10	25

72

very important questions for the individual teacher.
MS. MUESING:	Right.	But what I'm understanding with my district is that they have questions about what to evaluate, how y'all are going to --
MS. MCDANIEL:	And those questions are very

valid, and that's why we're here.	And some of them may need a change, if it was agreed upon, this is something that needs to be done, needs either a change in law, or, if we're going to leave the law alone, which is something we will be certainly monitoring during this legislative session because several bills have already been filed that affect the evaluation systems law right now, have to monitor that, then the rule is to implement the law, provides more detail.
We are certainly not going to finalize the

rule language here today, or even at the end of this week when we finish the workshops.	We will need to see if there are any changes in the law and take all the input that we're seeing to go back and fix -- let's call it fixing the rule so it's doing what it's supposed to be doing.
I have 25 minutes left, so we can continue.	I

17:43:16	

1	
73

know some of these are more like comments than they	

17:43:18	2	are for questions, so let me just ask one more	

17:43:20	3	time:	Does anybody have a clarifying question	

17:43:24	4	that's specifically in the rule that you don't	

17:43:26	5	understand what this means or something in the law?	

17:43:28	6	Yes, sir.	

17:43:28	7	MR. AVERY:	My questions is about school --	

17:43:30	8	MS. MCDANIEL:	And your name, sir?	

17:43:34	9	MR. AVERY:	I'm sorry.	Gary Avery, Duval	

17:43:34	10	County.	

17:43:34	
11	
My question is about school characteristics.	

17:43:34	12	MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, sir.	

17:43:38	13	MR. AVERY:	How do they determine school	

17:43:40	14	characteristics for virtual schools?	

17:43:42	15	MS. MCDANIEL:	Sir, I don't know the answer to	

17:43:44	16	that question.	It's a very good question.	I don't	

17:43:48	17	know the answer.	I will tell you that schools have	

17:43:50	18	certain characteristics.	They're a Title I school,	

17:43:54	19	for instance.	Schools have characteristics.	Yes,	

17:43:56	20	schools are made up of teachers.	

17:43:58	21	There is a portion of the formula that	

17:44:00	22	attributes the value-added score that the teacher	

17:44:04	23	receives on the school characteristics as compared	

17:44:08	24	to other schools like it across the state.	

17:44:12	25	MR. AVERY:	How do we as teachers find out	

17:44:16	1

17:44:18	2

17:44:20	3

17:44:22	4

17:44:24	5

17:44:26	6

17:44:30	7

17:44:32	8

17:44:32	9

17:44:32	10

17:44:36	11

17:44:36	12

17:44:38	13

17:44:38	14

17:44:42	15

17:44:46	16

17:44:46	17

17:44:48	18

17:44:52	19

17:44:56	20

17:44:58	21

17:45:02	22

17:45:04	23

17:45:08	24

17:45:14	25

74

what made up those characteristics?

MS. MCDANIEL:	I will tell you first you go to your school district to talk about that score, where did it come from, and then seek the assistance of someone at the state level, if needed, to be able to explain that to you.
Ma'am, did you have a question?

MS. SOTELO:	Just a clarifying question.

MS. MCDANIEL:	And your name, please?	I'm sorry?
MS. SOTELO:	Bianca Sotelo, Florida Education Association.
I think I must have been looking away when you explained it, but on slide 31 where you have the different ratings, and you said that it does not specify levels for needs improvement or developing.
MS. MCDANIEL: That is correct.

MS. SOTELO:	Could you go back and show where you said that might fall specifically?
MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes.	This is an example.

Remember, this is just an example.

MS. SOTELO:	Yes, I understand.

MS. MCDANIEL:	This is your highly effective. Way above, two confidence intervals above the point where we would expect.	Then you've got

75

17:45:18	1	unsatisfactory, and then two forms of effective.	

17:45:22	2	The point from here -- on this example, the	

17:45:26	3	point from here to here (indicating) is where needs	

17:45:30	4	improvement or developing, if they fell within that	

17:45:34	5	range, it would be developing, needs improvement.	

17:45:38	6	MS. SOTELO:	The bottom of that --	

17:45:40	7	MS. MCDANIEL:	The bottom of the confidence	

17:45:44	8	interval -- this is the bottom of it, this is the	

17:45:44	9	top (indicating).	The bottom to the top of this	

17:45:46	10	one, this space between here.	

