Okaloosa County School DistrictMarch 4, 2015 4:30p.m. The meeting was called to order at 4:40p.m. by Elaine Crump Approval of Minutes from January 21, 2015 Old Business New Business

Teacher Evaluation Committee Meeting

June 3, 2015

4:30 p.m.

In attendance: Dan Cihanowic Elaine Crump

Michel Swain Karen Peek Sheila Lightbourne Laura King

Joe Peterson Stacie Smith Peggy Nehring Michelle Heck Duscha Ross Rosemarie Morris Leray Williams Tammy Matz Proxy: Greg Butler Angelique Cox Visitors: None The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m., by Karen Peek. Karen asked members to introduce themselves and gave a brief overview of the committee’s history. The committee was formed as a result of the RTTT Grant. Union and district were required by the language in the grant to work collaboratively. We have been fortunate to continue the committee even after the grant was expired and all decisions must be approved during ratification of the contract. We meet the first Wednesday of every month at 4:30, in the Niceville Dining Complex. We will meet more frequently during the summer. Members should give their proxy to a fellow member when it is necessary to be absent from a scheduled meeting.

Motion to accept the Minutes of May 6, 2015, moved by Stacie, seconded by Sheila. Motion passes.

Old Business

• Appeals – Karen announced appeals are set for Monday. Only 3 appeals so far and each component will be allowed 15 minutes. The committee will meet at 7:30 a.m. The members of

the committee are Jennifer Sjostrom, Michael Swain, and Beth Harr for the Union. The fourth person, Joe Johnson, may attend and will be the alternate. The district representatives are Jason McClelland, Vicky Hayden, Cynthia Hudson and alternate, Samantha Dawson. If we have more than a day’s worth, it will carry over to the 9th.

• PD points will be up on MLP by Friday.

New Business

• Invalid Tests – Elaine asked to discuss the repercussion of invalid tests. What do we do if FSA is invalid? If FSA teachers cannot get a score then no one gets a score? The state validation must occur by Sept. 1.

Karen: Should we wait until Sept. to make those decisions?

Elaine: I feel we should bounce these ideas around now. What would we do for those that don’t have a score?

Duscha: What extent are we held responsible for putting out a score?

Elaine: So DOE will have some guidance?

Duscha: DOE would need to have some guidance.

Karen: DOE is reacting to legislation and has no control.

Tammy: In 5th grade, some schools didn’t give DEA math in spring. If one teacher group doesn’t have scores then we have to wipe out everyone.

Duscha: It is a bigger issue. From a data stand point, then no one would receive anything instead of some districts will and some districts won’t.

Karen: Very good conversation, but there is no answer yet. We can be thinking of a solution.

Dan: If we don’t have scores then the people under the pay for performance will be without a score.

Elaine: Polk County decided not to use student performance scores.

Rosemarie: If FSA gets invalidated than the state may make a decision to change the expectations.

Karen: I am interested in the topic, but it is still early.

Sheila: Curriculum is leaning towards what legislation is saying, about not requiring FSA scores. Allowing the teachers to assess what the teachers prefer.

Michael: How does that effect equity?

Sheila: As Karen said, Curriculum is worried about curriculum and TEC is based on curriculum decisions.

Karen: This committee will do what is best for students.

Elaine: There are lots of ways to make it work and make it not punitive.

Karen: The TEC has the ability to reduce it to 33 1/3. We have fought to do it fairly and we can make adjustments based on what is best for students. The sooner the TEC knows what curriculum is deciding, and then we can make decisions. Does anyone have a deep seated angst about doing away with EOCs?

Tammy: If a child is taking an EOC and another is taking a teacher made test, we need to be cautious about having multiple tests for the same course.

Sheila: The majority are multiple choice. There is always going to be inequalities. There are a lot of issues: the bank, question style.

Tammy: I worry about losing good teachers that opt out for the comfort of giving a middle school test instead.

Elaine: We can take care of people’s scores. Three years ago I couldn’t have said that based on the expectations.

Karen: We need to make sure the message is out to the teachers. The state has said that they are not setting cut scores and acknowledge that we can’t fix it.

Tammy: Whenever teachers design their own tests, they’re going to feel more comfortable.

Karen: We put so much effort into the very best job and then things changed quickly.

Rosemarie: After the 3, 4, or 5-year point, the air goes out of them.

Karen: We are going to continue to work on the teacher portion of the evaluation.

• Principals Survey

Karen: I wanted to talk to principals about changing the walk-through form. Is this committee willing to change the walk-through form?

Elaine: Go back to the exact fill in walk-through.

Karen: Principals could choose what works best for them.

Elaine: Asking if principals want this one or this one? If not, then the walk-through form would need to come to our committee.

Tammy: I prefer the narrative.

Michelle: I always use the narrative. The check boxes mean nothing.

Joe: The walk-through does move forward on the evaluation form.

Tammy: There is not a place to make a rating.

Rosemarie: Under classroom management a principal could write a narrative and then add to the evaluation.

Tammy: A walk-through tells a different picture than a formal observation.

Leray: The narrative form took too long to complete, whereas the check list was user friendly.

Dan: Could a hybrid of the two be available? A narrative pops up when checking a component on the walk-through.

Karen: I can talk to MLP.

Tammy: If you can click a rating in the walk-through that would be beautiful.

Rosemarie: It is an opportunity to gather evidence.

Karen: Intent for today is to see if we should survey the principals?

• Summer Schedule

Karen: Some things we need to work on include - new handbook, walk-through forms, evaluation metric, metric percent, rubric language, and SPS.

Elaine: Observation rubric language – putting the rubric on a diet. Changing the frequency of observations, categories, etc…

Karen: Peer evaluators have asked that a window be set up to coordinate peer evaluator and admin observations.

