Upload
earl-sherman
View
220
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Educator Evaluations:Important Dates & Information,
TSDL, Additional Resources
Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research and Evaluation
FOR EDUCATOR EVALUATION SYSTEMS
Important Dates & Information
Important Dates - Overview
During school years 2011/12 and 2012/13, Educator Evaluation Systems are locally determined, but evaluations must be based on student growth measures.
Data from local, state, and nationally standardized assessments should be integrated if/where available along with other evidence of growth from portfolios, behavior rubrics, etc.
Report one of four labels required by legislation in REP: Highly effective Effective Minimally effective Ineffective
The Governor’s Council will develop a tool to be used by districts beginning in 2013-14.
Important Dates
School Year
Tool Type
% of evaluation based on student
growth & achievement data
Reporting Requireme
nt
2011-2012
locally determined
Educator Evaluation Systems
significant part*effectiveness labels in June REP collection
2012-2013
2013-2014
Governor’s Council
Evaluation Tool
25%
2014-2015
40%
2015-2016
50%
The Governor’s Council
The Council has five voting members:Deborah Loewenberg Ball, dean of the University of
Michigan School of Education and chair of the CouncilMark Reckase from Michigan State University's
College of EducationNick Sheltrown from National Heritage Academics
in Grand RapidsDavid Vensel, a principal from Jefferson High School
in MonroeJennifer Hammond, a principal from Grand Blanc
High School
Joseph Martineau, Executive Director of BAA, serves on the Council as a non-voting member and is the designee of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Growth Tool
Governor’s Council has to make a recommendation about the tool
Language insinuates ONE tool; but would be prohibitively expensive
We are hoping the Council will recommend more of a “toolbox” Including state, approved national, and approved
local assessments; districts must use a combination of those tools
How some other states have done this
The Governor’s Council Tool
Legislation specifies that the Gov’s Council will recommend “a student growth and assessment tool” that: “Is a value-added model” Includes at least a pre- and post-test Can be used in all content areas and
grades, including currently non-tested grades and content areas.
Meets all requirements for students with disabilities
The Governor’s Council
Public Act No. 102 of 2011 created the Council as a two-year temporary agency, staffed and supported by the Governor's office, and charged with preparing a report by April 30, 2012 that will recommend:
- A student growth and assessment tool;- A state evaluation tool for teachers;- A state evaluation tool for school administrators;- Changes to the requirements for a professional education teaching certificate; and- A process for evaluating and approving local evaluation tools for teachers and administrators.
Who MUST be evaluated?
Based on the code used to report the employee in the REP.
Visit www.michigan.gov/CEPI. Click on CEPI Applications on the left Then, click on Registry of Educational
Personnel on the left Scroll down to EOY 2012 REP Preview Click on EOY 2012 REP Data Descriptions
and go to page 71.
Who MUST be evaluated?
Required Reporting Codes
Assignment Code Description“000AX” through “000ZZ”, (except “00SUB”, “00PAR” and “00200” through “00413”
Teachers
“00192” through “00197” Teachers
“00501” through “00598” Teachers
“Y*0AX” through “Y*0ZZ” (except “Y*014” or “Y*016”)
TeachersParaprofessionals/Aides
“60300” and “60400” Teachers
“70***”, “71***”, “72***”, “73***”, and “74***” (Example: 70100: ISD Superintendent)
Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, Administrators, Principals, and Assistant Principals
Who is OPTIONAL to evaluate?
Optional Reporting Codes
Assignment Code Description“Y*014” or “Y*016” Paraprofessionals/Aides
“00SUB” and “00PAR” Day-to-day substitute staff members
“00200” through “00407” Additional Special Education Staff Members
“00410” through “00413” Migrant Education ProgramParaprofessionals/Aides
“60100” through “60700”, except “60300” and “60400”
Early Childhood Staff Members
“75***” through “79*99” Administrative Positions
“81500” through “99900” Non-Instructional Staff Members
THE TEACHER-STUDENT DATA LINK:WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT COULD BE USED AS PART
OF A DISTRICT EVALUATION SYSTEM
TSDL
Teacher/Student Data Link
New data initiative to link each student to the courses he/she took and to the teachers who taught those courses
Required under State Fiscal Stabilization Fund as a deliverable
Spring Assessments/High school link now available through the Secure Site on in January.
Fall Assessments (Elementary and Middle) TSDL will be available in late February.
State-provided measures
Extremely limited, so a “puzzle pieces” approach must be taken
Districts choose which “pieces” make sense in their local context
Generated for each educator of students in tested grades, regardless of subject taught or type of position.
BUT “growth”, or PLC, doesn’t exist at the high school level, for MI-Access P/SI, ELPA, MEAP-Access, or science, social studies, and writing…
How does the Teacher/Student Data Link Work?
Teachers are linked to coursesStudents are linked to coursesFor each course taught, a teacher has a list of
students who were reported as taking that course.
Linking assessment data to students
Once teachers are linked to students, MDE will provide: Measures of performance level change
for MEAP and MI-Access FI in reading and mathematics for each teacher where available (regardless of subject taught) in grades 4-8.