17:45:50	11	MS. SOTELO:	Thank you.	

17:45:52	12	MS. MCDANIEL:	Question?	

17:45:52	13	MS. DAVIS:	Yes.	I'm Suzanne Davis from	

17:45:54	14	Nassau County.	

17:45:54	15	COURT REPORTER:	I'm sorry.	Suzanne Davis?	

17:45:54	16	MS. MCDANIEL:	Suzanne Davis.	I happen to	

17:45:54	17	know Suzanne so I can repeat her name.	

17:45:58	18	Suzanne?	

17:45:58	19	MS. DAVIS:	Eileen, has consideration been	

17:46:06	20	given to -- you know, the law says that a newly	

17:46:10	21	hired teacher has to be evaluated twice.	Has	

17:46:12	22	consideration been given to those teachers who are	

17:46:16	23	hired late -- say, for instance, those teachers	

17:46:18	24	are hired in December or in January -- to lessen	

17:46:22	25	that number to maybe one evaluation because they	

17:46:26	1

17:46:26	2

17:46:28	3

17:46:32	4

17:46:36	5

17:46:38	6

17:46:42	7

17:46:44	8

17:46:46	9

17:46:48	10

17:46:52	11

17:46:56	12

17:46:56	13

17:47:02	14

17:47:06	15

17:47:10	16

17:47:12	17

17:47:14	18

17:47:16	19

17:47:18	20

17:47:20	21

17:47:20	22

17:47:26	23

17:47:26	24

17:47:30	25

76

are hired late?

MS. MCDANIEL:	That is something that we see in evaluation systems that districts have specified what they're doing about that, Suzanne, particularly when they come midyear.	In many cases we've seen where let's say they came at the end of December, that's the beginning of it, and then it would go to the following year, so their first full year is the following December.	Other districts have handled that a little bit differently.	The law nor the rule specifies that for us.
MS. MCDANIEL:	Last question.

MR. BEACH:	Robert Beach, Duval County.

Does the rule provide for a teacher to request a verification of the calculation or attempt to determine if there were any mistakes in the calculation?
MS. MCDANIEL:	The rule, as it states right

now, does not have that within rule.	If that's something you would like to recommend, that would be a recommendation.
MR. BEACH:	So right now there's no provision for a teacher to appeal the --
MS. MCDANIEL:	Not to the State.	It is written into some school districts' evaluation

17:47:32	1

17:47:36	2

17:47:38	3

17:47:40	4

17:47:40	5

17:47:42	6

17:47:44	7

17:47:48	8

17:47:48	9

17:47:48	10

17:48:00	11

17:48:02	12

17:48:04	13

17:48:06	14

17:48:08	15

17:48:12	16

17:48:14	17

17:48:16	18

17:48:16	19

17:48:20	20

17:48:22	21

17:48:26	22

17:48:28	23

17:48:30	24

17:48:34	25

77

systems.

All right.	I'm going to move now to the comments section, please.
Yes, sir?

MR. CURREN:	I have one question. MS. MCDANIEL:	Yes, sir.
MR. CURREN:	Slide 13.	Pat Curren, Duval Schools.
MS. MCDANIEL:	Thank you.	Yes, sir.

MR. CURREN:	It says:	For subjects or grade levels not measured by state assessments, by district assessments as provided for in the law.
MS. MCDANIEL:	Right.

MR. CURREN:	Does that include the following exams:	advance placement, international baccalaureate, ACEs, and probably two or three I'm leaving out?
MS. MCDANIEL:	Does it include those exams?

MR. CURREN:	Yes, ma'am.

MS. MCDANIEL:	They are neither statewide assessments nor are they local assessments.	But those are actually areas that many districts are using as student performance.	They could be considered as perhaps achievement, pass-fail, or setting a learning target for how many students.

17:48:38	1

78

In fact, the Student Growth Implementation

17:48:42	2	Committee will be taking a look at particularly	

17:48:44	3	those that you mentioned to see if there are value-	

17:48:46	4	added model formulas for those that could be	

17:48:50	5	determined that would be helpful to school	

17:48:52	6	districts to use.	

17:48:54	7	MR. CURREN:	The reason I'm asking the	

17:48:56	8	question is -- and if I misquote you, I apologize	

17:49:00	9	-- I believe you made mention about we don't want	

17:49:04	10	teachers being median referenced.	