• Next meeting - June 19, 2015, at 8 a.m. Location TBD

• Adjourn

Motion made to adjourn by Michael, Dan seconded. Meeting adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

Butler, Greg

Cihanowic, Dan

Crump, Elaine

DuBose, Darron

Gates, Cindy

King, Laura

TEACHER EVALUATION COMMITTEE

April 1, 2015 COMMITTEE MEETING

Please sign in on this sheet for attendance

Matz, Tammy

Lightbourne, Sheila

Mason, Kay

McAllister, Carolyn

Peek, Karen

Peterson, Joe

Ross, Duscha

Stacie Smith

Stillions, Marlynn

Swain, Michael


April 1, 2015

4:30PM

Central Kitchen Dining Room

• Approval of minutes from March 4, 2015

• Old Business

• Follow-up to school visits

• New Business

• On-going questions/concerns

1. Amending local exclusion language for non-VAM state assessments (Crump) 2. Third grade average set to 50 (Crump) 3. Delayed reporting from DOE (King) 4. Retention (King) 5. Appeal's policy-one course with two exams (Stone/Ross) 6. Appeal's policy- co-teacher (Abernathy/Ross) 7. Wheel EOC- (Tomassetti/Ross) 8. Local Exclusions- anything automatic (Silver Sands/Peek) 9. Nursing Students - (Myers/Peek) 10. Possible revisions to the rubrics (Matz) 11. AP Scores (Crump) 12. Reading Teacher/E2020 (Powell/Peek)

• Next Meeting -Wednesday, May 6, 2015, at 4:30 PM

• Adjourn

In attendance:

Proxies:


Kay Mason Elaine Crump Michel Swain Karen Peek Laura King Tammy Matz Greg Butler Joe Peterson Marlynn Stillions Carolyn McAllister Duscha Ross

Cindy Gates Dan Cihanowic Stacie Smith Michael Swain Darron DuBose

April 1, 2015

4:30p.m.

The meeting was called to order at 4:30P.M., by Karen Peek

Approval of Minutes from March 4, 2015 Laura motioned to approve minutes. Kay seconded. Motion approved .

Old Business

School visits going well, tomorrow is the last day. Follow up questions to follow in new business.

New Business 1. Motion by Elaine Crump to allow the local verification rosters tool for all non-FSA classes, Greg

Butler, seconded. Motion passed. 2. Karen will clarify to teachers that the local exclusion tool is for all non-VAM courses and that 20

days is not specifically used in the VAM calculation, but rather total attendance is used. 3. Joe expresses a concern mathematically at the possibility of the teacher's VAM being negatively

affected based on grouping of students. The committee says it has been a problem with both low and high students. Teachers have the option to transfer and administration has the option to not group that way.

4. Duscha brings appeal concerns to committee's attention to set precedence: Students took additional course with an additional assessment; the teacher wanted both assessments to count toward her VAM score. If, in fact, the ccrurse qualified for the score to

count twice, her VAM would have increased .01, which would not have impacted her overall rating. Duscha recommends that we need to have a procedure in place at the beginning of the course to prevent this discrepancy at the end. Laura King made the motion, "No more than one assessment per student per course can be used in the calculation of a teacher's student performance score. "All assessments must be aligned to the course of record." Seconded by Greg. No one opposed . See pg. 193 of SPS.

5. The committee discussed how co-teacher VAM scores would be reported: MIS will calculate K-3 as one class 4-5 will be looked into further Karen is waiting for follow up with the state

6. Wheel EOC will be given. 7. Duscha will investigate further the automatic exclusion of 20 absences. 8. Nursing students - Tammy Matz moved "to have teachers of adult students complete an SLO. "

Seconded by Greg Butler. One opposed . Motion passed. 9. Reading teachers/E2020- Already determined that these teachers should have an SLO. 10. Intensive reading teacher clarification- Intensive reading teachers are an elective and receive

their SPS from a DEA score.

Next Meeting- May 6, 2015

Adjourn

Motion to adjourn by Joe. Greg seconded . 5:52 p.m.

Butler, Greg

Cihanowic, Dan

Crump, Elaine

DuBose, Darren

Gates, Cindy

King, Laura


March 4, 2015 COMMITTEE MEETING


Matz, Tammy

Lightbourne, Sheila

Mason, Kay

McAllister, Carolyn

Peek, Karen

Peterson, Joe

Ross, Duscha

Stacie Smith

Stillions, Marlynn

Swain, Michael

TEC Agenda

Niceville Dining Room

March 4, 2015

I. Approval of Minutes- January 21, 2015

II. Old Business

• State Approved Document

• Touch-up to State Approved Document

• SPS presentations ~

• Document placed on Web-site /

Ill. New Business

e.\!ppeals Date T •

IV. Adjourn


In attendance: Dan Cihanowic Kay Mason Elaine Crump Michel Swain Karen Peek Tammy Matz Laura King Darron DuBose Cindy Gates

Visitors:

Sheila Lightbourne Joe Peterson Marlynn Stillions Carolyn McAllister Stacie Smith

March 4, 2015

4:30p.m.

The meeting was called to order at 4:40p.m. by Elaine Crump

Approval of Minutes from January 21, 2015

Old Business

New Business

he-Karen will'gQ. going to every school to present an overview of the recently approved Student Performance Score portion of the Evaluation System.

As of today, there will no longer be an 11th grade FSA test. Those teachers will need to give a district EO C.

Cindy asked if a decision was made about PERT? Elaine answered there was nothing definite yet. Everyone agrees we would like to keep it in place because of its usefulness.

In the artifact file on OASIS platform (pg.7) of the Evaluation handbook it says it has the word optional. The committee agrees that submitting artifacts is optional; however if a teacher has artifacts, they must be submitted electronically.

Dan moved to remove the word optional. Joe seconded. Motion passed.

Karen reviewed necessary changes to the handbook on pg. 7 relating to the 2% of the Teacher Performance Score.

Cindy moved to accept changes made in the handbook. Stacie seconded. Motion passed.

r ~peals date set for June 8, 2015, and if needed June 9, 2015.

Next Meeting -April1, 2015

Adjourn 5:15

Butler, Greg

Cihanowic, Dan

Crump, Elaine

DuBose, Darron

Gates, Cindy

King , Laura

Matz, Tammy


January 21, 2015 COMMITTEE MEETING


Lightbourne, Sheila

Mason, Kay

McAllister, Carolyn

Peek, Karen

Peterson, Joe

Ross, Duscha

Stacie Smith

Stillions, Marlynn \..

