New York State Education Department Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation August 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 New York State Education Department Interpreting and Using Your New York State-Provided Growth Scores August 2012.
Advertisements

New York State’s Teacher and Principal Evaluation System VOLUME I: NYSED APPR PLAN SUBMISSION “TIPS”
EngageNY.org State-Calculated Growth Measures Overview July 2013 Network Training Institute.
Ramapo Teachers’ Association APPR Contractual Changes.
Annual Professional performance review (APPR overview) Wappingers CSD.
Student Growth Percentile (SGP) Model
99th Percentile 1st Percentile 50th Percentile What Do Percentiles Mean? Percentiles express the percentage of students that fall below a certain score.
March, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
1 New York State Education Department Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation August 2012.
DRE Agenda Student Learning Growth – Teacher VAM – School Growth PYG Area Scorecards. PYG, and other Performance Indicators.
How Can Teacher Evaluation Be Connected to Student Achievement?
EngageNY.org State-Calculated Growth Measures Overview July 2013 Network Training Institute Revised 8/22/2013.
Student Learning Growth Details November 27 th and November 29th.
1 New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation 2011–12 July 2012 PRESENTATION as of 7/9/12.
The APPR Process And BOCES. Sections 3012-c and 3020 of Education Law (as amended)  Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) based on:  Student.
New York State Scores 2011—2012 School Year. Growth Ratings and Score Ranges Growth RatingDescriptionGrowth Score Range (2011–12) Highly EffectiveWell.
Western Suffolk BOCES Boot Camp Emma Klimek Eastern Suffolk BOCES 2012.
NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting September 21, 2010 NH DOE 1 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010.
Student Learning Objectives SLOs April 3, NY State’s Regulations governing teacher evaluation call for a “State-determined District-wide growth.
March 23, NYSCSS Annual Conference Crossroads of Change: The Common Core in Social Studies.
1 New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation 2011–12 July 2012 PRESENTATION as of 7/9/12.
APPR: Ready or Not Joan Townley & Andy Greene October 20 and 21, 2011.
Teacher Scores from the State
October 24, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Accountability and Reporting Oregon Department of Education.
2011 – 2012 School Year. * Walk-Throughs * Observation(s) * Pre-/Post-Evaluation Form * Year-End Evaluation * Summative Score Report.
Copyright © 2014 American Institutes for Research and Cleveland Metropolitan School District. All rights reserved. March 2014 Interpreting Vendor Assessment.
Understanding How Evaluations are Calculated Professional Practices, Measures of Student Learning/ Outcomes- Calculating Scores & Translating SLOs/SOOs.
Value Added Model Value Added Model. New Standard for Teacher EvaluationsNew Standard for Teacher Evaluations Performance of Students. At least 50% of.
PRINCIPAL STATE GROWTH SCORES / Principal Performance/Visit= 50 Student Performance=50.
EngageNY.org State-Calculated Growth Measures Overview July 2013 Tracy Rowlands & Deb Duffy.
1 New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation June 2012 PRESENTATION as of 6/14/12.
EngageNY.org State-Calculated Growth Measures Overview July 2013 Deb Duffy.
1 Overview of Teacher Evaluation 60% Multiple Measures of Teacher Performance At least 31 points based on “at least 2” observations At least one observation.
NYS Grades 9-12 School Growth Scores: From MGP and GRE to HEDI Ratings and Scores August 2016 Disclaimer If there are any discrepancies between.
APPR 2.0 (based on CR 3012-d) NSCSD Goals The NSCSD District Goals Can be evidenced in planning, classroom instruction, assessment and teacher’s.
1 NYS Grades 4-8 Teacher Growth Scores: From MGP to HEDI Ratings and Scores August 2016 Disclaimer If there are any discrepancies.
A QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT -
Evaluation of Teachers & Principals (APPR)
Chapter 12 Chi-Square Tests and Nonparametric Tests
VAM Primer.
Welcome to the BT Super Conference
Teacher SLTs
Student Growth Measurements and Accountability
Teaching Statistics in Psychology
AP Statistics Empirical Rule.
Overview of the Georgia Student Growth Model
FY17 Evaluation Overview: Student Performance Rating
Overview This presentation provides information on how districts compile evaluation ratings for principals, assistant principals (APs), and vice principals.
South Dakota’s Growth Model
CORE Academic Growth Model: Results Interpretation
Ongoing Lead Evaluator
Impact Analyses for VAM Scores
Alliance Teacher effectiveness 2012
Understanding How Evaluations are Calculated
TeachNJ By Heather Perruso.
Valley Central School District
NEWARK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPR OVERVIEW
Introduction to the Georgia Student Growth Model
CORE Academic Growth Model: Step-By-Step
Teacher SLTs
CORE Academic Growth Model: Step-By-Step
Overview This presentation provides information on how districts compile evaluation ratings for principals, assistant principals (APs), and vice principals.
Starting Community Conversations
Madison Elementary / Middle School and the New Accountability System
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
Roadmap November 2011 Revised March 2012
A student learning objective is an academic goal for a teacher’s students that is set at the start of a course. It represents the most important learning.
Teacher SLTs
Jeanne M. Burns, Ph.D. Louisiana Board of Regents May 22, 2013
Jeanne M. Burns, Ph.D. Louisiana Board of Regents May 22, 2013
Presentation transcript:

New York State Education Department Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation August 2012

By the End of This Presentation…. You should be able to: Explain how growth ratings (HEDI) and scores will be obtained from educator overall MGPs and confidence ranges based on 2011-12 State-provided growth measures

Evaluating Educator Effectiveness 2011-12 Student growth on state assessments (state-provided) Student learning objectives Growth 20% Student growth or achievement Options selected through collective bargaining Locally Selected Measures Rubrics Sources of evidence: observations, visits, surveys, etc. Other Measures 60%

Key Points about NYS Growth Measures We are measuring student growth and not achievement Allow teachers to achieve high ratings regardless of incoming levels of achievement of their students We are measuring growth compared to similar students Similar students: Up to three years of the same prior achievement, three student-level characteristics (economic disadvantage, SWD, and ELL status) Every educator has a fair chance to demonstrate effectiveness on these measures regardless of the composition of his/her class or school.

Review of Terms SGP (student growth percentile): Similar students: the result of a statistical model that calculates each student’s change in achievement between two or more points in time on a State assessment or other comparable measure and compares each student’s performance to that of similarly achieving students Similar students: students with the similar prior test scores,(up to three years), and ELL, SWD, and economic disadvantage status Unadjusted and adjusted MGP (mean growth percentile): the average of the student growth percentiles attributed to a given educator For evaluation purposes, the overall adjusted MGP is used. This is the MGP that includes all a teacher or principal’s students and takes into account student demographics.

MGPs and Statistical Confidence 87 Lower Limit Upper Limit Confidence Range NYSED will provide a 95% confidence range, meaning we can be 95% confident that an educator’s “true” MGP lies within that range. Upper and lower limits of MGPs will also be provided. An educator’s confidence range depends on a number of factors, including the number of student scores included in his or her MGP and the variability of student performance in the classroom.

Growth Ratings and Score Ranges 2011-12 Description Growth Score Range (2011–12) Highly Effective Well above state average for similar students 18–20 Effective Results meet state average for similar students 9–17 Developing Below state average for similar students 3–8 Ineffective Well below state average for similar students 0–2 The growth scores and ratings are based on an educator’s combined MGP.

HEDI Classification Approach: Teachers and Principals Highly Effective (Well Above Average) requires: An educator’s MGP is greater than 1.5 standard deviations above the State mean. For 2011-12 this means MGP’s greater than or equal to 69 for teachers. Effective (Average) requires: An educator’s MGP is between 1 standard deviation below the State mean and 1.5 standard deviations above the State mean. For 2011-12, MGPs of 42 through 68 for teachers. Developing (Below Average) requires: An educator’s MGP is between 1 and 1.5 standard deviations below the State mean. For 2011-12, MGPs of 36 through 41 for teachers. Ineffective (Well Below Average) requires: An educator’s MGP is more than 1.5 standard deviations below the State mean. For 2011-12 this means MGPs less than or equal to 35 for teachers.

