implementation year 2: student academic progress (rating tables)

1

Implementation Year 2: Student Academic Progress (Rating Tables)

Dr. Carrie L. Giovannone & Dr. Yating Tang

Arizona Department of EducationSeptember 2013

ActivityScavenger Hunt

Overview of Student Academic Progress component

Rating Tables SGP and SGT

Agenda

Components and Percentages

50% TeachingPerformance

33% StudentAcademic Progress

17% StudentAcademic Progress

40 points(33%)

Three categories◦ Achievement◦ Growth (24 points=20%)◦ Career and College Ready

Student Academic Progress

Every Teacher is responsible for the following data:

Classroom SLO(S) Targeted SLO(s) Prior year classroom level data

◦ (e.g., AIMS, AZELLA)

Student Academic Progress

Rating Tables vary

Content Grade level

Current Year Classroom Roster:

Classroom SLO (s)

DIBELS composite: percent of students at benchmark by the end of year

Prior Year Classroom Roster:

Percent at or above the 4th Stanine on Stanford 10- reading, language and mathematics

Percent passing AIMS- reading, mathematics and science

Percent proficient on AZELLA

Achievement

Current Year Classroom Roster:

Targeted SLO(s)

DIBELs (Initial Sound Fluency-ISF)

DIBELs (Phoneme Segmentation Fluency-PSF)

DIBELs (Nonsense Word-Word Fluency-NWF-CLS)

DIBELs (Oral Reading Fluency-ORF)

Prior Year Classroom Roster:

Student growth percentile (SGP)

Student growth target (SGT)

Percentile rank on Stanford 10 language and mathematics

Student growth from one performance level to the next performance level on AZELLA

Growth

Prior Year Data: Attendance rate (school-level) Graduation rate (school-level) Grade 8 students who earn Exceeds on AIMS

reading and/or mathematics CCR equivalent scores- reading and

mathematics Reduction in Falls Far Below AIMS Reading

Career and College Ready

Think, Pair, Share

Activity:

Overview of Rating Tables

Group A Group B SEI SPED

Rating Tables

Grade 2 Reading Specialists

Grade 2 Mathematics Specialists

Grade 2 General Education Teachers

Grade 3 Reading Specialists

Grade 3 Mathematics specialists

Grade 3 General education teachers

Grades 4-6 General education teachers

Grades 7-8 Language teachers and 4-8 reading specialists

Grades 7-8 Mathematics teachers and 4-8 mathematics specialists

Group A Rating Tables

Kindergarten teachers First grade teachers Grades 2-8 new teachers Grades 3-8 group B teachers

Group B Rating Tables

Grades K-2 SEI teachers Grade 3 SEI teachers Grades 4-8 SEI teachers

SEI Rating Tables

Grades K-2 SPED teachers Grades 3-8 SPED AIMS A teachers Grades 3-8 SPED AIMS teachers

SPED Rating Tables

Rating Tables

Group A: Grades 4-6 Teachers

Group B: Grades 3-8

SEI: Grades 4-8 teachers

SPED: Grades 3-8 AIMS A

Resources

http://www.azed.gov/teacherprincipal-evaluation/teacherprincipal-evaluation-pilot-project-resources/

1. Find one teacher who teaches the same grade level and/or content area as you

2. Discuss the questions you have for the data used for your evaluation

3. Write down your questions on a post-it note

Activity:

Break

26

Q&A

SGP and SGT

Arizona Growth Model

Growth Percentile

Growth Target

28

Growth Ratio

29

Rock-n-Roll Arizona MarathonPF Chang’s

30

When you are preparing for a marathon there are three extrinsic rewards you are aiming for:

1) 1st place

2) Best time

3) Finish the race

31

2013 Rock-n-Roll Arizona Marathon

Christie Foster from Sierra Vista, AZ placed: • 1st for the women, and

• 6th place overall.

Her time was 2:44:41

32

Christie placed 1st for the women and 6th place overall.

Students’ growth compared to their academic peers across the state.

A criterion to measure against to gauge whether the growth achieved in one year is enough to reach a goal.

Growth Percentile

Growth TargetsWhat amount of sustained growth is necessary to reach a target?

How are you improving compared to peers?

Her goal time for this year’s race was 2:40. Her completion time was 2:44:41.

33

Christie’s goal* is to clock a time of 2:38 in the 2015 Marathon so she set benchmarks each year prior to prepare and train appropriately to reach her goal.

How close did she come to reaching

the 2013 benchmark goal of

2:40 (160 mins)?

160 min (2:40)164 min (2:44) = .98

Growth Target

2012 2013 2014 2015150

155

160

165

170

Min

utes

2:40

2:38

.982:44

*Hypothetical example

The ADE calculates percentiles and growth targets for each student in

reading and mathematics

What do they mean to schools, teachers, and parents?

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7250

300

350

400

450

500

307322

Student

?Meets

??

43rd PR

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7250

300

350

400

450

500

Student

67th PR

43rd PR

Meets

Within the student’s peer group across the state, which SGP did this student have to acquire to be on track?

Growth Ratio

Expected Percentile

Actual Percentile

37

Was the student’s actual growth enough to reach the target?

Growth Achieved=

Growth Ratio ≥1, on track(the growth is enough to reach the target)

Growth Ratio < 1, not on track (the growth is not enough to reach the target)

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7250

300

350

400

450

500

Student

67th PR

43rd PR

Meets

43rd PR

67th PR= 0.640.64

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7250

300

350

400

450

500

Student

Very High

High

Typical

Low

Very Low43rd PR

Meets

Student Growth Target for 2014Which SGP does the student need to achieve in order to be on-track to meet the goal of proficient by grade 7?

40

Grade 52013

Grade 62014

Grade 72015

Grade 52013

Grade 62014

Grade 72015

Reflection: Understanding which Student Data will be used on

my Evaluation

Red – Stop I don’t understand

Yellow- Proceed with Caution

Green- Good To Go