The Portfolio Process

Why do we think portfolios are the right choice? Teacher developed and driven Embedded professional development Teacher scored Increased accountability Flexible, while maintaining rigor Future of assessment

Current Portfolio Models Fine Arts Development began in December 2010 Piloted in 2011-12 Approved in summer 2012 First year of implementation 2012-13 World Languages Development began in summer 2012 Piloted in 2012-13 Approved in summer 2013 First year of implementation 2013-14 Physical Education Development began in 2012 Piloted 2012-13 and 2013-14 Approved in summer 2014 First year of implementation 2014-15

What do the models have in common? Framework Submit collections of evidence Each evidence collection contains pre- and post-work from students Representative of teacher’s course load and student population Flexible enough to be applied to various contexts Evidence collection website (GLADiS) Principles of scoring Timeline Teachers begin collecting at the beginning of the school year All portfolios are submitted April 15 Scored by peers

Timeline Summer/Fall Convened group to develop model Winter Piloted in selected districts and schools Spring Analyzed data and made changes Summer Presented to SBE for approval Fall Option for full implementation in districts

Developing the Model Which standards will we assess? How will we assess those standards to determine growth? What does mastery look like at different levels? How will we sample students? How much evidence collection will be required?

Scoring Guide Take a few moments to look through the Scoring Guide. What do you see? What don’t you see? What questions do you have?

Determining Growth Once we know which standards we will assess and what mastery looks like at different levels, we need to determine how we measure growth? This is a growth model, not an achievement model. Not about getting over an arbitrary bar Look at where they start Growth for all kids

Portfolio Scoring GROWTH Student Work (PRE) Student Work (POST)

Principles of Scoring We expect students to grow approximately one level each year. Level 1 (Significantly Below Expectations): No or extremely limited student growth Level 2 (Below Expectations): On average, less than one level of student growth Level 3 (At Expectations): On average, one level of student growth Level 4 (Above Expectations): On average, more than one level of student growth Level 5 (Significantly Above Expectations): Two or more levels of student growth

Portfolio Framework 5 total evidence collections 2 ELA 2 Math 1 Choice Each evidence collection must show pre- and post- work from: One emerging student One proficient student One advanced student

Required Domains Pre-K: Kindergarten: Counting and Cardinality Geometry or Measurement and Data Reading Foundational Skills Language Choice Kindergarten: Operations and Algebraic Thinking Writing

Peer Review Core principal of the portfolio models Only current teachers who are implementing can serve as peer reviewers Must be recommended by your district All peer review is anonymous You won’t know district, school, or teacher information Peer reviewers trained and normed prior to scoring Done through the online platform Great professional development opportunity for peer reviewers

Self-Scoring Teachers self-score each collection, giving it a score from 1-5. First reviewer does a blind review. Cannot see the teacher name, school name, or district name Cannot see the teacher’s self-scores If the first reviewer and the teacher’s self-score are within one point, the reviewer’s score stands. Ex. The teacher self-scores a collection as a 3, the reviewer gives it a 4. These scores are within one point, so the collection would receive a 4. If the first reviewer and the teacher’s self-score are NOT within one point, it goes to a second reviewer. Cannot see the teacher’s self-scores OR the first reviewer’s scores If the first reviewer and the second reviewer’s scores are within one point, the two scores are averaged. Ex. Teacher self-scores at a 5. First reviewer scores at a 3. Second reviewer scores at a 4. The collection would receive a 3.5.

Self-Scoring cont. If the first reviewer’s and the second reviewer’s scores are NOT within one point, it goes to an executive reviewer. Executive reviewers are the best of the best and have been hand-selected by their district. They are typically Level 4 and 5 teachers with multiple years of experience as a peer reviewer. STILL cannot see teacher name, school name, or district name CAN see teacher self-score, first reviewer score, second reviewer score, and any comments. Ex. Teacher self-scores at a 5. First reviewer scores at a 3. Second reviewer scores at a 5. After looking at all of the evidence, the executive reviewer assigns a score of 5. They serve as the final arbitrator in assigning a score. Committee review Only used for portfolios that need special attention. Ex. The teacher puts all of his evidence in one collection.

Self-Scoring cont. In short, the grievance process is all handled through the scoring process. All scores that are assigned, are reached through a consensus. Ex. The teacher and the first reviewer agree, the first reviewer and the second reviewer agree, the executive reviewer agrees, the committee agrees. This ensures that teachers get a fair and rigorous score.

Timeline August: Teachers begin collecting evidence as soon as the school year begins. Fall Semester: Teachers continue collecting evidence and uploading it to GLADiS as they have it. Spring Semester: Teachers continue collecting evidence and uploading it to GLADiS as they have it. April: Teachers finalize their portfolios in GLADiS and self-score. April 15: Portfolios are due. Mid-June: Scores are returned to districts, through GLADiS, and in the state data system. August: Before school begins, teachers should be given time to reflect on their scores from the previous year and get feedback from peers.