17:49:04	11	MS. MCDANIEL:	Being?	

17:49:04	12	MR. CURREN:	Median referenced.	

17:49:08	13	MS. MCDANIEL:	Norm --	

17:49:10	14	MR. CURREN:	Norm referenced.	I'm sorry.	

17:49:12	15	MS. MCDANIEL:	Not teachers, but that we	

17:49:12	16	didn't -- we are moving to a performance standard	

17:49:14	17	that is not norm based but performance based.	

17:49:18	18	MR. CURREN:	And every one of those exams I	

17:49:20	19	just mentioned are median or norm referenced.	

17:49:22	20	MS. MCDANIEL:	Absolutely.	I agree with you.	

17:49:22	21	Thank you, sir.	

17:49:24	22	Okay.	We're going to move to comments,	

17:49:26	23	please, to allow for those with comments, because	

17:49:28	24	we only have 20 minutes left.	If you have a	

17:49:32	25	comment, we want to make sure that you have an	

17:49:42	1

17:49:44	2

17:49:48	3

17:49:54	4

79

opportunity to make your comments.	This is a time that there is no response back, no comments back from me or staff.
And we want to make sure that if you had

17:49:56	5	questions today or if you have comments right now,	

17:50:00	6	please be sure you have filled out a speaker's	

17:50:04	7	card.	That's to make sure we get your name into	

17:50:06	8	the record appropriately, please, because we	

17:50:10	9	couldn't always hear you.	

17:50:12	10	Does anyone wish to make a comment today?	

17:50:14	11	Yes, sir.	Please state your name and your --	

17:50:14	12	MR. GIANNESCHI:	Brad Gianneschi.	I'm a Duval	

17:50:22	13	County teacher and parent.	

17:50:24	14	As a teacher, my job is to ensure that the	

17:50:30	15	students learn and that the environment is there	

17:50:32	16	for them that is conducive for their learning.	

17:50:38	17	When we're developing plans or rubric for	

17:50:42	18	grading, or if we put the standards on the board,	

17:50:44	19	we're going to put it in language that they	

17:50:48	20	understand so that they're not confused, so that	

17:50:52	21	they're buying in and seeing the value in it.	

17:50:54	22	We're talking about a value-added model.	For	

17:51:00	23	the teachers to feel valuable and getting value out	

17:51:02	24	of this, I think it needs to be put in a way that	

17:51:06	25	is understood so that they know what it is they're	

17:51:10	1

17:51:10	2

17:51:16	3

17:51:18	4

17:51:20	5

17:51:26	6

17:51:26	7

17:51:28	8

17:51:32	9

17:51:34	10

17:51:36	11

17:51:38	12

17:51:42	13

17:51:42	14

17:51:46	15

17:51:48	16

17:51:52	17

17:51:54	18

17:51:56	19

17:52:00	20

17:52:00	21

17:52:00	22

17:52:02	23

17:52:04	24

17:52:04	25

80

trying to achieve.

We were talking earlier about all the variables, the ELL and the ESE and the gifted.
That formula is really difficult to understand.	I'm not a statistician but I've taught algebra, and I don't understand it.	At a minimum, what is the weight of those values?	What are we inputting into that?	So just kind of teacher- friendly language to what we're doing.
MS. MCDANIEL:	Thank you.

Before I go any further -- thank you, sir, for your comment -- I really want to get a sense of how many people plan on making a comment to ensure that we have enough time for everybody.
And you can change your mind if we have time left over.	We're going to have to leave the room five minutes before 6:00 because there's a class coming in.	So we should have enough time for everybody.	Take about three or four minutes each.
Who would like to go first?

MS. CHAPMAN:	I'll go.  MS. MCDANIEL:		Yes, ma'am.
MS. CHAPMAN:	Dawn Chapman, president of St. Johns Education Association.
MS. MCDANIEL:	Thank you.

	
81	

17:52:04	1	MS. CHAPMAN:	I have two comments.	

17:52:08	2	My first comment is that we as teachers have	

17:52:10	3	lost some confidence in the VAM formula because	

17:52:14	4	it's been sent back, because it's been	

17:52:16	5	miscalculated once and even twice in some	

17:52:20	6	districts.	So with the non-transparency and the	

17:52:22	7	fact that it's been sent back, you know, sent to	

17:52:24	8	the districts and then back to the State because	

17:52:26	9	they were wrong, we're having a hard time buying	

17:52:30	10	into the validity of it.	

