... and what it means for teachers of non-tested subjects Johanna J. Siebert, Ph.D. NAfME Symposium on Assessment June 24-25, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Understanding Student Learning Objectives (S.L.O.s)
Advertisements

Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Pilot September 1, 2011 – September 30, 2012 NJ State Board of Education, July 13, 2011.
Discuss the charge of the Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness (MCEE) Summarize the MCEE Interim Report Provide an Overview of the Pilot.
The SCPS Professional Growth System
Teacher Evaluation and Pay for Performance Michigan Education Association Spring 2011.
SEED – CT’s System for Educator and Evaluation and Development April 2013 Wethersfield Public Schools CONNECTICUT ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION Overview of.
Wethersfield Teacher Evaluation and Support Plan
 Teacher Evaluation and Effectiveness laws are now in place  Legislature has passed a law that student performance can now be a part of teacher evaluation.
BRISTOL WARREN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Implementation of RI Educator Evaluation System
Annual Professional Performance Reviews - An Overview -
Teacher Evaluation & APPR THE RUBRICS! A RTTT Conversation With the BTBOCES RTTT Team and local administrators July 20, 2011.
By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following:  A model for teacher evaluation based on current research  The FEAPs as a.
Annual UMES Summer Institute “Making the Adjustment” Student Learning Objectives :
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation August 20, 2014 Elizabeth M. Osga, Ph.D.
Teacher Evaluation New Teacher Orientation August 15, 2013.
Support Professionals Evaluation Model Webinar Spring 2013.
Teacher Evaluation System LSKD Site Administrator Training August 6, 2014.
PUSD Teacher Evaluation SY12/13 Governing Board Presentation May 10, 2012.
Freehold Borough Teacher Evaluation System Freehold Intermediate School Friday – February 15, 2013 Rich Pepe Director of Curriculum & Instruction.
C OLLABORATIVE A SSESSMENT S YSTEM FOR T EACHERS CAST
Student Learning Targets (SLT)
David Guyette, Laura Six, Rose Drake and Paige Kinnaird
OCM BOCES APPR Regulations As of % Student Growth 20% Student Achievement 60% Multiple Measures APPR NOTE: All that is left for implementation.
OCM BOCES APPR Regulations As of % Student Growth 20% Student Achievement 60% Multiple Measures APPR.
Ramapo Teachers’ Association APPR Contractual Changes.
Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) as approved by the Board of Regents, May 2011 NOTE: Reflects guidance through September 13, 2011 UPDATED.
Student Learning Objectives NYS District-Wide Growth Goal Setting Process December 1, 2011 EVOLVING.
March, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
Successful Practices Network Annual Professional Performance Review and CTE Carol Ann Zygo, Field Team Associate of Central And Northern.
Aligning Priorities, Goals and Initiatives for School and Student Success Presenters: Dr. Regina Cohn Dr. Robert Greenberg January 2013.
Student Learning Objectives The SLO Process Student Learning Objectives Training Series Module 3 of 3.
March 28, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
2012 Secondary Curriculum Teacher In-Service
Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) Evaluation Process for Teachers.
New York State District-wide Growth Goal Setting Process: Student Learning Objectives Webinar 1: December 2011.
As Adopted by Emergency Action June, 2015 Slides updated
Creating a Student Learning Objective (SLO). Training Objectives Understand how Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) fit into the APPR System Understand.
Student Learning Objectives: Approval Criteria and Data Tracking September 9, 2013 This presentation contains copyrighted material used under the educational.
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) “101”
* Provide clarity in the purpose and function of the Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) as a part of the APPR system * Describe procedures for using.
Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR). What are the components of APPR? Teacher Evaluation –60 points (observation*/goal setting) –20 points (State.
OCM BOCES Day 7 Lead Evaluator Training 1. 2 Day Seven Agenda.
Evaluation Team Progress Collaboration Grant 252.
The APPR Process And BOCES. Sections 3012-c and 3020 of Education Law (as amended)  Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) based on:  Student.
Student Learning Objectives: Approval Criteria and Data Tracking September 17, 2013 This presentation contains copyrighted material used under the educational.
OCM BOCES SLOs Workshop. Race To The Top: Standards Data Professional Practice Culture APPR.
APPR:§3012-d A Preview of the changes from :§3012-c Overview.
Teacher and Principal Evaluations and Discipline Under Chapter 103.
FEH BOCES Student Learning Objectives 3012-c.
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.
TEACHER EVALUATION After S.B. 290 The Hungerford Law Firm June, 2012.
APPR: Ready or Not Joan Townley & Andy Greene October 20 and 21, 2011.
Race to the Top (RTTT) and the New York State Regents Reform Agenda Dr. Timothy T. Eagen Assistant Superintendent for Instruction & Curriculum South Huntington.
Changes in Professional licensure Teacher evaluation system Training at Coastal Carolina University.
Creating a Student Learning Objective (SLO). Training Objectives Understand how Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) fit into the APPR System Understand.
CCSS/APPR/SLO/LMA A Summary. A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. ~ Winston Churchill.
Student Learning Objectives NYS District-Wide Growth Goal Setting Process December 1, 2011 EVOLVING.
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.
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation
Teacher Evaluation “SLO 101”
Lead Evaluator for Principals Part I, Series 1
APPR Overview 3012c Draft Revision March 2012
Student Learning Objective (SLO) Staff Development
Sachem Central School District Teacher Evaluation Training 2012
Creating Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
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.
Student Growth Measures
Presentation transcript:

... and what it means for teachers of non-tested subjects Johanna J. Siebert, Ph.D. NAfME Symposium on Assessment June 24-25, 2012

What do we want our students to know and be able to do? How will we know? Ensuring high quality instruction in every classroom

Annual Professional Performance Review Inspired by Race to the Top Legislation  New APPR a condition of the award  Some portions of evaluation process negotiated between the district and its teacher union  Some portions state-mandated  Evaluation process results in teacher “HEDI” score ◦ Highly Effective, ◦ Effective, ◦ Developing, ◦ Ineffective  Can lead to expedited 3020-A process for teacher termination

60 Points NYS, National, and/or District Teaching Standards Multiple Supervision Models, including performance rubrics Observations, surveys, evidence of Student Learning 20 Points: Student Growth Growth on State Assessments – State provided score for grades 4-8 ELA, Math OR Growth Using Comparable Measures – Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) 20 Points: Local Assessment Student Achievement – locally determined measures cross grade-levels, teams, building Can use third party State-approved assessments – can measure growth, also District, BOCES developed assessment (rigorous, comparable)

NY – districts can make individual decisions regarding: ◦ Specific supervision model to be used ◦ Priorities and academic need ◦ Which subjects/teachers will use state-provided ELA/Math scores and which will have SLOs ◦ In-house processes for SLO assessing, scoring, implementation Other States:  Similar conditions  Entire state interprets uniformly

The First 60%

Select a teacher practice rubric from the State-approved list or apply for a variance  Danielson’s Framework for Teaching  Marzano’s Causal Teacher Evaluation Model  NYSTCE Framework for the Observation of Effective Teaching  NYSUT Teacher Practice Rubric Collective Bargaining considerations

Agree on the definition of “classroom observation” and any additional measures in the 60 point category (40 pts must be multiple observations) Choose one or more of the following other measures of teacher practice:  A portfolio or evidence binder (student work or teacher artifacts)  Feedback from students, parents, and/or other teachers using a survey  Professional growth goals using self reflection (maximum of 5 points)

Observation = 2 learning walks (15-minute informal walk-through, follow-up conversation) OR A formal class-length observation Multiple “observations” needed (2) Could be  2 class-length observations  1 class-length observation, 2 learning walks  4 learning walks

 A portfolio or evidence binder (student work and/or teacher artifacts)  Professional growth goals using self-reflection (Professional Learning Plan, PLP) WCSD selects 9 components from the 4 Domains Teachers select an additional 5 components

“The governing body of each school district and BOCES is responsible for ensuring that evaluators have appropriate training— including training on the application and use of the rubrics— before conducting an evaluation. The governing body is also responsible for certifying a lead evaluator as qualified before that lead evaluator conducts or completes a teacher’s or principal’s evaluation. ” NYS Commissioner’s Regulations

Responsible for carrying out observations, summative evaluations Must be trained and calibrated across each school district in selected model  Knowledge of model  Walk-through, observation protocols  Evidence-based reports  Use, knowledge of specific rubrics  Forms, feedback for teachers  Professional Learning Plans

Districts design a plan for:  Training for all evaluators  Certification for lead evaluators  Role clarification  Subcomponent and overall scoring  Improvement plans  Knowledge of appeals procedures (i.e., NYSED model appeals procedure in guidance)

