Florida’s Race to the Top 
Student Growth Implementation Committee (SGIC) 
Initial Meeting via Webinar 
Thursday, March 24, 2011
3:30 – 5:00 p.m.
With AIR (American Institutes for Research)

Meeting Agenda
•	Welcome 
•	Background
•	Introductions
•	Project Overview 
•	Project goals
•	Project overview, timelines, and process
•	Committee purpose and expectations
•	Overview of future meetings
•	Next Steps and Questions 
•	Next steps
•	Questions 

Background
•	Under Florida’s successful Race to the Top application, districts are committed to participating in the process of developing and using systems of educator evaluation using student achievement growth.
•	Update on current status of state legislation
•	FLDOE has not pre-selected a value-added model, eight different value-added models will be analyzed and discussed with the Student Growth Implementation Committee before making a recommendation to the Commissioner
•	The June 1 deadline to make a recommendation to the Commissioner is fast approaching, however, the recommendation and selection of a statewide FCAT value-added model is not the end point for that model  
•	Over the next four years, FLDOE and AIR will continue to analyze the value-added model and seek feedback to make adjustments even before the first year of calculation using the Spring 2012 results.  
•	To be clear, while the June 1 deadline is tight, it is a starting point, not the final answer. 

Introductions
Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) Key Staff
•	Frances Haithcock, Chancellor, Division of Public Schools
•	Kathy Hebda, Deputy Chancellor for Educator Quality
•	Juan Copa, Director of Research and Analysis in Educator Performance

Student Growth Implementation Committee (SGIC) Members
•	Are teachers, principals, parents, union representatives, superintendents, school board members, district administrators and postsecondary faculty
•	Contribute expertise in various teaching subjects and grades, educational administration at all levels, measurement and assessment
•	Represent Florida’s diversity in culture, community, and region
•	Serve at the appointment of the Commissioner for the four-year term of the project

Student Growth Implementation Committee Members
•	Stephanie Hall, School-based Administrator (ES), Brevard
•	Lisa Maxwell, Local Union, Broward
•	Nicole Marsala, Teacher (8th History), Broward
•	Eric O. Hernandez, Teacher (Honors Math), Dade
•	Gisela Field, District Administrator – Assessment, Dade
•	Sandi Acosta, Teacher (6th and 7th Science), Dade
•	Tamar E. Woodhouse-Young, Teacher (High School Math), Duval
•	Lavetta B. Henderson, Postsecondary, FAMU
•	Anna Brown, Representative for Superintendent MaryEllen Elia, Hillsborough
•	Doretha Wynn Edgecomb, School Board, Hillsborough
•	Lori Westphal, Teacher (ESE), Lake
•	Joseph Camputaro, Teacher (Elementary/Reading), Lee
•	Gina Tovine, District Administrator – HR, Levy
•	Stacey Frakes, Teacher (3rd – 5th ESE), Madison
•	John le Tellier, Teacher (Music), Marion
•	Latha Krishnaiyer, State PTA
•	Lawrence Morehouse, Business
•	Ronda Bourn, Consortium Administrator
•	Arlene Ginn, Teacher (7th Science), Orange
•	Linda J. Kearschner, Parent, Pinellas
•	Sam Foerster, Associate Superintendent, Putnam
•	Pam Stewart, Assistant Superintendent, St. Johns
•	Maria Cristina Noya, School-based Administrator (HS), St. Lucie
•	Lance J. Tomei, Postsecondary, UCF
•	Cathy Cavanaugh, Postsecondary, UF
•	Jeff Murphy, District Administrator - Student Services, Virtual School
•	Julia Carson, Teacher (HS AP History, Geography), Volusia

American Institutes for Research (AIR)
•	AIR’s purpose is to conduct and apply behavioral and social science research to improve people’s lives and well-being, with a special emphasis on the disadvantaged.
•	Involvement in value-added, student growth, and educator evaluation work is significant
•	Direct work in 15 jurisdictions
•	Support work in other jurisdictions through federal technical assistance centers
•	Provide advice to U.S. Department of Education and Congress 

AIR Key Staff 
•	Christy Hovanetz, Ph.D., Project Director
•	Harold Doran, Ed.D., Principal Investigator
•	KC Choi, Ph.D., Lead Analyst
•	Mariann Lemke, Communications Lead