Swain , Michael

Teacher Evaluation Committee Meeting/RUT

January 21, 2015

4:30PM


I. Approval of minutes from January 7, 2015

II. Old Business

• Continued Review of the SPS document

• DOE Request- additional matrix and course code section

• Attendance issue - L,r!__/

• Middle School Wheel ./

• DEA capture date

Ill. New Business

•

IV. Next Meeting- Wednesday, February 4, 2015, at 4:30PM (if necessary)

V. Adjourn


In attendance: Dan Cihanowic Kay Mason Elaine Crump Greg Butler Michael Swain Karen Peek Tammy Matz Laura King Darron DuBose Cindy Gates Sheila Lightbourne Marlynn Stillions Duscha Ross Carolyn McAllister Stacie Smith

Visitors: Mary Beth Jackson

January 21, 2015

4:30p.m.

Karen Peek called the meeting to order and reminded everyone she was using the recording pen.

Reviewed minutes from meeting of January i h. Minutes to be approved. Motion made by Greg Butler

and seconded by Darren DuBose.

DOE requests- motion made by Stacie Smith and seconded by Sheila Lightbourne. Vote on each request.

Labels- Joe has gone back identified name changes needing to be made. Same as above for motions.

Page 25- FSA changed to FSA/ELA. Motion made by Stacie Smith and seconded by Sheila Lightbourne.

Motion passed.

What is the breakdown of the metrics used to calculate the final score? Should be 3 pieces. Motion

made by Carolyn McAllister and seconded by Darron DuBose. Discussion followed.

Elaine- would it require teachers to do the same SLO paperwork as now?

Karen- you cannot see the thumb. If the administrator clicks on it that would be proof. Not going to ask

principals to scrutinize it any more than they do now.

Carolyn- when the teacher writes the student objective, I have always said they need to raise the bar

and make it high. If I see they are working hard then I am OK. It is a matter of writing that objective

then they will get the points.

Tammy- 300 points for doing it.

Karen- not really 300 points. This will always give you 6 points. Can justify to our teachers the state

asked us to do this.

Elaine- go right ahead because it will satisfy them.

Greg- districts have parents complete surveys. Problem with I PDP if principals try to strong arm

teachers and say they have to do this.

Karen- statute never says a parent survey has to be done. Teachers benefit- will be one less thing to do

at the last minute.

Elaine- need to add language that is not a matter of meeting the goal but having the goal written.

Would like language added for clarification.

Karen- we will use the language. Motion passed with 1 no vote .

Karen- we do these things not certifying you are doing your best work.

Sheila- memo needed to administrators?

Greg- needs to be in the handbook.

Language will be in the yellow area.

Dan- my administrator never signed my IPDP. Is that a problem?

Karen- it has been finalized. It will be finalized at the end of the year no matter. Don't want to impact

teachers negatively.

Elaine proposes: and the finalized current year.

Motion made by ....... and seconded by Cindy Gates.

Attendance issue- tied to middle school wheel issue. Teacher is concerned about students he only has

for one nine weeks. Course code. 4 teachers will get together and write an EOC that touches on all

subjects. Can he disallow all the students because they are not in their class for more 20 days?

Sheila- proposed mini EOCs for the end of each nine weeks.

Karen- easy fix for next year but two of the nine weeks have already passed. Teacher proposes remedy?

No just a concern.

Karen- could we survey the teachers and see if they have a fix?

Carolyn- can we wait until Feb. 4th?

Karen- a curriculum issue.

Sheila- we could survey the teachers. Dependent on the schools and it would have to be done for each

school.

Karen- people going to Title 1 positions. Wondering if they go an SLO or do they just take the sore of the

students they had the first semester?

Sheila- we will get the teachers together and they will decide what to do.

Motion for Title 1 teachers- Darren moves for the Title 1 teachers moving from the classroom be given

the SLO.

Tammy- the teachers taking those positions will be given the scores of those students.

DEA capture dates- Marlynn Stillions- appeal denied to teacher because teacher did not verify roster in

the window. Duscha Ross made adjustments due to differences in the DEA capture dates.

Tammy Matz- DEA capture date should have been done before the end of the year.

Karen- need to educate those teachers. Do a better job of it.

Marlynn- does she need to verify because the student has been moved from regular standards to special

standards?

Karen- student will be removed at the end because he won't have an end of year score.

Sheila- is teacher being punished because she did a favor in taking the EBD class?

Karen- we made a decision at that time trying to be consistent. Would have to go back and look at the

minutes. She will know when he is not on her roster at the end because he didn't take the end of year

test.

Elaine- are DEA capture dates published? Make sure capture window is adhered to.

New business:

Marlynn Stillions- clarification question. Refers to booklet from meeting. Shares scenario. Teacher

would have 12 EOCs and a VAM score. Will all12 EOCs be given?

Karen- Doesn't mean a separate test for each course. Create one EOC for that student. Remind them

what the statute says. Take the word EOC out of it and just assess your children the way you always do.

Trust them to make something that is applicable to their students

Tammy Matz - assistance from ESE department

Karen Peek- talked to Melanie.

Greg Butler- when are we going to tell teachers they are writing these exams?

Sheila Lightbourne- discussed at the principals meeting and will be given to teachers.

Karen- I will submit this tomorrow. Took 21 days last time. Hopefully they won't keep this going on and

we will not be meeting in Feb.

Elaine- let's just deal with them at our regularly scheduled meetings instead of jumping through hoops

at the request of DOE.

Karen- My concern is our teachers we are punishing by not having them know. I am not ready to

concede to not meeting carte blanche. Ready to pay for subs , etc.

Elaine- if little tweaks are needed then let's wait and meet at our regularly scheduled meetings.

Karen- at this time I will say we will not need to meet on Feb. 4 th. Unless something changes.

Sheila- problem with starting earlier?

Karen- Motion by Laura and seconded by Michael Swain to start scheduling the road shows as soon as it

discussed at the principals meeting.


