Florida Charter School Technical Assistance

Transcription

1 The Leadership and Learning Center January February, 2013 Florida Charter School Technical Assistance Systems Introduction and Overview Day 1 Why are we here and what do we intend to accomplish? Learning Activity Personal Reflection: Effective performance evaluation is most like Page 1

2 Snorkeling the Coral Reefs A Walk in the Redwood Forest A Hike in the Rocky Mountains A Journey into Carlsbad Caverns Objectives for Today Examine foundational statutes and rules related to teacher and leader evaluation systems Analyze contemporary research on school leadership and apply it to the Florida Principal Leadership Standards (FPLS) Unwrap and discuss the FPLS Objectives for Today Become familiar with the Florida School Leader Assessment (FSLA) Domains, Proficiencies, and Indicators Examine and discuss the additional metric: deliberate practice Walk through the FSLA annual process Compare state requirements to your current leader evaluation system Page 2

3 Agenda Topics Part I: Essential Understandings Part II: Leadership Research Part III: Florida Principal Leadership Standards Agenda Topics Part IV: Florida School Leader Assessment Part V: FSLA Process Overview Part VI: Closure & Feedback Page 3

4 US Student Achievement & Global Economic Issues In America today, one in four students fails to graduate from high school on time. African American and Hispanic students drop out of high school at nearly double the rate of their white peers. Editorial Projects in Education, Diplomas Count 2011: Beyond High School, Before Baccalaureate: Meaningful Alternatives to a Four Year Degree, special issue, Education Week 30, no. 34 (2011). Alliance for Excellent Education, The High Cost of High School Dropouts: What the Nation Pays for Inadequate High Schools (Washington, DC: Author, August 2009). US Student Achievement & Global Economic Issues The consequences for the individuals and the costs to the nation are staggering in terms of lost wages and earnings over a lifetime, which are estimated at about $335 billion per year. Editorial Projects in Education, Diplomas Count 2011: Beyond High School, Before Baccalaureate: Meaningful Alternatives to a Four Year Degree, special issue, Education Week 30, no. 34 (2011). Alliance for Excellent Education, The High Cost of High School Dropouts: What the Nation Pays for Inadequate High Schools (Washington, DC: Author, August 2009). US Student Achievement & Global Economic Issues Roughly one-third of high school graduates are not ready to succeed in an introductory level college writing course. Remedial education at the postsecondary level costs the nation an estimated $3.6 billion annually Alliance for Excellent Education, Saving Now and Saving Later: How High School Reform Can Reduce the Nation s Wasted Remediation Dollars (Washington, DC: Author, 2011). ACT, The Condition of College and Career Readiness. Page 4

5 US Student Achievement & Global Economic Issues About 40 percent of employers indicated that they were dissatisfied with high school graduates ability to read and understand complicated materials, think analytically, and solve real-world problems. Peter D. Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies, Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work? (Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc., 2005); Council on Competitiveness, Competitiveness Index: Where America Stands (Washington, DC: Author, 2007). Rewards states leading the way in comprehensive, coherent, statewide education reform across four key areas: 1. Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace; 2. Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals how to improve instruction; 3. Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and 4. Turning around their lowest-performing schools. Florida worked diligently to bring together broad statewide support from superintendents, school board members, teachers and teacher associations for the Race to the Top application Page 5

6 Reflection What role should teacher and leader evaluation systems play in addressing student achievement issues facing schools in the U.S. and in Florida? Senate Bill 736: Student Success Act SB 736 Requires DOE approve school district evaluation systems & monitor for compliance DOE provide requirements and criteria for evaluation systems Charter schools comply with provisions related to performance evaluations Page 6

7 SB 736 Requires District evaluation systems Support effective instruction & student learning growth Provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous improvement Use data from multiple sources including input from parents SB 736 Requires Four levels of performance (highly effective, effective, *needs improvement, unsatisfactory) At least **50% of the evaluation is based on student learning growth Based on contemporary research Indicators based on each of the FEAPS (Florida Educator Accomplished Practices) SB 736 Requires Leader evaluations based on each of the FPLS (Florida Principal Leadership Standards) Including Measures based on teacher effectiveness Appropriate use of the evaluation criteria & procedures Recruitment and retention of effective and highly effective teachers Increase in the percent of highly effective or effective teachers Other leadership practices resulting in student learning growth Page 7

8 SB 736 Requires DOE annual reports to the public on performance ratings including the percent of teachers and leaders receiving each rating School reports to parents when their child s teacher or principal has received unsatisfactory ratings for two consecutive years SB 736 Requires The state Board of Education shall adopt rules to establish uniform procedures for the submission and approval of evaluations of teachers and leaders. SBE Rule 6A The Educator Accomplished Practices Florida's core standards for effective educators. The Educator Accomplished Practices are based upon three (3) foundational principles; high expectations, knowledge of subject matter and the standards of the profession Each effective educator applies the foundational principles through six (6) Educator Accomplished Practices. Each of the practices is clearly defined to promote a common language and statewide understanding of the expectations for the quality of instruction and professional responsibility. Handout p. 13 Page 8

