6/18/12 Update
ALIGNMENT TO STANDARDS-BASED INSTUCTION
The Florida School Leader Assessment (FSLA) and Standards-Based Instruction
The Florida School Leader Assessment (FSLA) is designed to support instructional leadership. The following charts identify ways to use FSLA indicators to promote quality monitoring and timely feedback on standards-based instruction and the transition to the Common Core.
The purpose of the Florida Model for School Leader Evaluation is to increase student learning growth by improving the quality of instructional and leadership services. The following charts identify ways to use the indicators in the observation and feedback instruments in the Florida School Leader Assessment (FSLA) to promote practices that align this instructional leadership framework to standards-based instruction and the transition to the Common Core. (Note: Only those indicators with a direct alignment to standards-based instruction are included in the charts below.)
This document was developed in May and June, 2012 by members of the Florida Department of Education’s Evaluation Workgroup. This workgroup is a cross district community of practice group examining multiple evaluation models in use in Florida districts.
Column 1 lists specific indicators from the Florida School Leader Assessment (FSLA) observation and feedback instruments that contribute to evaluation ratings.
Column 2 provides illustrative questions to focus feedback and reflection on how to apply the indicator to improve proficiency on standards-based instruction and Common Core transition. Forty (40) of 45 indicators may be applied to support standards-based instruction (SBI) and Common Core/Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (NGSSS).
Primary FSLA Indicators Focused onStandards-based Instruction (SBI) / Standards-based Instruction Alignments – Ways to use the indicator to focus on SBI
Indicator 1.1 – Academic Standards: The leader demonstrates understanding of student requirements and academic standards (Common Core and NGSSS). / · Each course has assigned state standards (Common Core/NGSSS). Does the leader make use of them in working with faculty on the instructional program?
· What evidence reveals the leader’s use of those standards to focus instruction on the standards?
· Does the leader’s monitoring of instructional practice focus on evidence of teacher access to and use of the standards for each course?
· Is the leader’s “big picture” understanding of the role Common Core and NGSSS play in the students’ learning growth and the school’s instructional processes conveyed to faculty, students, and stakeholders?
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. / · How is the leader’s knowledge of the purpose and content of Common Core used to make standards-based instruction a primary focus of the schools instructional program?
· How is SBI made rigorous and culturally relevant to the students?
· How does the leader insure that instructional and leadership practices are aligned with academic standards like NGSSS and Common Core?
· How is improvement planning linked to faculty proficiency needs on SBI?
· How is the cause and effect relationship between effective instruction on academic standards and student performance communicated to students, faculty and stakeholders?
Indicator 3.3 - Learning Goals Alignments: The leader implements recurring monitoring and feedback processes to insure that priority learning goals established for students are based on the state’s adopted student academic standards as defined in state course descriptions, presented in student accessible forms, and accompanied by scales or rubrics to guide tracking progress toward student mastery. / · Does the leader monitor teachers’ use of learning goals with scales in a way that is consistent with the online module on CPALMS and other sites entitled “Learning Goals, Scales and Learning Activities?”
· What leader practices are employed to provide recurring monitoring of the use of learning goals and scales to track student progress?
· Does the leader enable teachers whose courses include the same Common Core standards to work together to align instruction and refine learning goals?
· Does the leader organize faculty teams to work collegially to unpack course standards and develop learning goals appropriate to the students and the standards?
· Does the leader distinguish between daily and weekly objectives and longer term learning goals with scales?
Indicator 3.4 - Curriculum Alignments: The leader implements systemic processes to insure alignment of curriculum resources with state standards for the courses taught. / · How does the leader engage faculty in determining how curriculum resources support student growth on the Common Core and NGSSS standards?
· How are fiscal resources and planning time employed to support teacher efforts to fill gaps in curriculum material alignment with the standards?
Other FSLA Indicators that support significant feedback on Standards-based Instruction (SBI) / Standards-based Instruction Alignments – Ways to use the indicator to focus on SBI
Domain 1: Student Achievement:
The focus is on leadership practices that impact prioritization and results for student achievement on priority learning goals - knowing what’s important, understanding what’s needed, and taking actions that get results. This domain allows recurring collegial exchanges on standards-based instruction, transition to Common Core, and focusing instructional behaviors on student learning growth on the standards.
Indicator 1.2 – Performance Data: The leader demonstrates the use of student and adult performance data to make instructional leadership decisions. / · How does the leader access data on student performance related to progress on academic standards and data on adult performance in delivery of a standards-based instructional process?
· How does the leader use the data to make instructional leadership decisions about standards- based instruction and transition to Common Core?
Indicator 1.3 – Planning and Goal Setting: The leader demonstrates planning and goal setting to improve student achievement. / · Does monitoring concentrate on planning behaviors that focus on Common Core transition and standards- based instruction?
· Does feedback concentrate on how goal setting focused attention on SBI and Common Core issues?
Indicator 1.4 - Student Achievement Results: The leader demonstrates evidence of student improvement through student achievement results. / · Does the leader’s monitoring focus on student data that reflects a “current reality” on student progress on mastery of Common Core and NGSSS standards or learning goals based on those standards?
· Do the leader’s feedback practices focus on the frequency and quality of evidence generated during instruction that reveals student progress on standards assigned to the course (Common Core and NGSSS)?
Indicator 2.1 - Learning Organization: The leader enables faculty and staff to work as a system focused on student learning, and engages faculty and staff in efforts to close learning performance gaps among student subgroups within the school. / · By what methods does the leader support teachers’ efforts to deepen personal mastery of instructional strategies that support SBI?
