Upload
jay-harnack
View
163
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Overview of Current Status(Still Under Construction)
Wyoming Accountability in
Education ActWAEA
Phase I
School Performance Levels
Does not Meet
Partially Meets
Meets
Exceeds
Phase ISchool Performance Levels
Performance Indicators
Achieve-ment
Equity
Growth Achieve-ment
Equity
College & Career Ready
K-8 Schools 9-12 Schools
Exceeding
Meeting
Not Meeting
Number of students who are proficient or advanced on PAWS, PAWS-ALT, and ACT.• Reading (3-8, 11)• Math (3-8, 11)• Writing (3, 5, 7, 11)• Science (4, 8, 11)
Achievement
Achievement
• ACT subject area tests– Reading– Mathematics– Science– Combined English/Writing (added
in 2014)
• Score in 2014 will be an average student standardized score
High School Achievement2014
Achievement
• Select a baseline year (i.e., 2013)• Compute statewide mean score and
standard deviation• ACT math test
Mean = 19.6SD = 4.5
• Compute student standardized scores• (Student scaled score – statewide mean)
Statewide standard deviation
Computing Standardized Scores
Achievement
• The mean student standardized score for all students on all subject area tests– This mean is multiplied by 100 and
rounded to a whole number
• Most schools will have scores between -100 and +100
High School Achievement Determination
Achievement
Growth refers to a change in the achievement of students as they progress from year to year.
• Student’s growth compared to students with similar scores in previous years (SGP)
• Must have two consecutive years of scores
• Math and reading calculated separately
• Growth is independent of achievement level
Growth
Growth
Minimize achievement gaps and insure that students are on target for becoming proficient.
• Consolidated Subgroup
• Adequate Growth Percentiles (AGP)
Equity
Equity
• Schools with growth data• % of students in the consolidated
subgroup who meet or exceed their AGP score.
• Schools without growth data • the achievement gap between the
consolidated group and the statewide performance of all students plus the improvement in that gap from the prior year to the current year.
Equity
Equity
• Current grade 11 students with low grade 10 PLAN scores– below 17 on the math test– below 16 on the reading test
• Schools were notified by WDE November 5th
High School Consolidated Subgroup 2014
Equity
• Mean ACT standardized score for students in the consolidated subgroup – This mean is multiplied by 100 and
rounded to a whole number
• An equity score of -58 indicates:– Consolidated group mean score was 58%
of a standard deviation below the baseline year state mean score for all students in reading and math
• High school results highly correlated with equity results grade 3-8 schools
High School Equity2014
Equity
Readiness
College & Career
Readiness
College and Career Readiness is composed of four sub-indicators.
• ACT suite of tests
• % of students earning enough grade nine credits
• Graduation Rate
• Hathaway Scholarship Eligibility
Sub-Indicator: ACT Index
College & Career
Readiness
Composite Score Ranges
Wyoming ACT Readiness Levels
ACT Explore Grade 9
ACT Plan Grade 10
ACT Test Grade 11
Index Points*
Level 4 21-25 22-32 25-36 100
Level 3 18-20 19-21 21-24 80
Level 2 15-17 16-18 17-20 50
Level 1 1-14 1-15 1-16 20
Readiness Sub-Indicator:Graduation
College & Career
Readiness
Criteria Numbers Student Result Points*
5 Diploma Earned in Four Years or Less 100
4 Diploma Earned in More than Four Years 100
3 Alternate Standards Certificate per IEP**
*
2 Continued Enrollment*** 501 Noncompleters 0
Readiness Sub-Indicator: 9th Grade Courses
College & Career
Readiness • % of students who earned ¼ of the credits required to earn a diploma
• Indicator in schools which award diplomas
• Credits can be earned in the summer
Readiness Sub-Indicator:Hathaway Scholarship
College & Career
Readiness
Student Eligibility Level Points*
Level 5: Honors 100
Level 4: Performance 90
Level 3: Opportunity 80
Level 2: Provisional 70
Level 1: Not Eligible 0
Combining Sub-indicator Scores
College & Career
Readiness
Subindicator
Hypothetical Score for a
School
Example Subindicator
Weight
(School Score * Weight)
ACT Suite Index 55 40 22
Grade 9 Percent On Track
72 ? 0
Graduation Rate Index 67 60 40.2
Hathaway Eligibility Index
58 ? 0
School Readiness Score (Sum of Subindicator Weighted Scores) =
62.2
Final School Performance Determination
Achievement Below
Achievement Meeting
Achievement Exceeding
Equity Below Growth Below NM PM PM
Growth Meeting PM M M
Growth Exceeding PM M M
Equity Meeting Growth Below PM M M
Growth Meeting PM M M
Growth Exceeding PM M E
Equity Exceeding Growth Below PM M M
Growth Meeting PM M E
Growth Exceeding M M E
Final School Performance Determination
Schools With Grades 3-8
Note. Not classified schools excluded in this view.
17.1%
25.7%
46.2%
11.3%14.1%
28.0%
47.9%
10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Not Meeting Partially Meeting Meeting Exceeding
Percent of Wyoming Schools and Students in Each School Performance Level during the 2012-13 School Accountability Pilot.