9 SBE Rule 6A Florida Principal Leadership Standards Florida s core expectations for effective school administrators The Standards are based on contemporary research on multi-dimensional school leadership represent skill sets and knowledge bases needed in effective schools Handout p. 2 Part II: Leadership Research The Florida Principal Leadership Standards Form the foundation for school leader: Personnel evaluations Professional development Preparation programs Certification requirements Page 9

10 WHY NEW Two of the most comprehensive studies on educational leadership were completed in the last three years Significant aspects of this contemporary research were absent within the 2005 FPLS (e.g., instructional leadership, feedback, cause and effect) Core expectations for what effective school leaders know and are able to do are considerably different than in 2005 when Florida adopted the previous standards Development of the Collaborative statewide process engaging a broad crosssection of stakeholders Extensive opportunities for public review and input 2005 FPLS informed by historical patterns of what principal s jobs entailed 2011 FPLS informed by gap analyses comparing issues in the 2005 standards to contemporary leadership research and practitioners input on best practice 2011 FPLS are modeled after the 2010 FEAPs adding clarifying and defining descriptors to address gaps in the 2005 standards What all school leaders need to know about the FPLS and FSLA Page 10

11 The FPLS Reflected In Contemporary Research Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge. Horng, E., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal s time use and school effectiveness. Stanford University. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2010). The truth about leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. The Wallace Foundation. Robinson, V. M. J. (2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Visible Learning The Leadership and Learning Center Finding Best Practices Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning. Rutledge. New York Page 11

12 Professor Hattie s Findings The effects gained by principals were greater on instructional leadership dimensions than from transformational leadership dimensions Specific instructional leadership that had the the greatest effects on student outcomes were: Promoting and participating in teacher learning and development Planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum Strategic resourcing Establishing goals and expectations Ensuring an orderly and supportive environment Rank Order these Leadership Dimensions Leadership Dimensions Establishing goals and expectations Resourcing strategically Ensuring quality teaching Leading teacher learning and development Ensuring an orderly and safe environment Rank Order When principals participate with and promote teacher learning Page 12

13 Hattie and Robinson Reflected in FPLS Hattie & Robinson FPLS Domain/Standard Establishing goals and expectations Standard 1; Standard 2; Standard 9; Standard 10 Resourcing strategically Standard 6; Standard 8 Ensuring quality teaching Leading teacher learning and development Standard 3; Standard 4 Standard 4; Standard 6; Standard 7 Ensuring an orderly and safe environment Standard 2; Standard 5 FPLS=Florida Principal Leadership Standards Principal s Time Use and School Effectiveness Horng, E., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Stanford University Research Questions What do principals do? Where do principals spend their time? How do principals roles vary by school characteristics? How are variations in principals actions reflected in measurable school outcomes? Page 13

14 Where Do You Think Principals Spent Most of their Time? Time Categories Daily Instruction Observing teaching & giving feedback, attending team meeting and engaging in instructional talks Organizational Management Supervising staff, hiring External Relations Meeting with school partners, civic leagues, rotary, etc. Administration Reports, s, central requests, and student discipline Instructional Program Course scope & sequence, curriculum pacing Internal Relations Speaking with parents, students, & staff Other Rank New vs. Veteran Principals New principals spent over 34% of their time in administrative duties while four-year veterans spent only 22% of their time on administrative tasks School Outcomes Principals in schools with higher accountability scores spent more time in day to day instruction than those with lower scores 42 Page 14

15 School Outcomes The lowest performing schools have principals who spend the most time on administrative tasks 43 Staff Perceptions Time spent on instructional activities is positively associated with the staff s perceptions of the school s educational environment and teacher s satisfaction with teaching in general Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning 9 states 43 school districts 180 schools Wahlstrom, K. L., Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S. A. (2010). Investigating the Links to Improved student learning: Executive summary of research findings. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. Page 15

16 Powering Leadership 2nd is second only to classroom instruction as an influence on student learning To date we have not found a single case of a school improving its student achievement record in the absence of talented leadership (p. 9) Core Leadership Practices Developing People Setting Directions Redesigning the Organization Managing the Instructional Program School s leaders have an impact on student achievement primarily through their influence on teacher s motivation and working conditions. Page 16

17 Teacher motivation had the strongest relationship to student achievement How To Motivate People Which Is Most Important? A) Public recognition B) Private recognition C) Bonuses for performance D) Threats for poor performance E) Data on personal and team progress F) Annual performance evaluations Amabile and Kramer, May 2011 Part III: Florida Principal Leadership Standards Handouts p. 2 Page 17