Measures of student proficiency in writing, science, social studies, reading and mathematics for each teacher where available (regardless of subject taught).
Performance Level Change (“growth”)
Year X Grade Y MEAP
Performance Level
Year X+1 Grade Y+1 MEAP Performance LevelNot
ProficientPartially
Proficient Proficient Adv
Low Mid High Low High Low Mid High Mid
NotProficient
Low M I I SI SI SI SI SI SIMid D M I I SI SI SI SI SIHigh D D M I I SI SI SI SI
PartiallyProficient
Low SD D D M I I SI SI SIHigh SD SD D D M I I SI SI
ProficientLow SD SD SD D D M I I SIMid SD SD SD SD D D M I IHigh SD SD SD SD SD D D M I
Advanced Mid SD SD SD SD SD SD D D M
Teacher: Sally SmithStudent Name
Math Reading Writing Science Social Studies Math PLC Reading PLCJohnny Jones NP PP PP A NP Maintain DeclineCarol Crawford P A A P P Improve Sig ImproveTammy Fay PP P NP P PP Sig Decline Maintain
Student Proficiency Level Student Growth
List for Each Teacher
Draft Data Provided to Districts
Will not generate aggregate report for each teacher because:
• Need to adjust each list based on rules like student attendance, subject taught match, etc.
• Aggregate data could be taken as “teacher effects” which would be an incorrect use of the data.
General Timeline
Spring assessment data 2011 and fall assessment data 2011 will attribute to teachers from the 2010-2011 school year
“Feeder school” for fall assessment data
Using Performance Level Change (PLC) Data
These are general guidelines/suggestions—NOT REQUIREMENTS OR FORMAL RECOMMENDATIONS!!
In the 2011-2012 school year, MDE will work with districts in pilot programs to research the most valid way to use PLC and other assessment data in value-added models and educator evaluation systems.
This year, simply providing PLC data linked to teachers to districts for integration into local systems.
One Possible Method
Step #1: Weight the PLCs to give educators more credit for more student improvement and to take away credit for declines.
One possible rating system:
Sig. Improv
Improve Maintain Decline Sig. Decline
Proficient 2 1 1 -1 -2Not Proficient 2 1 0 -1 -2
Possible Method (cont’d)
Could adjust the weights if desired—more/less credit for SI or SD, etc.
Another possibility: If the student scored in the “Advanced” category in the previous year, and is still in the “Advanced” category, award them a weight of “improving” even if they maintained or declined.
Step #2: Determine thresholds
Look at your current data; what percentage of your students show improvement (I or SI)? Show declines (D or SD)?
What is a reasonable standard amount of growth you would expect teachers to show?
Example: Determining Thresholds
In Sunshine School: 30% of students either had a PLC of I or SI in
the previous year For a teacher to be considered effective for this
portion of the evaluation, he/she must have at least 30% of students “improving” (using the weighted PLC approach)
For a teacher to be considered “highly effective,” he/she must have 40% of students improving
Step #3: Calculate average PLC
Apply rules regarding which students “count” toward a teacher’s evaluation (i.e. attendance rules)
Weight each PLC (using pre-determined weighting scheme)
Sum the weighted values and divide by the number of students
Student Math PL PLC Weighted PLC
Johnny 3 SI 2
Tammy 3 I 1
Chloe 2 M 1
Jose 1 M 1
Frank 2 D -1
Sally 2 D -1
Carla 4 M 0
Martin 3 M 0
Number of students:
8
Total WPLC: 3
Using weighted PLC and thresholds
To calculate the teacher’s percent of students demonstrating growth, divide Weighted PLC by number of students: 3/8 = 37.5%
If target for “effective” was 30% of students showing growth, teacher met target
Teacher did not meet target for “highly effective” (40% of students improving)
Use this as the “growth” component of a multi-measure evaluation system
Weighted PLC Tool
Tool to be used alongside your TSDL for math and reading in grades 4-8.
Allows you to plug in the count of students at each performance level.
Automatically calculates the Weighted PLC like in the example above.
Filter the TSDL file and enter in the number of students in each Performance Level and Performance Level Change Category.
Specific directions are provided within the tool.
Sample Components of Evaluation
Cautions
Must base targets on data; need to set targets that are attainable but also challenge educators to improve student learning
Make decisions about the extent (if at all) reading and math growth should count in subjects other than reading and math
Make decisions about which students contribute; need firm business rules that apply to all!
Use other measures and factors!
Integrating Growth Carefully
Use in conjunction with other measures
Use other types of growth too (i.e. portfolios, rubrics, performance-based assessments) particularly in non-tested subjects and grades—and for special populations.
Integrating Growth (again)
Can be used more qualitatively too—set general guidelines/targets, but use it to inform the decision
Consider the measures that may already be in place in your district that are meant to show growth and develop a rules around that data
NOTE: This will change depending on what is legislated in the governor’s council…. But for now….
MDE web site for Ed Evals
www.michigan.gov/baa Click on the Educator Evaluation tab on the left to
access materials, resources, and links
Contact Information
Carla Howe [email protected]
Educator Evaluation Conference on February 29, 2012 at the Lansing Center. More info at www.miem.org