march 28, 2011. what does the new law require? 20% state student growth data (increases to 25% upon...
TRANSCRIPT
APPR UpdateMarch 28, 2011
Chapter 103 ReviewWhat does the new law require?
New system for teachers (and principals)
20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)
20% Locally selected (and agree upon) measures (decreasing to 15%)
60% Multiple measures based on standards TDB
New system for teachers (and principals)
Being referred to as HEDI (pronounced Heidi)
Highly effective (possibly >90) Effective (possibly 80-90) Developing (possibly 65-79) Ineffective (possibly 0-64)
New system for teachers (and principals)
A single composite score of teacher (or principal) effectiveness
New system for teachers (and principals)
Training for all evaluators (through Network Teams – after first week of August)
Use of improvement plans for developing and ineffective ratings
Utilize in other decisions (merit, etc.) Locally-developed appeals process Expedited 3020a process after two
ineffective ratings
New system for teachers (and principals)
All agreements after July 1, 2010 For agreements prior to July 1, 2010,
it depends on specific language in agreement
4-8 math and ELA (and principals) July 2011
Everyone else July 2012 Implementation of the value-added
growth model (20% > 25%) 2012-2013
New system for teachers (and principals)
All agreements after July 1, 2010 For agreements prior to July 1, 2010,
it depends on specific language in agreement
4-8 math and ELA (and principals) July 2011
Everyone else July 2012 Implementation of the value-added
growth model (20% > 25%) 2012-2013
TimetableBoard of Regents Agenda
MONTH
January
February
March
April
May
June
ACTION
60% discussion
Local 20% discussion
Value added 20% discussion and
ratings/scores
Regents Task Force recommendations
(4th)
Draft Regulations
Emergency Adoption of Regulations
Timetable
State student growth data 20% increasing to 25%
State student growth data
Value Added/Growth model Annual achievement is more about the
students than the teacher
680
201
5
Teacher A
670
201
5
Teacher B
State student growth data
Value Added/Growth model Adding average prior achievement for
the same students shows growth
680
201
5
Teacher A
670
201
5
Teacher B
660
201
4
645
201
4
+20 growth
+25 growth
State student growth data
Value Added/Growth model Adding average prior achievement for
the same students shows growth
680
201
5
Teacher A
670
201
5
Teacher B
660
201
4
645
201
4
+20 growth
+25 growth
State student growth data
Value Added/Growth model But what growth should students have
shown? What growth did similar students obtain? What is the difference between the
expected growth and the actual growth?
State student growth data
Value Added/Growth model Comparing growth to the average
growth of the similar student is the value-added
680
201
5
Teacher A
670
201
5
Teacher B
660
201
4
645
201
4
+20 growth
665
20
15
avg.
for
sim
ilar
students
+25 growth
+15 val add665
20
15
avg.
for
sim
ilar
students
+5 val add
State student growth data
Value Added/Growth model Comparing growth to the average
growth of the similar student is the value-added
680
201
5
Teacher A
670
201
5
Teacher B
660
201
4
645
201
4
+20 growth
665
20
15
avg.
for
sim
ilar
students
+25 growth
+15 val add665
20
15
avg.
for
sim
ilar
students
+5 val add
State student growth data
Calculating similar student growth Lots of statistical analysis Student characteristics such as
academic history, poverty, special ed. status. ELL status, etc.
Classroom or school characteristics such as class percentages of needs, class size, etc.
State student growth data
Data collection and policy options Linking students, teachers, and courses Who is the teacher of record?▪ Scenario 1: Same Teacher the Entire Year▪ Scenario 2: Team Teaching▪ Scenario 3: Teacher for Part of the Year▪ Scenario 4: Student for Part of the Year▪ Scenario 5: Student Supplemental Instruction▪ Additional Scenarios???