18 Learning Activity Florida Principal Leadership Standards Unwrapping the FPLS Part IV: Structure of the FSLA Page 18

19 FPLS to FSLA Domain (4) Proficiency (10) Proficiency Indicator (45) Indicator Indicator FSLA Domain 2 Proficiency Area 3 Indicator 3.2 Proficiency Area 3. Instructional Plan Implementation: Effective school leaders work collaboratively to develop and implement an instructional framework that aligns curriculum with state standards, effective instructional practices, student learning needs, and assessments. Indicator 3.2 Standards-Based Instruction: The leader delivers an instructional program that implements the state s adopted academic standards (Common Core and NGSSS) in a manner that is rigorous and culturally relevant to the students by: aligning academic standards, effective instruction and leadership, and student performance practices with system objectives, improvement planning, faculty proficiency needs, and appropriate instructional goals, and communicating to faculty the cause and effect relationship between effective instruction on academic standards and student performance. Performance Ratings Performance levels for summative rating must conform to the requirements of Section , F.S. Highly Effective (HE) Effective (E) Needs Improvement (NI) Unsatisfactory (U) No developing for administrators Page 19

20 Distinguishing Between Performance Ratings Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Highly Effective The Highly Effective level is reserved for truly outstanding leadership as described by very demanding criteria. Performance at this level is dramatically superior to Effective in its impact on students, staff members, parents, and the school district. Highly effective leadership results from recurring engagement with deliberate practice. In brief, the Highly Effective leader helps every other element within the organization become as good as they are. In normal distributions, some leaders will be rated highly effective on some indicators, but very few leaders will be rated highly effective as a summative performance level. Effective The Effective level describes leadership performance that has local impact (i.e., within the school) and meets organizational needs. It is adequate, necessary, and clearly makes a significant contribution to the school. The majority of the leadership workforce will be in the effective area once they have a clear understanding of what the FPLS require and have made the adjustments and growth necessary to upgrade performance. Page 20

21 Needs Improvement The Needs Improvement level describes principals who understand what is required for success, are willing to work toward that goal, and, with coaching and support, can become proficient. Needs improvement rating will occur where expectations have been raised and standards made more focused and specific. Professional behavior and focused professional learning will guide school leaders toward increasingly effective performance. Unsatisfactory Performance at the Unsatisfactory level describe leaders who do not understand what is required for proficiency or who have demonstrated through their actions and/or inactions that they choose not to become proficient on the strategies, knowledge bases, and skills sets needed for student learning to improve and faculties to develop. Performance Labels The performance labels used in Section , F.S. for summative performance levels are also used in the FSLA to summarize feedback on domains, proficiency areas, and indicators: Highly Effective (HE) Effective (E) Needs Improvement (NI) Unsatisfactory (U) Page 21

22 Four Performance Ratings Domain 1: Student Achievement ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Scale Levels: (choose one) Where there is sufficient evidence to rate current proficiency on an indicator, assign a proficiency level by checking one of the four proficiency levels. If not being rated at this time, leave blank. Proficiency Area 1 Student Learning Results: Effective school leaders achieve results on the school s student learning goals and direct energy, influence, and resources toward data analysis for instructional improvement, development and implementation of quality standards based curricula. ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 1.1 Academic Standards ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 1.2 Performance Data ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 1.3 Planning and Goal Setting ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 1.4 Student Achievement Results ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Proficiency Area 2 Student Learning as a Priority: Effective school leaders demonstrate that student learning is their top priority through effective leadership actions that build and support a learning organization focused on student success. ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 2.1 Learning Organization ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 2.2 School Climate ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 2.3 High Expectations ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator 2.4 Student Performance Focus ( ) Highly Effective ( ) Effective ( ) Needs Improvement ( ) Unsatisfactory Indicator ratings combine for a proficiency area rating, and proficiency area ratings combine for a domain rating Direct Weighting Direct Weighting: The FSLA score is based on ratings for each of four domains, but the system specifically gives added weight to Domain 2: Instructional Leadership: The weights are: Domain 1: Student Achievement: 20% Domain 2: Instructional Leadership: 40% Domain 3: Organizational Leadership: 20% Domain 4: Professional and Ethical Behavior: 20% Additional Metric Deliberate Practice Page 22

23 Learning Activity Understanding Deliberate Practice Jigsaw Activity The Power of Deliberate Practice Leadership Practice Score Leadership Practice Score Formula FSLA Score 4 Domains 10 Proficiencies 45 Indicators 80% Deliberate Practice 20% = Leadership Practice Score Page 23

24 Summative Performance Score Overall Performance Score Formula Student Growth Measure 50% Leadership Practice Score 50% = Overall Performance Score Part V: Process Overview FSLA Process Overview Page 24

25 Reflection How does the FSLA compare to your current leader evaluation system? How will it work with the other systems in place at your school? Day 1 Feedback Tomorrow we will Questions & Reflection The Leadership and Learning Center leadandlearn.com Page 25