% of Schools % of Students
Final Results Schools Grades 3-8
Note. Not classified schools excluded in this view.
12.5%
26.4%
48.7%
12.5%14.5%
26.5%
48.8%
10.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Not Meeting Partially Meeting Meeting Exceeding
For Grade 3-8 Wyoming Schools, the Percent of Schools and Students in Each School Performance Level during the 2012-13 School Accountability Pilot.
% of Schools % of Students
Final Results High Schools
Then What …..
• WAEA Reporting Requirements• Exceeding = Communication Plan• Meeting = Improvement Plan + WDE
Rep• Partially = Improvement Plan + WDE
Rep• Not Meeting = Improvement Plan + WDE Rep
• Multi-tiered State System of Support
• WDE developing
Phase II
Teacher and Leader Evaluations
Ineffective
Needs Improvement
Effective
Highly Effective
Teacher and Leader Performance Levels
Effective Teaching
Content Knowledge
Professional Responsibility
Instructional Practice
Learner and Learning
Student Performance
• Learner and Learning
• Content Knowledge
• Instructional Practice
• Professional Responsibility
Professional Practice Domains:
• Observations• Pre-post observation conferences• Planning documents• Evidence of reading relevant literature• Self-reflection• Artifact collection• Programs of study• Unit/lesson plans• Student work samples• Student assessments • Professional goals• Examples of leadership involvement• Student surveys
Professional Practice Sources of Data
• Student Learning Objectives– All grades and content areas
• Student Growth Percentiles– Available for reading and math in grades 4-8
And...Student Performance
• Coherence with school accountability model requires a
systematic or logical connection or consistency.
• Shared attribution is the sharing of student test results
across a
group of educators, often all the educators
within a school.
• Results classified as high, typical, low
Student Performance: Student Growth Percentiles
Content and grade/course-specific measurable learning objectives that can be used to document student learning over a defined period of time
• involve teachers
• incentivize good teaching practices
Student Performance: Student Learning Objectives
Teacher Evaluation Cycle
Self assessment and goal setting
Initial meeting with supervisor to review and potential revise goals
Initial data collection (observations, surveys, interviews, artifacts)
Yearly review of data and progress on goals , practice measures, and student learning
Continued data collection
Summative evaluation at the end of Year 3
• PLD’s defined and used statewide
• Descriptors link to final performance level determinations
Teacher Performance Level Descriptors
Professional Practice Rating
4 Automatic Review Highly Effective Highly Effective
3 Needs Improvement Effective Effective
2 Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement
1 Ineffective Ineffective Automatic Review
1 2 3
Student Performance Rating
Final Determinations Teachers
1. Educators rated ineffective or needs improvement in one year must be placed on an improvement plan.
2. An experienced teacher with two consecutive years of ineffective ratings will lose continuing contract status.
3. After receiving a second consecutive needs improvement rating, the educator will be considered as having received a first year ineffective rating.
4. An educator rated as highly effective for two consecutive years should received recognition.
Consequences
Effective Leading
Focus on Student Achievement
Instructionand
Assessment Leadership
Learning Organization
Vision, Mission, Culture
Management and Safety
Ethics and Professionalism
Communicate and
Engagement
• School accountability system results
• Observations by supervisor and peers
• Results of the teacher evaluations
• Survey or interviews of teachers, parents, community, students and classified staff.
• Analysis of evidence from key artifacts
• District accreditation results
Sources of Data
Leader Evaluation Cycle
Self assessment and goal setting
Initial meeting with supervisor to review and potential revise goals
Data collection (observations, surveys, interviews, artifacts)
Formative review of data and progress on goals
Continued data collection
Formative review of data
Continued data collection
Summative evaluation
• PLD’s defined and used statewide
• Descriptors link to final performance level determinations
Leader Performance Level Descriptors
Final Determinations Leaders
“Professional
Practice” Rating”
4
Review Effective Highly Effective
Highly Effective
3
Needs Improvement
Effective Effective Effective
2
Needs Improvement
Needs Improvement
Needs Improvement
Effective
1
Ineffective Ineffective Needs Improvement
Review
1 2 3 4
“Student Performance” Rating
• 2013 Interim: Designing State Model Systems
• 2013-2014: Required training and professional learning, voluntary pilot for select districts
• 2014-2015: Phased-in implementation pilot
• 2015-2016: Full pilot, perhaps with phased-in implementation; Leader fully implemented
• 2016-2017 Full implementation of teacher
Implementation TimelineTeacher and Leader
– Self-assessment
– Collaboratively set goals
– Plan for achieving the goals
– Artifacts
– Self reflection
– Mentors/Induction Systems
Loose = District Decisions
– Required #of observations
– Use of Surveys
– Timeline
– Aligning Current Systems
– Peer observing teams
– Shared attribution
– Differentiating for educators
– Final determinations
Loose = District Decisions
– PLD’s
– Four levels
– Focus on student achievement every year
– Final determinations – sort of
– Data to use for achievement
– Standards
– Consequences for teachers
Tight = Consistent Statewide
• State responsibilities
• District responsibilities
• Influencing change
Final Thoughts