17:52:32	11	The other comment I have has to do with the	

17:52:34	12	students themselves.	As a teacher, you teach	

17:52:38	13	students test-taking skills:	underlining,	

17:52:40	14	circling, key words, main ideas, and things like	

17:52:42	15	that on paper, and yet we're requiring our students	

17:52:46	16	to take FCAT on a computer, having to use a mouse,	

17:52:52	17	scrolling through, not having those tools that we	

17:52:54	18	have taught them to take the tests, and I think	

17:52:56	19	that that can skew those results and impact	

17:53:00	20	obviously the students and the teachers as well.	

17:53:02	21	And I think that because those tests are, I	

17:53:04	22	believe, timed, that that also needs to be taken	

17:53:08	23	into consideration.	If a student decides to take	

17:53:08	24	the test in 15 minutes and they're allotted an	

17:53:12	25	hour, a teacher should not be held responsible for	

17:53:14	1

17:53:18	2

17:53:20	3

17:53:20	4

17:53:22	5

17:53:26	6

17:53:28	7

17:53:30	8

17:53:36	9

17:53:40	10

17:53:44	11

17:53:48	12

17:53:54	13

17:53:58	14

17:54:06	15

17:54:12	16

17:54:16	17

17:54:16	18

17:54:22	19

17:54:30	20

17:54:36	21

17:54:38	22

17:54:46	23

17:54:52	24

17:54:56	25

82

those scores.	It should be voided out.

That's all I have to say. MS. MCDANIEL: Thank you. Next comment? Yes, ma'am.
MS. BARBEE:	My name is Ginger Barbee, and I'm a media specialist in the Duval County public school system.
Presently I'm an itinerate media specialist for an elementary school.	What itinerate means is that you service two elementary schools, so they both have equal time.
One of my schools that I service has 258

students with 13 teaching units or teachers.	My other school I teach at or I service has 1,100 students with 59 teaching units.	They both have the same amount of time allotted.		I see them every other week.
I find it very difficult and impossible to

find time to actually cover all my standards and to make all the -- to contact each student and do the things that are required in that amount of time.
I'm also evaluated by two principals, and the administrators both have two entirely different focuses of what they think is important.
One administrator uses me mainly for a

17:55:00	

1	
83

babysitter or for common core planning or for doing	

17:55:08	2	whatever she needs me to do, but she still holds me	

17:55:14	3	accountable, but I'm still accountable for the	

17:55:18	4	children.	They close the library before school	

17:55:22	5	pictures, they close the library for testing, they	

17:55:28	6	close the library for important people that visit	

17:55:34	7	the school they want to entertain.	

17:55:36	8	It's very difficult when you have two	

17:55:38	9	different administrators and they have different	

17:55:42	10	areas that they want to focus on.	

17:55:44	
11	
The other one is very willing to stress the	

17:55:54	12	children's needs and me to contact the students.	

17:55:56	13	But it's very difficult to have that many	

17:55:58	14	students in that amount of time and be held	

17:56:04	15	accountable for them.	

17:56:04	16	MS. MCDANIEL:	Thank you.	

17:56:06	17	Yes, ma'am?	

17:56:08	18	MS. BLANCHARD:	Laurie Blanchard with Duval	

17:56:08	19	County.	

17:56:10	20	I work with special needs children, and I feel	

17:56:14	21	like ESE is going through the cracks in this whole	

17:56:18	22	thing.	It's like we're not being -- we're not	

17:56:22	23	given as much respect as typical students are being	

17:56:26	24	given.	

17:56:26	25	Our growth is really difficult to even	

17:56:28	1

17:56:34	2

17:56:38	3

17:56:42	4

17:56:44	5

17:56:46	6

17:56:52	7

17:56:56	8

17:56:56	9

17:57:00	10

17:57:00	11

17:57:02	12

17:57:06	13

17:57:12	14

17:57:14	15

17:57:16	16

17:57:18	17

17:57:20	18

17:57:24	19

17:57:28	20

17:57:30	21

17:57:34	22

17:57:38	23

17:57:42	24

17:57:46	25

84

measure, let alone accurately.

What Duval County is using is -- it's okay but it's not -- it needs to be fixed. There's a lot of problems with it.
But most of my students will only use functional skills, and I'm really -- I don't see a way that growth can be measured and I can be held accountable for that.
MS. MCDANIEL:	Thank you. Yes, ma'am?
MS. MUESING:	Misty Muesing, Duval County.