January 7, 2015 COMMITTEE MEETING


Butler, Greg

Cihanowic, Dan

Crump, Elaine

DuBose, Darren

Gates, Cindy

King , Laura

Matz, Tammy

Lightbourne, Sheila

Mason, Kay

McAllister, Carolyn

Peek, Karen

Peterson, Joe

Ross, Duscha

Stacie Smith

Stillions, Marlynn

Swain , Michael

.-------

Teacher Evaluation Committee Meeting/RttT

January 7, 2015

4:30PM


I. Approval of minutes from November 5, 2014 and December 11 , 2014

II. Old Business

• Review of submitted Student Performance Doc~ment ~ (ft rse.-s -~ (!j_) PK • 0?M'I1D. t0!1f~ ) ~'i Cerl ..

V0. -u~ltU5

Ill. New Business

• Document sent regarding SLO forms

• Follow-up to SLO notification

IV. Next Meeting- Wednesday, February 4, 2015, at 4:30PM

V. Adjourn


In attendance: Dan Cihanowic

Kay Mason

Elaine Crump

Karen Peek

Darren DuBose Greg Butler Joe Peterson Marlynn Stillions Carolyn McAllister Duscha Ross Tammy Matz

January 7, 2014

4:30p.m.

The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Karen Peek

Review of minutes from November 5, 2014.

Elaine pointed out that under new business we should not have voted on the appointment of new members since they are appointed by the respective groups and do not need the "approval" of the committee.

Joe said on page 2, the statement by him should read "they are being measured on their average gains and not their percentage of gains." Correction noted.

Approval of Minutes from 11/5/15 Moved by Elaine Crump. Seconded by Dan Cihanowic. Motion passes.

Committee then looked at the December minutes. Karen worked through the changes made in the Student Performance Document. The committee returned to the discussion regarding excused or unexcused on page 4 #2. Karen reported that even though the document has been submitted, we still need to clarify the language.

Greg suggested we correct it to state "missing 20 or more class periods."

Karen asked for a show of hands to accept the new language.

Elaine asked if this applied to elementary.

Duscha stated, yes, it is reported on the roster verification, just like anyone one at the local level.

Joe asked if we had a policy written down.

Karen stated this is the only place it is written.

Joe asked where the official rule was written. Karen read where the original language was written.

She pointed out that this wasn't clear and used the term "absences." We are trying to change to intent.

Darren said they were always told that school leave didn't count in the 20 absences.

Elaine said we always knew it includes other things, school leave was a big part of it.

Duscha stated we haven't vetted those that have asked for exclusion. There was nothing more required of them. It is so few people, less than 50, have utilized the exclusion option. Missed class is the broadest language we could give them.

Duscha said principals have to review, but MIS doesn't see that part of it. Joe asked that the wording that says the teacher "may'' exclude. He wonders if that means they don't have to exclude. Duscha explained that the district does exclude a student that has 20 or more daily absences, but we don't determine what a teacher does.

Karen said we can have the conversation later if we want to control down to teacher level.

Karen directed the committee to look at the new VAM Bearing language on pages 5 and 6.

Elaine asked to see the raw VAM data. Duscha said she would send that to her.

Committee moved to State EOC language on page 12. There was discussion about students in AP history also taking the state EOC. Which score does the teacher receive?

Joe reviewed the language of Teacher (single-class) EOC. He explained under the original language, they would only have the ability to earn either a 180 or a 300. Under this new language, pass/fail they have the ability to earn anything between 0 and 300.

Elaine asked if there is a school where the teacher teachers one course all day.

Karen answered yes, there are many. You can see by the list under course code because there is not the time to develop district EOC. If we continue, we have to work on getting this list down.

Elaine stated if we do it the first way everyone has a 180. If we do it the new way, everyone has a 300. Joe stated it depends on the teacher.

Elaine said she was more comfortable with the second way.

Marlynn asked about students on special standards. She described a class with two students on regular standards and three on special standards.

Karen reminded her it is the EDM method. The two with FSA will have that score and the other three will have an EOC.

Karen pointed out the completed SLO document will be due on September 1.

t

Karen reported the document was submitted.

Elaine asked if we have heard anything from the state.

Karen reported that we received confirmation that it was submitted.

Karen directed the committee to look at the course code section that was completed by Mr. Horton. It was pointed out that DEA should have DEA-ELA just like they have for FSA. Karen stated that Kelly Ogleby at the DOE says most districts are using DEA and FSA for social studies and science in the nontested grades.

Karen asked about page 15, District Title 1. Duscha says that because it has a course code there has to be students assigned. We need to check to see who is in these classes. Karen said she would check with curriculum regarding some of the designations.

Duscha asked to have a copy and will talk with CHOICE to be sure they are in the loop.

Approval of minutes from 12/11/14 Moved by Greg Butler. Seconded by Carolyn McAllister. Motion passes.

Old Business Covered in the review of December minutes.

New Business

Karen shared the SLO document. Joe stated we had received 44. I am contacting teachers to let them know they don't need an SLO. PreK Disabilities teachers are a little confused. Others in question:

PreK-D -Needs EOC Gifted Teacher has students in gradebook but doesn't give grades -Needs SLO Parenting class- district EOC Visual impairments- one grade is assigned- depends on the subject grade is assigned to Nursing- needs EOC

SLOs are due January 21. Duscha asked if they didn't submit by the date would they get a zero.

Karen stated that if they had been contacted and didn't respond that might be the reason for a zero in that one part. Duscha stated she would need that in writing.