Overall Project Goals
•	Identify valid and reliable measures of growth in student achievement that can be used as one component of a system to evaluate educators and educator preparation programs 
•	Ensure educators, policymakers, and the general public can understand these measures
•	Develop and implement a statewide value-added model using statewide assessment data for incorporation into local educator evaluation systems and evaluations of educator preparation programs
•	Recommend value-added models using data from other commonly used assessments that may be optionally used in local educator evaluation systems
•	Provide guidance to aid local education agencies in developing and implementing value-added models using locally developed assessments
•	Provide training and materials to describe and explain models and results

Graphic: A chart provides overview of timeline for developing and integrating statewide value added model. Joint work by the following Committees: Student Growth Implementation, Value Added Technical Advisory, and the Teacher and Leader Preparation Implementation.

In the first contract year (ending in June 2011):
-	Initial Statewide VAM development begins and 2010-11 data will be analyzed.
In the second contract year (ending in June 2012):
-	Statewide VAM training/feedback will take place.
-	Statewide VAM will be revised and 2011-12 data will be analyzed.
In the third contract year (ending in June 2013):
-	AP/IB/ other VAM developments are integrated.
-	(Beginning in Summer 2012) Statewide VAM training and feedback for the year will take place.
-	(Beginning in Summer 2012) AP/IB/other VAM training and feedback for the year will take place.
-	(Beginning in Fall 2012) Statewide VAM developments will be revised and 2012-13 data will be analyzed.
-	(Beginning in Spring 2013) Untested subject guidance will be developed.
In the fourth contract year (ending in June 2014):
-	Statewide VAM training and feedback for the year will take place.
-	AP/IB/other VAM training and feedback for the year will take place.
-	Untested subject training will begin.

AIR’s Approach to Achieve Project Goals
•	Collaborate with FLDOE, SGIC, and relevant stakeholders, to review, analyze, and make recommendations to select a value-added student growth model that best meets Florida’s needs, addresses policy priorities, and complies with Race to the Top commitments 

AIR’s Technical Approach
•	Evaluate eight different models representing various model characteristics using a set of indicators developed to allow for empirical comparison of model results  
Characteristics of the models include:
-	Amount and type of data needed
-	Statistical form
-	Use of statistical controls for contextual factors
-	Assumptions about durability of teacher effects
-	Use of normative or criterion-referenced growth standards

AIR’s Communication Approach
•	Engage and collaborate with SGIC and other relevant stakeholders
•	Develop reports with stakeholder input to show results of statewide VAMs
•	Provide training and materials to help users understand models and results
-	In-person
-	Web-based materials, including presentations
•	Review and adjust approaches and materials as needed, based on stakeholder feedback

SGIC Purpose and Expectations
The purpose of the SGIC is to provide input, feedback, and recommendations to the state in the development and implementation of teacher-level student growth models. 

The SGIC is not responsible for final decisions regarding the adoption of a state model or the district models. 

The process for providing input, feedback, and recommendations to the state will continue over the four years of the project. 

The SGIC members are expected to actively participate in all meetings to provide input, review, feedback, and recommendations on: 

•	Data sets to be included in the models 
•	Factors (for example, student characteristics or school characteristics) to be included in the models 
•	The use of resulting data for teacher instructional purposes 
•	Best practices in development and implementation of models 
•	Effective methods of communicating information to teachers, students, parents, administrators 
•	Uses of models in teacher and principal evaluations 
•	Uses of models in evaluation of teacher and principal preparation programs

Overview of SGIC Meetings

Meeting	Date	Topics	
Webinar		March 24, 2011		Introductions, project and process overview	
In Person
Orlando		April 4-5, 2011		Overview of value added models; eight different types to analyze; discussion of business rules; selection of factors; direction from committee on which models to review	
In Person
Orlando		May 19-20, 2011		Present and discuss results of analysis of the eight different models and form preliminary recommendations on final model	
Webinar		May 25, 2011		Reach consensus on recommendation for the final model to present to the Commissioner on June 1	

Next Steps
Information about the activities, membership, meeting schedule and materials, and recording of conference calls and webinar of the SGIC are posted at: www.fldoe.org/arra/racetothetop.asp.

FLDOE:
Juan Copa, Director of Research and Analysis in Educator Performance
850-245-0744 (office)
Juan.Copa@fldoe.org

AIR:
Christy Hovanetz, Ph.D., Project Director
850-212-0243 (cell)
ChristyHovanetz@gmail.com