Www.engageNY.org 1 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

Teacher Evaluation & APPR THE RUBRICS! A RTTT Conversation With the BTBOCES RTTT Team and local administrators July 20, 2011.
New York State’s Teacher and Principal Evaluation System VOLUME I: NYSED APPR PLAN SUBMISSION “TIPS”
Completing the Classroom Teacher and Non-Classroom Teacher Evaluations for Presented by: The Office of Talent Development Employee Evaluations.
EngageNY.org State-Calculated Growth Measures Overview July 2013 Network Training Institute.
Introduction to the Georgia Student Growth Model Understanding and Using SGPs to Improve Student Performance 1.
OCM BOCES APPR Regulations As of % Student Growth 20% Student Achievement 60% Multiple Measures APPR.
LCSD APPR Introduction: NYS Teaching Standards and the Framework for Teaching Rubric Welcome! Please be seated in the color-coded area (marked off by colored.
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%
Chapter 10 Hypothesis Testing
Introduction to the Georgia Student Growth Model Student Growth Percentiles 1.
March 28, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
New York State District-wide Growth Goal Setting Process: Student Learning Objectives Webinar 1: December 2011.
New York State District-wide Growth Goal Setting Process: Student Learning Objectives & the Assessments needed Mary Ann Luciano, Director.
DRE Agenda Student Learning Growth – Teacher VAM – School Growth PYG Area Scorecards. PYG, and other Performance Indicators.
Introduction to the Georgia Student Growth Model Understanding and Using SGPs to Improve Student Performance 1.
Introduction to the Georgia Student Growth Model Understanding and Using SGPs to Improve Student Performance 1.
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.
NY’s APPR Plans and Review Process.
School Performance Framework Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.3.
New York State’s Teacher and Principal Evaluation System APPR Conference April 30 – May 1, 2012.
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.
APPR:§3012-d A Preview of the changes from :§3012-c Overview.
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.
NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting August 10, 2010 NH DOE 1 Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010.
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.
Teacher Scores from the State
Standard VI Teachers Contribute to the Academic Success of Students.
Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) MDE - AdvancED Michigan 2014 Fall School Improvement Conference November 18, 2014.
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.
Florida Department of Education’s Florida Department of Education’s Teacher Evaluation System Student Learning Growth.
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.
APPR Annual Professional Performance Review Legislation: 3012-d Board of Education Work Session November 9, 2015.
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.
Standard VI Teachers Contribute to the Academic Success of Students.
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.
Richard Woods, Georgia’s School Superintendent “Educating Georgia’s Future” gadoe.org Overview of the Georgia Student Growth Model 1.
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.
1 NYS Grades 4-8 Teacher Growth Scores: From MGP to HEDI Ratings and Scores August 2016 Disclaimer If there are any discrepancies.
Teacher SLTs
Overview This presentation provides information on how districts compile evaluation ratings for principals, assistant principals (APs), and vice principals.
Ongoing Lead Evaluator
Impact Analyses for VAM Scores
Understanding How Evaluations are Calculated
New York State Education Department Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation August 2012.
Valley Central School District
CORE Academic Growth Model: Step-By-Step
Teacher SLTs
CORE Academic Growth Model: Step-By-Step
Roadmap November 2011 Revised March 2012
Teacher SLTs
Presentation transcript:

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

2 2 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 State-provided growth measures

3 3 Evaluating Educator Effectiveness Student growth on state assessments (state- provided) Student learning objectives Growth 20% Student growth or achievement Options selected through collective bargaining Locally Selected Measures 20% Rubrics Sources of evidence: observations, visits, surveys, etc. Other Measures 60%

4 4 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.

5 5 Review of Terms  SGP (student growth percentile): –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.

6 6 MGPs and Statistical Confidence 87 Confidence Range Upper Limit Lower Limit MGP 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.

7 7 Growth Ratings and Score Ranges Growth RatingDescriptionGrowth Score Range (2011–12) Highly Effective Well above state average for similar students 18–20 EffectiveResults meet state average for similar students 9–17 DevelopingBelow state average for similar students 3–8 IneffectiveWell below state average for similar students 0–2 The growth scores and ratings are based on an educator’s combined MGP.

8 8 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 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 , 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 , 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 this means MGPs less than or equal to 35 for teachers.

9 9 From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Teachers Rules on last slide result in these HEDI criteria for 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 No Effective: Results equal state average for similar students Mean Growth Percentile Confidence RangeHEDI Rating Is your MGP 42-68? Any Confidence Range Yes No Is your MGP 36-41? Is your Upper Limit < Mean of 52? Yes No

From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Principals For principals the rules lead to these HEDI criteria for 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 No Effective: Results equal state average for similar students Mean Growth Percentile Confidence RangeHEDI Rating Is your MGP 45-60? Any Confidence Range Yes No Is your MGP ? Is your Upper Limit < Mean of 51? Yes No

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

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

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

NYS Growth Subcomponent Results for : Teachers Rating & Points (2011–12 ) Number of Teacher MGPs Percent of Teacher MGPs Highly Effective 18– % Effective 9–17 25,57877% Developing 3– % Ineffective 0– % Total 33,129

NYS results for : Principals Rating & Points (2011–12 ) Number of Principal MGPs Percent of Principal MGPs Highly Effective 18– % Effective 9– % Developing 3–8 2698% Ineffective 0–2 2437% Total 3556

Assignment of Points with HEDI Category HEDI Points Min MGP Max MGP N of Teachers HEDI Points Min MGP Max MGP N of Schools 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 Teachers Principals