Adjourn- motion by Joe. Seconded by Duscha. Motion passed unanimously Next Meeting- Wednesday, February 4, 2015, at 4:30

Adjourn

Butler, Greg

Cihanowic, Dan

Crump, Elaine

DuBose, Darren

Gates, Cindy

King , Laura


December 11, 2014 COMMITTEE MEETING


Matz, Tammy

Lightbourne, Sheila

Mason, Kay

McAllister, Carolyn

Peek, Karen

Peterson, Joe

Ross, Duscha

Stacie Smith

Stillions, Marlynn

Swain , Michael


December 11, 2014

4:30PM


I. Approval of minutes from October 1, 2014- not available

II. Old Business

• Review of Student Performance Document

Ill. New Business

IV. Next Meeting- Wednesday, January 7, 2015, at 4:30PM

V. Adjourn


In attendance: Dan Cihanowic Kay Mason Elaine Crump Karen Peek Tammy Matz- proxy Laura King Cindy Gates Sheila Lightbourne Joe Peterson Stacie Smith Marlynn Stillions Carolyn McAllister Duscha Ross

Visitors: Marcus Chambers

December 11, 2014

3:00p.m.

Karen announced that the meeting would be taped and described the completed Student

Performance section of the evaluation handbook.

The following items were identified to be corrected:

Page 2 -was suggested that a number 6 be added that includes student learning objective. This

change was not made since it was copied straight from the F.S.1003.41.

Karen explained the expiration of the option to use the SLO after this school year.

Page 3- add Industry Certification after the bullet that has AP, IB, AICE, PERT. After the

bullets add "when a teacher teachers more than one course" to the beginning of the sentence.

Marlynn asked about students in primary VE classes where one student takes the DEA test and

the others are on special standards.

Karen explained that the students on special standards will have an EOC. You would have a

course that has more than one assessment.

Page 4 #2 above should be changed to below.

Page 4 Exclusion - #1 change to "after the verification period, "

Page 4 preference statement- remove "with limitations"

Page 4 #2, This needs to be worked on .... right now it states" add excused or unexcused, class

period."

Bottom of page 4 changed to "recorded" not reported. "This designation is reported annually to

the ... " Designation was not change in the first section.

Page 5- Calculation Methodology- committee worked through making the changes noted.

Page 12- U.S. History .. .is optional if they take the AP test. We need to check with the DOE

regarding which score will count.

Page 12- Teacher (singe-class) EOC. Long conversation regarding the inequities of receiving a

180 or a 300. This was changed to a pass/fail.

Page 13- Teachers that have a course that is not educational, such as community service, will

have the ability to appeal and have those scores removed.

Page 13 September 1 changed to August 30. Wasn't done.

Algebra II goes under a state EOC.

Back to page 5 - FSA rewritten section and set apart from the others sections.

Joe- Moved to approve the draft as corrected by the members of the committee and submit to

the FDOE. Seconded my Stacie Smith. Motion passes unanimously.

Butler, Greg

Cihanowic, Dan

Crump, Elaine

DuBose, Darren

Gates, Cindy

Handzo, Lois


NOVEMBER 5, 2014 COMMITTEE MEETING


King, Laura

Kirkland, Jeanine

Lightbourne, Sheila

Mason, Kay

McAllister, Carolyn

Peek, Karen

Peterson, Joe

Ross, Duscha

Stacie Smith

Stillions, Marlynn

Swain, Michael


November 5, 2014

4:30PM


I. Approval of minutes from October 1, 2014

• Replacement of Retiring Member

II. Old Business

• Evaluator Follow-Up Training

• 2013-2014 Data Review

• Appeal Extension

Ill. New Business

• EOC Draft Proposal

• Category 6 Options

• Ad-hoc forms

• SPS Sub-Committee Report/ November meeting schedule

IV. Next Meeting- Wednesday, December 3, 2014, at 4:30 PM

V. Adjourn


In attendance: Dan Cihanowic Kay Mason Elaine Crump Michel Swain Denise Tucker Karen Peek Tammy Matz Laura King Darren DuBose Cindy Gates Greg Butler Sheila Lightbourne Joe Peterson Stacie Smith Marlynn Stillions Carolyn McAllister Duscha Ross

November 5, 2014

4:30p.m.

Visitors- Mary Beth Jackson, Diane Kelley, Steve Horton, and Marcus Chambers

The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Karen Peek.

Approval of Minutes from 10/1/14 Greg made a motion to approve the minutes. Laura King seconded the motion.

New Business

Motion by Cindy Gates/2nd by Carolyn McAlister for Stacie Smith to rejoin the committee. Motion by Laura King/ 2nd by Duscha Ross for Tammy Matz to join the committee representing elementary.

Old Business

Evaluator Follow-up Training- Karen Peek addressed that training was successful. As a result, we will be offering further training over the summer for teachers on the rubric.

2013-2014 Data Review- Duscha Ross

On the Monday following release, appeals came in starting with teachers with scores from kindergarten without DEA scores. We need to clarify that DEA teachers do not have a VAM.

Problem #1

Teacher #1 does not have a reading class and Teacher #2 does not have math triggering investigation. It showed that there was an inconsistency on the data collection windows. Duscha apologizes as her department was unaware that not every elementary school was using the same window. Karen said DEA has been resolved. Windows were not a problem for 1-3 and should not be a problem from here on out.

Problem# 2 Teachers who did not have SLO scores had a 0. Of the 74 people, all but 52 were solved.

Duscha stated that 52 of the people should have been aware. Elaine said some did and some did not. Karen clarified that the flaw is that it came to an administrator to submit it. This year we will perhaps have it signed and submitted by the teacher.

Duscha- We also had many Title 1 teachers without a score. The way we had planned to attribute scores to title teachers is to attach scores from students they worked with but without a course that can't be done. Through this we discovered that Title 1 teachers need to receive an SLO. Karen points out that the Title teachers were included in the 54. Duscha said that out of all Title 1 teachers there were 7 who needed scores and they are all taken care of now. Greg- There was more than 7 on the list. Duscha - yes but they already had scores.

Problem #3 Duscha -One thing overlooked was web design. Those teachers EOCs are being reviewed. It is not yet resolved but in progress. Elaine- How did that happen? Duscha - It wasn't on the list. I can't tell you exactly what the cause was at this time. We are committed to making accurate and val id judgments. If it was missed it was an oversight but not intentional. We are working hard and will get this right.

Carolyn McAllister- thank you for being so prompt and thorough in addressing the concerns.

Problem# 4 AICE/ IB scores were not used in past calculations. By and large AICE/IB has been resolved except for a few individual teachers.

