March, 2011

What does the new law require?

 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

 Highly effective  Effective  Developing  Ineffective

 A single composite score of teacher (or principal) effectiveness

 Training for all evaluators (through Network Teams)  Use of improvement plans for developing and ineffective ratings  Utilize in other decisions  Locally-developed appeals process  Expedited 3020a process after two ineffective ratings

 All agreements after July 1, 2010  4-8 math and ELA (and principals) July 2011  Everyone else July 2012  Implementation of the value-added growth model (20% > 25%)

Board 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

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

20% increasing to 25%

 Value Added/Growth model  Annual achievement is more about the students than the teacher Teacher A Teacher B

 Value Added/Growth model  Adding average prior achievement for the same students shows growth Teacher A Teacher B growth +25 growth

 Value Added/Growth model  Adding average prior achievement for the same students shows growth Teacher A Teacher B growth +25 growth

 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?

 Value Added/Growth model  Comparing growth to the average growth of the similar student is the value-added Teacher A Teacher B growth avg. for similar students +25 growth +15 val add avg. for similar students +5 val add

 Value Added/Growth model  Comparing growth to the average growth of the similar student is the value-added Teacher A Teacher B growth avg. for similar students +25 growth +15 val add avg. for similar students +5 val add

 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.

 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???

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

 Use existing assessments in other content areas to create a baseline for science tests and regents  Use commercially available tests

 Add more state tests, such as:  Science 6-8  Social studies 6-8  ELA 9-11 ( )  PARCC ELA 3-11 ( )  PARCC math 3-11 ( )

 Add more state tests, such as:  Science 6-8  Social studies 6-8  ELA 9-11 ( )  PARCC ELA 3-11 ( )  PARCC math 3-11 ( ) ???

 Use a group metric that is a measure of the school (or grade’s) overall impact  % growth model also can be used for school accountability measures  Empower local level resources to create and carry out a solution that meets state requirements

20% decreasing to 15%

 Objectives include:  Provide a broader picture of student achievement by assessing more  Provide a broader picture by assessing differently  Verify performance of state 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

 Considerations include:  Rigor  Validity and reliability  Growth or achievement measures  Cost  Feasibility

 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)

Multiple measures

 Begins with the teaching standards: 1. Knowledge of Students and Student Learning 2. Knowledge of Content and Instructional Planning 3. Instructional Practice 4. Learning Environment 5. Assessment for Student Learning 6. Professional Responsibilities and Collaboration 7. Professional Growth

 Begins with the teaching standards:  Some things observable  Some not observable thus requiring some other form or documentation or artifact collection

 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

 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 items that might be included:  Teacher attendance  Goal setting  Student surveys  Portfolios/Evidence binders  Other observer

Board 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

MONTH  July  August  September ACTION  NT Training (included evaluator training)  NT turns training to local evaluators  Implementation for covered teachers