Student Learning and Growth Goals 101: Requirements and Recommendations Spring 2015 Webinar.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Delaware Performance Appraisal System II for Specialists August 2013 Training Module I Introduction to DPAS II Training for Specialists.
Advertisements

Connecting Teacher Evaluation to Student Academic Progress Implementing Standard 7 0 August 2012.
Educator Effectiveness: Making Connections & Rubric Analysis Presented by the Oregon Department of Education August 2013.
 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.
SLG Goals, Summative Evaluations, and Assessment Guidance Training LCSD#7 10/10/14.
Kansas Educator Evaluation Bill Bagshaw Asst. Director Kansas State Department of Education February 13, 2015.
Student Learning Targets (SLT)
Round Table Discussion- Evaluating Arts Teachers William Kohut, Principal- Denver School of the Arts Dr. Mark Hudson- Director of Arts- Denver Public Schools.
Student Learning Targets (SLT) You Can Do This! Getting Ready for the School Year.
District Determined Measures aka: DDMs What is a DDM? Think of a DDM as an assessment tool similar to MCAS. It is a measure of student learning, growth,
 Reading School Committee January 23,
Educator Evaluations Education Accountability Summit August 26-28,
August 2014 The Oregon Matrix Model was submitted to USED on May 1, 2014 and is pending approval* as of 8/8/14 *Please note content may change Oregon’s.
Artifacts 101: The Role of Artifacts in Educator Support and Evaluation Spring 2015 Webinar.
Matrix 101: The Oregon Matrix and Summative Evaluations Spring 2015 Technical Assistance Webinar.
STUDENT LEARNING GOALS Facilitated by Brett Cheever Salem-Keizer Public Schools 24J.
Student Learning Goals
REGIONAL PEER REVIEW PANELS (PRP) August Peer Review Panel: Background  As a requirement of the ESEA waiver, ODE must establish a process to ensure.
Student Learning Objectives 1 Implementing High Quality Student Learning Objectives: The Promise and the Challenge Maryland Association of Secondary School.
Student Learning Objectives 1 Phase 3 Regional Training April 2013.
Student Learning targets
The Oregon System for Teacher and Administrator Professional Growth and Support System Focus on Student Learning and Growth Goals October
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
PRESENTED BY THERESA RICHARDS OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AUGUST 2012 Overview of the Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and.
* Provide clarity in the purpose and function of the Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) as a part of the APPR system * Describe procedures for using.
District Determined Measures aka: DDMs The Challenge: The Essential Questions: 1.How can I show, in a reliable and valid way, my impact on students’
Using Student Growth Percentiles in Educator Evaluations
Information for school leaders and teachers regarding the process of creating Student Learning Targets. Student Learning targets.
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 and Growth Goals: Collaborative Writing Practice August 2015 A challenge from last year that you would like to avoid this year OR An effective.
STUDENT GROWTH MEASURES Condensed from ODE Teacher Training.
The Delaware Performance Appraisal System II (DPAS II) for Teachers Training Module I Introduction to DPAS II Training for Teachers.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update 11/29/12.
Using Student Growth Percentiles in Educator Evaluations.
Student Growth Percentiles Basics Fall Outcomes Share information on the role of Category 1 assessments in evaluations Outline steps for districts.
Primary Purposes of the Evaluation System
SLG Goals: Reflecting on the First Attempt Oregon Collaboration Grant Statewide Grantee Meeting November 21, 2013.
SEPT 2014 Administrator Student Growth Goal Planning.
March 23, NYSCSS Annual Conference Crossroads of Change: The Common Core in Social Studies.
Student Learning Objectives. Introductions Training Norms Be present Actively participate in activities Respect time boundaries Use electronics respectfully.
Barren County Schools CERTIFIED EVALUATION PLAN
The Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems April Regionals Considerations for Specialists ___________________ 2013.
HOME High Quality Assessments in Performance Evaluation and Professional Growth (PEPG) Systems.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION COSA PRINCIPAL’S CONFERENCE 2015 ODE Update on Educator Effectiveness.
Student Learning and Growth Goals Foundations 1. Outcomes Understand purpose and requirements of Student Learning and Growth (SLG) goals Review achievement.
DISTRICT NAME HERE Using Student Growth Percentiles (Option A)
Changes in Professional licensure Teacher evaluation system Training at Coastal Carolina University.
Last Revised: 10/01/15. Senate Bill 290 has specific goal-setting requirements for all licensed and administrative staff in the State of Oregon. In ,
Educator Evaluation and Support System Basics. Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems Alignment of State and Federal.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION COSA LAW CONFERENCE 2015 ODE Update on Educator Effectiveness.
The Use of Artifacts as Evidence in Educator Evaluation Fall 2015.
STUDENT LEARNING GOALS Facilitated by Brett Cheever Salem-Keizer Public Schools 24J.
Wisconsin Administrative Code PI 34 1 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction - Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent Support from a Professional.
Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day. Oregon Response to Intervention Vision: Every child.
UPDATE ON EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS IN MICHIGAN Directors and Representatives of Teacher Education Programs April 22, 2016.
DECEMBER 7, 2015 Educator Effectiveness: Charter School Webinar.
The New Educator Evaluation System
The New Educator Evaluation System
The New Educator Evaluation System
Teacher Evaluation “SLO 101”
Kansas Educator Evaluation
Student Learning and Growth Goals Foundations
Outcomes Review 8 components of Student Learning and Growth (SLG) goals Understand requirements for scoring SLG goals Recognize the role of SLG goals.
Implementing the Specialized Service Professional State Model Evaluation System for Measures of Student Outcomes.
Student Learning and Growth Goals Foundations
Sachem Central School District Teacher Evaluation Training 2012
Common Core State Standards
Student Learning Goals (SLGs): Introduction and Overview
Roadmap November 2011 Revised March 2012
Presentation transcript:

Student Learning and Growth Goals 101: Requirements and Recommendations Spring 2015 Webinar

Outcomes Review 8 components of Student Learning and Growth (SLG) goals Understand requirements for scoring SLG goals Recognize the role of SLG goals in the evaluation cycle

Achievement Goals vs. SLG Goals Achievement GoalStudent Learning Growth Goal Does not consider baseline data Student goals are a “one- size-fits-all” and do not include ALL students Students are expected to cross the same finish line regardless of where they start 3 Students can show various levels of growth –students may have individualized finish lines Starts with baseline data Includes ALL students, regardless of ability level

Required Components of SLG Goals Content (Standards) Assessment Context Baseline Data Student Growth Goals (Targets) Rationale Strategies Professional Learning & Support toreffectiveness/slgg-guidance.doc

Requirements for SLG Goals Minimum of 2 SLG goals each year ◦ Quality Review Checklist used for goal setting ◦ Scoring protocols for Category 1 vs. Category 2 Statewide assessments (Category 1) not required for SLG goals in ◦ Category 1 measures are required in Districts must use Oregon Matrix to determine summative scores

Quality Review Checklist Takes place during the goal setting phase of the professional growth cycle for teachers and administrators For an SLG goal to be approved, all criteria must be met Version with guiding questions available in SLG section of toolkit

Scoring SLG Goals Category 2 goals scored using state SLG Scoring Rubric ODE is developing guidance on using Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) for measuring Category 1 goals

SLG Scoring Rubric Regardless of “on cycle” or “off cycle” year, all teachers and administrators set and score two goals every year Clarifying “a few points, a few percentage points, or a few students”

Recommendations Content is focused, not everything you teach Context can help ascertain instructional needs Tier goals/targets where appropriate Include the support YOU need

Tiered Targets Students enter the classroom with a range of knowledge and skills Tiered targets help ensure that each student is appropriately challenged Tiers typically set for groups of students with similar performance Tiered targets allow for more realistic expectations for goal attainment

Role of SLG Goals in Evaluation Districts required to use the Oregon Matrix in determining summative scores ◦ Y axis represents combined performance on PP and PR ◦ X axis represents combined performance on 2 SLG goals ◦ Use X and Y thresholds outlined in the Oregon Framework for Evaluation and SupportOregon Framework for Evaluation and Support Informs plan for professional growth

Common Questions Where does goal setting originate? Who has to set SLG goals? Who are SLG goals set for? What kinds of assessments can be used?

Goal setting begins with the individual educator and is based on data ◦ a part of a collaborative process within their school and/or district and with the evaluator Where does goal setting originate?

As defined by law: Teacher – anyone holding TSPC license or registration, employed as an instructor at.5 FTE and at least 135 consecutive days Administrator - any teacher the majority of whose employed time is devoted to service as a supervisor, principal, vice principal or director of a department or the equivalent in a fair dismissal district ◦ Exceptions: superintendents, non-TSPC licensed personnel, teachers who do not instruct students directly (e.g., TOSAs, instructional coaches) Who has to set SLG goals?

Roles: Requirements for Goal Setting Teachers, Principals, and Vice Principals ◦ Goals specific to subject and/or grade level standards  Must use direct measures for those standards Specialized Instructional Support Personnel ◦ Goals focused on academic standards OR the standards they use to guide their practice  Can use direct measures specific to subject OR social, emotional, behavioral, or skill development  Can use indirect measures (attendance, graduation, discipline) ◦ Instructional period and intact group may be different due to nature of instruction

Roles: Requirements for Goal Setting Non-Building Administrators ◦ Broad discretion based on the individual circumstances and assignment of the administrator ◦ Goals can focus on groups of schools, groups of students, or subjects most relevant to the administrator’s job responsibilities, or on district- wide student outcomes related to district priorities and Achievement Compacts ◦ They may use direct or indirect measures that reflect the supervisory foci of the administrator  Can use direct measures specific to subject OR social, emotional, behavioral, or skill development  Can use indirect measures (attendance, graduation, discipline)

Teachers ◦ Course or class ◦ Intact group Administrators ◦ Targeted goals rather than school wide ◦ All goals must be focused on academic growth Who are SLG goals set for?

What assessments can be used? Category 1 – statewide assessments ◦ ELA and math grades 4-8 ONLY* ◦ Required beginning in the SY  SGP guidance under development Category 2 – school-wide or district-wide ◦ Purchased or developed ◦ Include pre and post measures ◦ Aligned to assessment criteria * Pending USED approval of Oregon’s 2015 waiver

Requirements for Assessments Teachers ◦ Tested Grades/Subjects  Goal 1: Category 1  Goal 2: Category 1 or 2 ◦ Non-tested Grades/Subjects  Goal 1: Category 1 or 2  Goal 2: Category 1 or 2 Administrators ◦ Principals/VPs  Goal 1: Category 1  Goal 2: Category 1 or 2 ◦ Other Administrators  Goal 1: Category 1 or 2  Goal 2: Category 1 or 2

Resources Toolkit ◦ Guidance Documents  FAQs, SLG Guidance, Oregon Matrix, Assessment Guidance, Who is Evaluated under SB 290 ◦ Sample SLG Goals Resources from Districts Additional technical assistance from ODE

Questions?

Contacts Educator Effectiveness Team: Tanya Frisendahl Sarah Martin Sarah Phillips Brian Putnam