Problem #5 Approximately 60 teachers submitted appea ls on grades 1-3. Karen explained that we switched from measuring data from fall to spring to spring to spring this year.

Joe said that K-3 have the lowest scores. ~

He added they are being measured on their average gains and n~ fUAUi,Lk tjL 1 ~~ Problem #6 Duscha- In removing the district average from all three years, it brought people to a closer norm. If we continue to keep the district average, we continue to inflate the score. Elaine - I understand the rational, but why didn't you use the EDM in the previous years?

Duscha- Because the statute didn't say to do that.

Greg- I wasn't under the impression we were going to change the student performance scores in the past by removing the district average. Duscha- We are not changing. We are just not inflating. Elaine- When we removed the district average for this year, raise your hand if you thought that we were going to remove it from prior years. No response.

Karen uses Denise's scores (an SLO) to demonstrate what will happen if we put the district average back into prior years. Some scores will go down. Elaine- and some will go up.

Karen points out that Duscha followed the letter of the law and the committee never had a conversation regarding the meaning of the language.

Elaine -I move the score for each person be taken down and replaced with the score that represents an average of the score that was reported in 2011-12, the score that was reported in 2012-13, and the score that was calculated for 2013-14.Motion seconded by Greg.

Discussion

Marlynn asks Karen to demonstrate with her scores. Carolyn- if we do what Elaine is asking, won't we eventually have to do this? Michael- if the state says we can't use them this year, then it shouldn't mean we have to strip them from the past. Joe -I agree because the method was approved by committee, teachers, school board, and state at the time. Dan- state says that now we are not to use district or state average as of this year. The bottom line, we must follow state statute from here on out. Michael- you can't change the game once it has started. Let's leave it alone. Duscha - I want to go on record for saying that it may be painful but it is accurate data. I think your decision is based on how you're being treated ... Karen -I don't disagree that it isn't accurate data, or that we didn't get clear directions from DOE, but this will affects everyone in the district. Carolyn- I would think we would need to do a lot of education to the teachers. Kay- I don't know if the statute wants us to go out and redo all the scores for teachers. Elaine - I think 1st - 3rd grade is acutely aware. Diane- Does anybody know if we are in alignment with other districts? Duscha- I have talked to at least 4 districts that don't even have appeals process in place. Karen- from my experience, we all are in the same boat. At least our teachers have an appeal process. Mrs. Jackson - honestly, I'm listening to both sides. I understand the math. I understand that we don't want to be perceived as giving a false score. I agree they should know where they really are, but I think it would be a big mistake to change it now because of the fall out. It will be ugly. Elaine- we need to start providing teachers with the raw scores too. Mrs. Jackson- Karen has a good point too, I talked to a teacher who is concerned about this ... and I agree teachers probably don't even know what they have or why they have it. Duscha - the lack of knowledge is our biggest problem and the biggest service is educating them on how this is done. Karen - maybe it is time for a road show again to hit every school

Steve- why can't we send an email to Tallahassee to ask if from here on out we can remove all district averages. If Mrs. Jackson has to sign a document to say that all scores are void of district averages then I'm not sure about that because all scores haven't had district averages removed. Elaine- we did submit a plan that was approved Karen- we wrestled with contacting Tallahassee. Our past experience shows we contact them, wait and wait to get a response that isn't really a response . I see maybe a statement saying what we're going to address the statute. Steve- Yes. It's on record that this is our interpretation of the statute. Greg calls a motion to close discussion. Motion passes. Elaine restates her motion that the score for each person be taken down and replaced with the score that represents an average of the score that was reported in 2011-12, the score that was reported in 2012-13, and the score that was calculated for 2013-14.

Karen calls for a vote: 14 yes 2 no. The motion passes.

Duscha will have new scores available to view by Wednesday. Those available to meet next Wednesday can preview them. New scores will be published on Thursday and submit on Monday. Karen- appeal process goes for 15 days. Duscha- edits can continue but the state will collect scores on the 171h and from there on edits will be within our district, not the state.

Duscha will pull scores at 7:30am 11/6/14 Karen will send an email informing the teachers of the concerns discussed by TEC committee and the need to recalculate .

Cindy suggests they prepare the principals for this. Karen -how? Cindy -I'm not sure but I think they need to know. Karen- we could send an email to principals first but we do need to get it out to teachers. Cindy- I understand its time sensitive. Karen- do we need to include all of what Duscha said earlier? Greg- it needs to go to everybody Karen- but send to principals first? Cindy -I just feel strongly that principals need to know before everyone else. Greg- my experience is that principals will just forward. Carolyn- I think we need to know before teachers know. Karen- ok, I will send it to principals first and follow up to teachers.

New Business

EOC Draft Proposal

Category 6 Options- Principal writes a recommendation to superintendent to retain or dismiss. You cannot roll over to another 90 days.

Ad-hoc forms -Motion by Elaine to not add walk through forms. Second by Kay. Unanimous vote.

SPS Sub-Committee Report/Nov. meeting schedule

Karen- My aim is to get the SPS document to the DOE by December 17. We need to move our committee meetings to every week to get this done. Carolyn- what happens if you're late turning it in? Karen- it doesn't do any good putting it off. Carolyn- sometimes if we hurry we don't get it right. Karen- my goal is to get it done. I have money to pay for subs if you would like to meet next Wednesday.

Next Meeting- Wednesday, December 3, 2014 at 3:00. Let Karen know if you need a sub. Elaine wants to stipulate these will be working meetings and not voting meetings.