State student growth data Non-tested areas
Non-tested areas
Teachers of classes with only one state test administration
K-12 educators High school (no test) educators Middle and elementary (no test)
educators Performance courses Others
Non-tested areas
Use existing assessments in other content areas to create a baseline for science tests and Regents examinations
Use commercially available tests to create a baseline and measure growth
Non-tested areas
Add more state tests, such as: Science 6-8 Social studies 6-8 ELA 9-11 (2011-2012) PARCC ELA 3-11 (2014-2015) PARCC math 3-11 (2014-2015)
Non-tested areas
Add more state tests, according to December 2009 Regents Item; discussed and approved prior to inclusion in SED’s plans: ELA 9-11 (2011-2012)
Non-tested areas
Add more state tests, subject to funding availability and approval, such as: Science 6-7 Social studies 6-8
Non-tested areas
% growth model also can be used for school accountability measures
Collaborate with state-wide professional associations or a multi-state coalition
Empower local level resources to create and carry out a solution that meets state requirements
Non-tested areas
Use a group metric that is a measure of the school (or grade’s) overall impact
In other states where this is implemented it tends to be tied to performance bonuses
Local assessment measures20% decreasing to 15%
Local assessment measures
Objectives include: Provide a broader picture of student
achievement by assessing more Provide a broader picture by assessing
differently Verify performance of state measures
Local assessment measures
Reality check: Balance state/regional/BOCES
consistency while accounting for local context
School-based choice might appeal to teachers
Districts must be able to defend their decisions about the tests
Local assessment measures
Considerations include: Rigor Validity and reliability Growth or achievement measures Cost Feasibility May be achievement or growth measure
Local assessment measures
Options under consideration: Districts choose or develop assessments
for courses/grades Commercially available products Group metric of school or grade
performance Other options that meet the criteria
(previous slide)
Other 60%Multiple measures
Other 60%
Begins with the teaching standards:1. Knowledge of Students and Student Learning2. Knowledge of Content and Instructional
Planning3. Instructional Practice4. Learning Environment5. Assessment for Student Learning6. Professional Responsibilities and Collaboration7. Professional Growth
Other 60%
Begins with the teaching standards: Some things observable Some not observable thus requiring
some other form or documentation or artifact collection
Other 60%
Teacher practice rubrics: Describe differences in the four
performance levels Articulate specific, observable
differences in student and teacher behavior
Not known whether there will be a single rubric, menu to choose from, or total local option
Other 60%
Teacher practice rubrics: Describe differences in the four
performance levels Articulate specific, observable
differences in student and teacher behavior
Not known whether there will be a single rubric, menu to choose from, or total local option
Other 60%
Other items that might be included: Teacher attendance Goal setting Student surveys Portfolios/Evidence binders Other observer
TimetableBoard of Regents Agenda
MONTH
January
February
March
April
May
June
ACTION
60% discussion
Local 20% discussion
Value added 20% discussion and
ratings/scores
Regents Task Force recommendations
Draft Regulations
Emergency Adoption of Regulations
Timetable
MONTH
August
August
September
ACTION
NT Training (included evaluator training)
NT turns training to local evaluators
Implementation for covered teachers
Timetable
NT training for teacher evaluators
Tentative dates set (with multiple options): August 15, Rodax 8 Large Conference
Room August 22, McEvoy Conference Center August 29, Rodax 8 Large Conference
Room Ongoing training during year (TBD)
Training for principal evaluators
Tentative dates set (with multiple options): August 19, Rodax 8 Small Conference
Room August 26, McEvoy Conference Center
Ongoing training during year (TBD)
While we wait
Regional/BOCES collaboration: Share data Share APPR Plans Build common understanding Work on parts under local jurisdiction Avoid duplication of work Have a common voice
While we wait
APPR sub-site: APPR button under “for school districts”
at ocmboces.org or leadership.ocmboces.org
User name: lrldocs Password: CBA1011
While we wait
Regional/BOCES collaboration: Development of local 20% protocol Achievement in non-tested areas Qualities of effective Improvement plans
and examples Appeals process Frameworks/models Summative evaluation (examples, best
practices, share practices) Principal Evaluation (added back)
Next steps
Share results of this afternoon’s work Gather again on __________
Updates Continue collaboration