I just had a concern about the fact that 50 percent of my -- as Mr. Gianneschi was saying, 50 percent of my rubric I can see, it's what I do in my classroom, what I've been evaluated on, things I can improve, things I can work on, things I can do better and become a better teacher.
50 percent of what I'm evaluated on, I cannot

see, I cannot read, I cannot teach to.	I can't even read a question on that test to help my students do better in that area.	There is nothing I can teach to or improve 50 percent of my evaluation, nothing anyone can underline and show me that I can sit down with a student and show them how to be better.

	
85	

17:57:48	1	I think 50 percent is a huge amount of	

17:57:50	2	subjective rubric.	

17:57:56	3	MS. MCDANIEL:	Thank you.	

17:57:58	4	Yes, ma'am?	

17:57:58	5	MS. WHITAKER:	Tammy Whitaker from the Florida	

17:58:00	6	Education Association.	

17:58:02	7	I think one of the concerns -- or my comment	

17:58:06	8	really is that you have an evaluation system.	Is	

17:58:08	9	it truly fair and accurate when you have A	

17:58:12	10	principal evaluating a group of teachers, and B	

17:58:16	11	principal, assistant principal, evaluating a group	

17:58:18	12	of teachers.	They have two different philosophies	

17:58:20	13	on how the evaluation should be implemented and how	

17:58:24	14	they should grade them or how they should oversee.	

17:58:28	15	And then you have grade levels.	

17:58:30	16	So the difference of a kindergarten teacher	

17:58:34	17	being assessed to a high school teacher or a fifth	

17:58:36	18	grade teacher that's in the same school, a	

17:58:36	19	kindergarten versus a fifth grade teacher who is	

17:58:40	20	the same school, so how is it truly fair and then	

17:58:42	21	really how is it truly accurate when it comes down	

17:58:44	22	to this whole evaluation system?	

17:58:48	23	MS. MCDANIEL:	Thank you.	

17:58:52	24	Further comments?	Yes, sir.	

17:58:54	25	MR. AVERY:	Gary Avery, Duval County.	

	
86	

17:58:56	1	For virtual teachers without an EOC or FCAT	

17:58:56	2	assessment, student learning growth is based on	

17:59:04	3	FCAT reading currently.	That's not a true measure	

17:59:06	4	of those students learning in that course with that	

17:59:12	5	teacher.	

17:59:14	6	Further, virtual students are not in brick-and	

17:59:18	7	mortar schools for specific reasons:	they resist	

17:59:20	8	going, for one, for FCAT testing, even through	

17:59:22	9	they're required to show up.	I just got an email	

17:59:24	10	from my AP saying that:	These students didn't show	

17:59:30	11	up today for the FCAT practice, so we have go find	

17:59:34	12	them.	

17:59:34	13	And that negatively impacts the school data,	

17:59:38	14	negatively impacts the teachers and students.	

17:59:42	15	MS. MCDANIEL:	Thank you.	

17:59:46	16	Any further comments?	Yes, ma'am.	

17:59:46	17	MS. MCDONALD:	I'm Connie McDonald again,	

17:59:48	18	Kirby Smith.	

17:59:50	19	Based on my -- I guess I would like to say the	

17:59:56	20	same thing he's saying here and I'm hearing other	

17:59:58	21	people say:	This does not reflect, does not	

18:00:00	22	reflect, what teachers do.	The zero rating doesn't	

18:00:06	23	reflect what they do.	

18:00:06	24	I work -- because I was an instructional coach	

18:00:10	25	so long, I still try to work with teachers the as	

18:00:14	1

18:00:16	2

18:00:18	3

18:00:22	4

18:00:26	5

18:00:30	6

18:00:32	7

18:00:36	8

18:00:42	9

18:00:44	10

18:00:48	11

18:00:50	12

18:00:54	13

18:00:58	14

18:01:00	15

18:01:04	16

18:01:10	17

18:01:12	18

18:01:14	19

18:01:18	20

18:01:24	21

18:01:26	22

18:01:30	23

18:01:34	24

18:01:36	25

87

PTF as well, and I know the frustrations that are felt in every course.
There's a totally different baseline, there's a whole different scale, if you're teaching a course that you have a semester end of course, that you saw the test, you gave the pretest, you teach to the test, there's a test at the end.
Speaking specifically for myself, I'm