Adjourn

Motion to adjourn by Joe 6:32pm

Butler, Greg

Cihanowic, Dan

Crump, Elaine

DuBose, Darren

Gates, Cindy

Handzo, Lois


OCTOBER 1, 2014 COMMITTEE MEETING


King, Laura

Kirkland, Jeanine

Lightbourne, Sheila

Mason, Kay

McAllister, Carolyn

Peek, Karen

Peterson, Joe

Ross, Duscha

Stacie Smith

Stillions, Marlynn

Swain, Michael


October 1, 2014

4:30PM


I. Approval of minutes from September 3, 2014

II. Old Business

• Student Performance Scores 2013-2014- Duscha

• Requested DEA Data Comparison- Joe

Ill. New Business

• Form sub-committee to address evaluation requirements-handout

• Elimination of Local EOC

• Evaluator Follow-up in November

IV. Next Meeting -Wednesday, November 5, 2014, at 4:30 PM

V. Adjourn


In attendance: Dan Cihanowic Kay Mason Elaine Crump Denise Tucker Karen Peek Lois Handzo Laura King Greg Butler Joe Peterson Marlynn Stillions Carolyn McAllister Duscha Ross

October 1, 2014

4:30p.m.

The meeting was called to order at 4:35 p.m. by Lois Handzo. The minutes were reviewed. Motion made to approve minutes from September by Elaine Crump Second by Greg Butler

Old Business

Teacher Performance Scores 2013-2014- Duscha

Last year we set the calculation of 150 to equalize the VAM score. We are no longer using the district average, we are using 82.

Elaine asked what the highest score was. Duscha said 420, but she will receive a 300, and the lowest person will received an 82.

Elaine asked if the majority of the scores were in alignment with previous scores. Duscha said yes, between 60 and 75% were aligned. Duscha stated that they are waiting on the remainder of the SLOs before publishing, but trials are coming out fine . Next week scores should be in PAWS.

Elaine asked Duscha if she could report with any degree of certainty that the scores would ultimately be in alignment when released. Duscha said yes for about 85% of the teachers. The other 15% would be a result of the change over the 3 years of collected data .

Duscha offered to share an Employee Evaluation Score TAP and Student Performance Score TAP if we wanted to make available to teachers to understand where their scores came from.

The committee unanimously agreed for Duscha to send those reports to all employees next week.

Requested DEA Data Comparison -Joe

Joe pulled DEA scores from MIS from spring to spring looking at average gains, minimum gains and maximum gains. He showed a spreadsheet showing the results. He found that there was always a swing of student gains. He pointed out that teacher 6 moved from the bottom to the top based on their student's overall score. This mismatch trend was found throughout the report.

Carolyn asked how that compared with FCAT results where higher scales score don't actually measuring growth.

Elaine pointed out that VAM is not really growth, it is predicted growth based on so many factors. Joe agreed.

Joe stated the way we currently are doing DEA data collection is consistent. He suggests for next year we change the way we use the DEA data. His recommendation was we use a percentage of students who make gains instead of the average student gains.

Laura King said due to the changes in DEA, students have targets now and scores will be normed.

Carolyn stated she see a correlation between numbers of student gains with the number of effective/highly effective teachers.

New Business

Form Sub-committee to address evaluation requirements Karen spoke with the FLDOE today and the information that we were supposed to receive Sept. 30th will not be out until next week. The biggest change to the requirement in reporting is how we will provide data to prove our student/teacher data is accurate.

Duscha suggests everyone may not want to be a part of the data section. We may want to divide it up.

Greg suggests sub-committee should be 4-5 people. Duscha agrees. Duscha, Joe, Karen, Elaine and Marlynn volunteer for the committee. They will meet on Mondays at 2:15 in Karen's office until further notice. The evaluation system is due in

Tallahassee in December 31.

Marlynn asks if this sub-committee would address teachers who teach special needs students. Karen said there is was no mention of teachers that do not teach students without scores attached, but the sub-committees work would need to address all groups.

Elimination of local EOC Mr. Horton sent a copy of where there were duplications. Karen asked if we needed to address that. Elaine stated the TEC didn't. Greg agreed.

November re-training Karen announced that all evaluators were to participate in a one day follow-up training the first week of November.

Other Elaine brought up circulation of a new walk-through form being used. The group consensus was that no walk-through form should be used being submitted by the TEC for board and teacher approval.

Adjourn 5:29 p.m.