From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Teachers Rules on last slide result in these HEDI criteria for 2011-12 Yes No Is your MGP ≥ 69? Is your Lower Limit > Mean of 52? Highly Effective: Results are well above state average for similar students Is your MGP ≤ 35? Is your Upper Limit < 44? Ineffective: Results are well below state average for similar students Developing: Results are below state average for similar students Effective: Results equal state average for similar students Mean Growth Percentile Confidence Range HEDI Rating Is your MGP 42-68? Any Confidence Range Is your MGP 36-41? Is your Upper Limit < Mean of 52? 9

From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Principals For principals the rules lead to these HEDI criteria for 2011-12 Yes No Is your MGP ≥ 61? Is your Lower Limit > Mean of 51? Highly Effective: Results are well above state average for similar students Is your MGP ≤ 41? Is your Upper Limit < 46? Ineffective: Results are well below state average for similar students Developing: Results are below state average for similar students Effective: Results equal state average for similar students Mean Growth Percentile Confidence Range HEDI Rating Is your MGP 45-60? Any Confidence Range Is your MGP 41.5-44? Is your Upper Limit < Mean of 51? 10

Upper limit CR for Ineffective Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings: (Another Way) (2011-12 cut scores) MGP 1 MGP 99 Well Below Average (35) Below Average (41) Average (52) Well Above Average (69) MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP Upper limit CR for Ineffective (44) MGP

Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings: (2011-12 cut scores) MGP 1 MGP 99 Well Below Average (35) Below Average (41) Average (52) Well Above Average (69) MGP MGP Ineffective Highly Effective Upper limit CR for Ineffective (44) 12

Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings (2011-12 cut scores) MGP 1 MGP 99 Well Below Average (35) Below Average (41) Average (52) Well Above Average (69) MGP MGP Ineffective MGP Highly Effective Developing MGP Effective MGP Effective MGP Developing MGP Upper CI for Ineffective (44) Effective 13

NYS Growth Subcomponent Results for 2011-12: Teachers Rating & Points (2011–12 ) Number of Teacher MGPs Percent of Teacher MGPs Highly Effective 18–20 2206 7% Effective 9–17 25,578 77% Developing 3–8 3341 10% Ineffective 0–2 2004 6% Total 33,129

NYS results for 2011-12: Principals Rating & Points (2011–12 ) Number of Principal MGPs Percent of Principal MGPs Highly Effective 18–20 223 6% Effective 9–17 2821 79% Developing 3–8 269 8% Ineffective 0–2 243 7% Total 3556

Assignment of Points with HEDI Category HEDI Points Min MGP Max MGP N of Teachers 3 28 660 1 29 32 651 2 33 35 693 241 4 36 37 826 5 38 495 6 39 535 7 40 561 8 41 683 9 44 2661 10 45 46 2001 11 47 49 3376 12 50 51 2432 13 52 54 3648 14 55 56 2415 15 57 59 3144 16 60 62 2624 17 63 68 3277 18 69 70 662 19 71 73 666 20 74 96 878 Teachers Principals HEDI Points Min MGP Max MGP N of Schools 16 36.5 71 1 37 39 75 2 39.5 41 97 3 34.5 22 4 41.5 42 65 5 42.5 40 6 43 7 43.5 8 44 64 9 46 270 10 46.5 48 350 11 48.5 49 209 12 49.5 50.5 328 13 51 52 313 14 52.5 53.5 324 15 54 55 316 55.5 57 353 17 57.5 63.5 358 18 61 61.5 19 62 63 70 20 74 88 Point value of 3 includes educators with MGPs in the Ineffective category but CRs above 44 (for teachers) and above 46 (for principals) Point value of 9 includes educators with MGPs in the Developing category but CRs above state average Point value of 17 Includes educators with MGPs in the Highly Effective category but CRs below state average