assuming, although my cast little paper changed two or three times during last year and actually changed between the time we wrote the initial and the time it came back for me to sign off the state, the format itself, my principal was as surprised as I was.	That's not a critique there.
But there is also the simple fact that I am scored on this value added, I am assuming, still on the reading, when I'm working with teachers and professional development.	I love reading, but I have never been a reading teacher.	I'm a secondary teacher and a media specialist.	I work with the kids in their science projects.	We do research, critical thinking, building, projects, technology.
None of that, none of that, is evaluated in

this VAM, and I think -- not just for media specialists but for people across the state, we get

18:01:40	1

18:01:48	2

18:01:50	3

18:01:52	4

18:01:54	5

18:01:56	6

18:01:58	7

18:02:00	8

18:02:02	9

18:02:04	10

18:02:06	11

18:02:08	12

18:02:10	13

18:02:14	14

18:02:16	15

18:02:18	16

18:02:22	17

18:02:26	18

18:02:26	19

18:02:28	20

18:02:34	21

18:02:36	22

18:02:38	23

18:02:42	24

18:02:46	25

88

a very skewed result based on what we're teaching and whatever happens to be the mode of the week for evaluating.
MS. MCDANIEL:	Last comment.

MS. BRADY:	Terrie Brady, president of Duval Teachers United here.
First of all, thank you for being here.	I think you've handled us well, and I think we've handled our frustration and angst very well considering this is North Florida and this is the we-isms.
But I have to make one statement very clear.

In the 20 years, this is the largest unfunded mandate that school districts have been faced with handed down from the Florida legislature.
Not one of us don't want to do the highest

quality of instruction that we possibly can do and move students at the highest level we possibly can move our students, but for the amount of money that it has taken our county to complete the writing and the accuracy of our tests, even though they're not where they need to be yet, the measurement, the time on task with our data entry and our data people and our measurement people in the district, instead of helping us analyze student data to move

18:02:48	1

18:02:50	2

18:02:54	3

18:02:54	4

18:02:58	5

18:03:02	6

18:03:06	7

18:03:10	8

18:03:12	9

18:03:16	10

18:03:18	11

18:03:20	12

18:03:22	13

18:03:26	14

18:03:28	15

18:03:32	16

18:03:36	17

18:03:38	18

18:03:42	19

18:03:42	20

18:03:46	21

18:03:48	22

18:03:50	23

18:03:52	24

18:03:58	25

89

students greater, we're too busy -- when I say "we," it truly is a collective "we" because we collaborate here -- we are spending more time trying to input and output the magic black box to determine this State mandate instead of analyzing data so that teachers can get it to move kids further along in their academic learning gains.
So I think really I wish the DOE would

understand and really understand the cost that is coming, the unfunded mandates to all these districts around the state.
The time on task it is taking individuals, not only from our organization but from district organizations, to tabulate, to calculate and to try to -- I call it missing closer to the accuracy than we can possibly be on a formula that will never be substantiated or validated or sustainable in this state to truly measure teacher learning gains and student learning gains in this state.
We know that this VAM formula will not work,

and I just wish the legislature would start valuing the work that the men and women in our district and in in this state do every day instead of always trying to pigeonhole them and label them.
MR. CURREN:	Say no more.

18:03:58	1

18:04:00	2

18:04:00	3

18:04:00	4

18:04:06	5

18:04:08	6

18:04:10	7

18:04:14	8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

90

MS. CHAPMAN:	Amen.

MS. MCDANIEL:	Ladies and gentlemen, thank you to being here today.		I sincerely appreciate it.
I do want to remind you that the public comment period continues to remain open.	We encourage you to continue to monitor this, add your comments, and continue to keep an eye on the law and the rule.	Thank you for being here today.
(Thereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the workshop was concluded.)
- - -

91

1	C E R T I F I C A T E

2	STATE OF FLORIDA	)

3	COUNTY OF DUVAL	)

4	I, Cindy Danese, Notary Public in and for the

5	State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that the

6	foregoing pages are a true and accurate recordation of

7	the proceedings which took place.

8	WITNESS my hand and official seal this 11th

9	day of March 2013.

10

11

12	STATEWIDE REPORTING SERVICE

13

14

15
CINDY DANESE, Notary Public
16	State of Florida at Large.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25