Develop Professional Learning Plan (PLP) Attention to multiple professional areas (4 Domains)  Preparation  Classroom Environment  Instruction  Reflection, Professional Responsibilities Student-Centered Aspects  Individual SLOs/Student Growth  Student achievement  Data-driven instruction  Select observation protocol ◦ Traditional observation (class length) ◦ Walk-through/Learning Walk

More frequent interactions between teacher/supervising administrator  Mid-October – describe and set PLP, content are SLO(s)  November-December – observation and follow-up  January – midterm check-in on PLP, SLO progress  February-March - observation and follow-up  May-June – summative evaluation conference

Districts are choosing specific models, scheduling and implementing administrator training Administrators, teachers at various stages  Learning new protocols  Scheduling workshops  Goal-setting  Setting district calendars To begin in September, 2012

Student Learning Objectives

A student learning objective:  Is an academic goal for a teacher’s students that is set at the start of a course.  Represents the most important learning for the year (or semester, where applicable)  Is specific and measureable based upon available prior student learning data  Aligned with Common Core, AND State or National Standards, as well as any other school and district priorities  Represents growth from beginning to end of the course Teachers’ scores are based upon the degree to which their goals are attained. 18

 Need common assessments for individual growth across grade levels, content  50% rule, applied to total student load  Teacher sets individual growth targets per student  Cross-scoring of summative assessments needed, to ensure equity in HEDI scoring (need for inter-rater reliability)

 Any teacher who does not use a state growth measure (ELA/Math assessments, gr 4-8)  “non-tested” subjects (70%)  50% + of student load  Full-credit courses carry more weight than part-credit, or semester  Teacher will likely have multiple SLOs  Teacher tracks, monitors progress of each student in SLO classes to impact growth

For Growth, Start with EVIDENCE Teacher sets individual student baseline using  Historical data (ex., prior year’s grades)  Pre-Assessment performance Teacher predicts individual student growth in his/her course  Sets individual growth targets for students  Post-assessment given at end of course (can be state assessment)  Data analysis yields success rate of students, and teacher’s score on this section

There are  NO state assessments in the arts  NO common opportunity-to-learn standards Regional BOCES are sponsoring writing sessions to design SLOs and assessments in the arts Local districts design, implement their own

… are using ELA and/or Math state test scores IN PLACE OF assessment data in non-tested subjects (the district-based SLO model) Due to:  Lack of common assessments  Lack of inter-rater reliability  Lack of content oversight by content specialist  Lack of effective data system for monitoring and tabulating results  Ambitious timeline for implementation

 NYS Learning Objective per grade selected  Specific population/grade level  Learning content  Interval of instructional time (full year, usually)  Evidence to be used/collected (three forms) ◦ Historical ◦ Pre-assessment ◦ Post-assessment  Individual students’ baseline

 Individual student targets (set by teacher)  Teacher goal set  Teacher scoring range, by HEDI ratings  Rationale for the SLO and targets Eventually  Final individual student growth score  % of students meeting individual targets  Student % aligned with specific scoring band for HEDI rating

Local Achievement Assessment

 Must be common across districts for grade level and content areas  Should represent summative measure of the course  Not to be applied to the SLO course(s)  Teacher sets target for students  Can NOT be scored by the teacher of record

... Between SLO and Achievement measures? SLO involves setting a target for students based upon previous performance data, i.e. measuring students’ growth; applied to 50% of student load Achievement does not measure “growth” over the length of the course, but teacher needs to set group target; applied to one other course

Addition of Value-Added Growth Model Inclusion of other data in targeting growth  Demographic  Graduation  Attendance Planned for school year

Plans to release individual teacher evaluation ratings to the public (HEDI)  Highly effective  Effective  Developing  Ineffective “Teachers evaluations can be viewed as the equivalent of a Carfax report, empowering parents to attempt to avoid the ‘lemons.’ “ B. Jason Brooks, Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability

June  Determine next year’s SLO courses, populations  Design pre-, summative assessments July and August  Summer workshops, planning with like SLO teachers  Calibrate scorers  Design post-assessments, local common measures  Administrators’ training in APPR forms, protocols September  Meet students, get historical achievement data  Administer, grade pre-assessments  Set goal targets for students and self  Meet with administration to review goals, etc. October  Set SLOs, student targets  Start applying strategies to gain student growth!