g T~HER EVALUATION COMMITTEE

~~~ :Sffi~ 3, 2014 COMMITTEE MEETING \Q ~ ~

Please s1gn in on this sheet for attendance

Butler, Greg

Cihanowic, Dan

Crump, Elaine

DuBose, Darren

Gates, Cindy

Handzo, Lois

King, Laura

Kirkland, Jeanine

Lightbourne, Sheila

Mason, Kay

McAllister, Carolyn

Peek, Karen

Peterson, Joe

Ross, Duscha

Stacie Smith

Stillions, Marlynn

Swain, Michael


September 3, 2014

4:30PM


I. Approval of minutes from August 6, 2014

II. Old Business

• Teacher Performance Scores 2013-2014- Duscha

Ill. New Business

• Student Performance Scores Procedure for 2014-2015

• Rubric Language Clarification Question - Dan

• Evaluation Training scheduled for September 8, 9,10

IV. Next Meeting -Wednesday, October 1, 2014, at 4:30 PM

V. Adjourn


In attendance: Dan Cihanowic Kay Mason Elaine Crump Michael Swain Denise Tucker Karen Peek Lois Handzo Laura King Darren DuBose Cindy Gates Greg Butler Sheila Lightbourne Joe Peterson Jeanine Kirkland Marilyn Stillions Carolyn McAllister Duscha Ross

September 3, 2014

4:30p.m.

The meeting was called to order at 4:30P.M. by Karen Peek. Laura King was introduced as a new member representing teachers and Denise Tucker as a non-member serving as recording secretary.

Old business- Teacher Performance Scores 2013-2014

Duscha will explain the change in teacher VAM multiplier in October. It will be finalized by next week. She is working with Brian Hughes on programming. Karen will submit document to DOE when approved by the committee.

Duscha presented configurations for VAM scores.

Steve Horton, guest, explained the disconnect between the state's definition of proficiency and our county's definition of proficiency. He explained how the 2nd VAM score was configured with this disconnect in mind. Elaine said that it was never the committee's intention to inflate the teacher's VAM due to student performance. Karen asked for committee feedback on this information. Darren asked why 75 were used as proficiency, not 70. Steve said that it was determined to be reasonable for passing. Elaine asked what the district pass rate was for EOC 2013-2014 pre-scale and post-scale with and without ELA. Steve said he could provide the rate. Karen ask how EOC Eng. 1 on average would match up with VAM scores if they were compared

Steve reminded the committee that all high schools, middle schools, and now elementary schools will be giving EOC assessments. The committee discussed the when and if these EOCs would be used for student performance scores.

Karen suggested identifying every subject area 61h grade and under that is missing and EOC, and also identifying any elementary teachers who may be teaching only science.

Joe stated that an option for SLO is that PE/SLD teachers could use a Florida alternate test. Teachers would need to set their own perimeters since they don't have a pre or post assessment.

Lois said that the Battelle wouldn't be given annually so it wouldn't be good to use for growth.

For DEA it was discussed using percent of those students showing gains instead of the average of student performance. Karen asked Joe if he could run a comparison of the two data sets.

New Business

Item 1 -Student Performance Scores Karen shared an email from Dr. Moore regarding the calculation ofthe VAM score. He indicated that if changes are needed, we need to make them and return them for review. That has not been done since the changes are still being finalized by MIS. Changes have been made to the handbook but have not been submitted to DOE at this time.

Karen Peek raised the question of starting of the revision to the evaluation documents or waiting for further directives from Tallahassee. Elaine Crump suggests waiting until receiving further word from Tallahassee, Jeanine agrees.

Karen asked how long we could hold off before making a commitment to teachers. Elaine suggested keeping everything the same until the state requires otherwise. Karen rephrased, at what point should we commit to keeping our IPDP/SLO the same as what is currently in place?

Dan moved to go with what we have right now for SLO. Darren seconded the motion. Discussion: Carolyn McAllister asked if this is just for SLOs. Dan repeated the motion. Motion passed 8/5 to keep the SLO the same

Item 2- Rubric Language Dan had submitted a question on behalf of Mrs. Couvillon: 4d: Growing and Developing Professionally: Mrs. Couvillon feels that effective and highly effective are backwards. The interpretation is that the teacher initiates implementing the new strategies and it's not required.

Karen asked if there was a motion to make the change. No motion was made.

Item 3- Evaluation Training Dates Cindy Kratzer from Teaching Learning Solutions will be back next week to train and calibrate all newly hired administrators.

Other Business Dan brought up a need to provide teachers with directions on how to put things in their bucket (artifact file) . Karen said that it is in the works and a tutorial links will added to the website.

Joe Peterson moved to adjourn. Seconded Meeting adjourned at 5:32.

Butler, Greg

Cihanowic, Dan

Crump, Elaine

DyBose, Darren

Ga.tes, Cindy

Handzo, Lois


August 6, 2014 COMMITTEE MEETING


King, Laura

Kirkland, Jeanine

Lightbourne, Sheila

Mason, Kay

McAllister, Carolyn

Peek, Karen

Peterson, Joe

Ross, Duscha

:6t.,Lif Sii II,~.

Stillions, Marlynn

Swain, Michael

. . . ---~-- . g,_


August 6, 2014

4:30PM


I. Approval of minutes from June 4, 2014

II. Old Business

Ill. New Business

• Review of Board Approved TPS Handbook

• Corrections to the Board Approved TPS Handbook

• Review of the State Approved SPS Handbook

• Corrections to the State Approved SPS Handbook

IV. Next Meeting- Wednesday, September 3 at 4:30PM

V. Adjourn

Greg Butler

Teacher Evaluation Committee Meeting August4,2014

Elaine Crump- by phone Lois Handzo Kay Mason Carolyn McAllister Karen Peek Michael Swain Dan Cihanowic Jeanine Kirkland Duscha Ross Joe Peterson Sheila Lightbourne

The meeting was called to order at 4:30.

Motion to approve minutes from 6/4/14. Moved and seconded by Jeanine and Dan. Motion passes.

Review of the changes necessary to the handbook. Page 6 and 7. Language that needs to be added: timelines for walk-throughs and observations.

Walk-throughs begin on the 11th student attendance day. Moved and seconded. Motion passes 10-1 Elaine- No.

Observations will begin on the 21st student attendance day. Moved and seconded. Motion passes 12-0.

Observations and walk-throughs should not include conversations between evaluators and students and/or impede observation. Greg motioned. Swain seconded. Discussion - Sheila asked who at the district made the directive. Karen stated TLS, the calibration group, made the recommendation. Karen discussed it with Superintendent, and she supported the recommendation. Motion failed 6-6.

Observations should not include conversations between evaluators and students and/or impede observation. Moved and seconded Jeanine and Carolyn. Motion passed.

Walk-throughs should not include conversations between evaluators and students and/or impede walk-throughs. Moved and seconded. Motion failed 4-7.

Karen stated there won't be a mention of it in the handbook. If and when it becomes an issue, the TEC can address it.

Karen asked if CHOICE adult classes should be observed. Moved and seconded by Sheila and Lois. Motion passed. CHOICE adult will be added to page 12 under classroom instructional. These students should generate a SPS for the teachers based on industry certification.

Karen will submit the changes to the DOE and make changes to the digital handbook. • Kindergarten students will be tested during the last two weeks of the fall and

spring testing cycle. Page 2 under K-3. Becomes the first bullet. Moved and seconded by Carolyn and Jeanine. Motion passes

• Page 2 under 4-5, change the second bullet to read 82 instead of 150. Moved and seconded by Michael and Carolyn. Passed.

• Page 3, first bullet, end of first sentence. Insert "district" in front of EOC data. • Page 3, second open bullet delete the word "state" before EOC. • Page 3, under Elementary and Secondary Teachers add a second bullet.

Elementary and secondary who have no district or state data, but have assigned students, will receive compilation data of their students with VAM or other EOC learning courses. Moved and seconded by Carolyn and Greg. Passed.

The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 3, at 4:30. Niceville Dining Room.

Documents

Okaloosa County School DistrictMarch 4, 2015 4:30p.m. The meeting was called to order at 4:40p.m. by Elaine Crump Approval of Minutes from January 21, 2015 Old Business New Business