· How does the leader engage faculty in a shared vision of SBI as the primary instructional model for the school?
· What are the problem identification processes employed to identify sub-group needs regarding course standards?
Indicator 2.2 - School Climate: The leader maintains a school climate that supports student engagement in learning. / · Does that climate focus student engagement on learning growth on state standards (Common Core and NGSSS)?
· By what method does the leader make learning a safe and desired mode of student behavior on the school campus?
Indicator 2.3 - High Expectations: The leader generates high expectations for learning growth by all students. / · Do the leader (and teacher) actions to foster high expectations focus on learning growth on Common Core and NGSSS?
· Are student efforts on rigorous learning recognized and celebrated?
Indicator 2.4 - Student Performance Focus: The leader demonstrates understanding of present levels of student performance based on routine assessment processes that reflect the current reality of student proficiency on academic standards. / · Does the leader have recurring processes for monitoring the current status of student learning on standards (e.g. checking progress on learning goals, interim assessments)?
· By what methods do the leader and leadership team generate data on whether students are progressing on subject matter competencies measured by state tests and End-of-Course (EOC) Assessments?
· How is information on current student learning needs conveyed to students and parents?
Domain 2: Instructional Leadership: The focus is on instructional leadership – what the leader does and enables others to do that supports teaching and learning. / Standards-based Instruction Alignments – Ways to use the indicator to focus on SBI
Indicator 3.1 – FEAPs: The leader aligns the school’s instructional programs and practices with the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs) (Rule 6A-5.065, F.A.C.), and models use of Florida’s common language of instruction to guide faculty and staff’s implementation of the foundational principles and practices. / · How does the leader monitor faculty instructional design and lesson planning practices to insure that instruction aligns with state-adopted standards at an appropriate level of rigor?
· What processes are implemented to monitor and maintain a student-centered learning environment that is safe, organized, equitable, flexible, inclusive, and collaborative?
· What collegial and individual learning supports are promoted by the leader to engage faculty in developing a deep and comprehensive knowledge of the subject taught?
· How are faculty skills in use of formative assessments developed and shared?
· How does the leader build a faculty culture that practices continuous improvement?
· Is the principal able to use the terms in Florida’s common language of instruction to focus conversations on school improvement?
Indicator 3.5 - Quality Assessments: The leader ensures the appropriate use of high quality formative and interim assessments aligned with the adopted standards and curricula. / · How often does the leader participate in analyzing data from multiple assessments and measures to diagnose students’ learning on state standards?
· What processes are in place that support faculty in design of assessments that provide feedback on progress toward learning goals aligned to state standards?
· By what method are teachers supported in aligning formative and summative assessments so that formative data is relevant to summative assessments?
· How often does the leader monitor the use of a variety of assessment tools to track student progress, achievement and learning gains?
· How are teachers supported in modifying assessments and testing conditions to accommodate learning styles and varying levels of knowledge?
· How often and by what methods does the leader share the importance and outcomes of student assessment data with the student and the student’s parent/caregiver(s)?
· Does the leader apply technology to organize and integrate assessment information?
Indicator 3.6 - Faculty Effectiveness: The leader monitors the effectiveness of classroom teachers and uses contemporary research and the district’s instructional evaluation system criteria and procedures to improve student achievement and faculty proficiency on the FEAPs. / · How does the leader promote faculty understanding of the research framework on which their evaluation system is based?
· By what method does the leader promote faculty discussion of the research framework on which the evaluation system is based?
· How often and by what methods does the leader “see the game” – i.e. actually observe what occurs in classrooms?
· By what methods do the leader and leadership team enable faculty to focus instruction on course standards using research-based instructional strategies?
· How are the FEAPs used to focus faculty on deepening their repertoire of practices?
· How does the leader develop his/her own understanding of what state and district assessments actually measure and how is that shared with faculty?
Indicator 4.2 - Feedback Practices: The leader monitors, evaluates proficiency, and secures and provides timely and actionable feedback to faculty on the effectiveness of instruction on priority instructional goals, and the cause and effect relationships between professional practice and student achievement on those goals. / · What portion of the leader’s work week is reserved for observing teachers and students at work and providing feedback?
· How is feedback provided on implementation of standards-based instruction and a focus on Common Core standards?
· Are the indicators in the evaluation system used to provide recurring timely and actionable feedback to teachers on proficiency on research-based instructional strategies with a cause and effect relationship to student learning?
· How does the leader organize schedules and time allocations to support teachers sharing with each other insights on improving instructional practice and supporting specific students’ learning needs?
· Are Multi-tiered System of Supports (MTSS) processes employed across the curriculum?
· How does the leader support teacher needs to meet collegially about tier 2 and 3 students regarding success on Common Core standards?
Indicator 4.3 - High Effect Size Strategies: Instructional personnel receive recurring feedback on their proficiency on high effect size instructional strategies. / · Are high effect size strategies understood by the leader with sufficient depth of knowledge to guide teachers on improved use of them?
· How often does the leader provide highly effective teachers the opportunity to share with other teachers insights on ways to implement high effect size strategies to promote student growth?
· Are learning goals with scales and tracking student progress routine practices in all classes?
· Is MTSS used across the grades and curriculum?
Indicator 4.4 - Instructional Initiatives: District-supported state initiatives focused on student growth are supported by the leader with specific and observable actions, including monitoring of implementation and measurement of progress toward initiative goals and professional learning to improve faculty capacity to implement the initiatives. / · What does the leader consider to be the priority initiatives for supporting student learning?
· How does the leader enable faculty to use those initiatives to support success on the Common Core?
· How is the leadership team involved in the implementation of those initiatives?