1. The Portfolio Process

2. Why do we think portfolios are the right choice?
Teacher developed and driven
Embedded professional development
Teacher scored
Increased accountability
Flexible, while maintaining rigor
Future of assessment

3. Current Portfolio Models
Fine Arts
Development began in December 2010
Piloted in
Approved in summer 2012
First year of implementation
World Languages
Development began in summer 2012
Piloted in
Approved in summer 2013
First year of implementation
Physical Education
Development began in 2012
Piloted and
Approved in summer 2014
First year of implementation

4. What do the models have in common?
Framework
Submit collections of evidence
Each evidence collection contains pre- and post-work from students
Representative of teacher’s course load and student population
Flexible enough to be applied to various contexts
Evidence collection website (GLADiS)
Principles of scoring
Timeline
Teachers begin collecting at the beginning of the school year
All portfolios are submitted April 15
Scored by peers

5. Timeline Summer/Fall Convened group to develop model Winter
Piloted in selected districts and schools
Spring
Analyzed data and made changes
Summer
Presented to SBE for approval
Fall
Option for full implementation in districts

6. Developing the Model Which standards will we assess?
How will we assess those standards to determine growth?
What does mastery look like at different levels?
How will we sample students?
How much evidence collection will be required?

7. Scoring Guide Take a few moments to look through the Scoring Guide.
What do you see?
What don’t you see?
What questions do you have?

8. Determining Growth
Once we know which standards we will assess and what mastery looks like at different levels, we need to determine how we measure growth?
This is a growth model, not an achievement model.
Not about getting over an arbitrary bar
Look at where they start
Growth for all kids

9. Portfolio Scoring
GROWTH
Student Work (PRE)
Student Work (POST)

10. Principles of Scoring
We expect students to grow approximately one level each year.
Level 1 (Significantly Below Expectations):
No or extremely limited student growth
Level 2 (Below Expectations):
On average, less than one level of student growth
Level 3 (At Expectations):
On average, one level of student growth
Level 4 (Above Expectations):
On average, more than one level of student growth
Level 5 (Significantly Above Expectations):
Two or more levels of student growth

11. Portfolio Framework 5 total evidence collections
2 ELA
2 Math
1 Choice
Each evidence collection must show pre- and post- work from:
One emerging student
One proficient student
One advanced student

12. Required Domains Pre-K: Kindergarten: Counting and Cardinality
Geometry or Measurement and Data
Reading Foundational Skills
Language
Choice
Kindergarten:
Operations and Algebraic Thinking
Writing

13. Peer Review Core principal of the portfolio models
Only current teachers who are implementing can serve as peer reviewers
Must be recommended by your district
All peer review is anonymous
You won’t know district, school, or teacher information
Peer reviewers trained and normed prior to scoring
Done through the online platform
Great professional development opportunity for peer reviewers

14. Self-Scoring
Teachers self-score each collection, giving it a score from 1-5.
First reviewer does a blind review.
Cannot see the teacher name, school name, or district name
Cannot see the teacher’s self-scores
If the first reviewer and the teacher’s self-score are within one point, the reviewer’s score stands.
Ex. The teacher self-scores a collection as a 3, the reviewer gives it a 4. These scores are within one point, so the collection would receive a 4.
If the first reviewer and the teacher’s self-score are NOT within one point, it goes to a second reviewer.
Cannot see the teacher’s self-scores OR the first reviewer’s scores
If the first reviewer and the second reviewer’s scores are within one point, the two scores are averaged.
Ex. Teacher self-scores at a 5. First reviewer scores at a 3. Second reviewer scores at a 4. The collection would receive a 3.5.

15. Self-Scoring cont.
If the first reviewer’s and the second reviewer’s scores are NOT within one point, it goes to an executive reviewer.
Executive reviewers are the best of the best and have been hand-selected by their district. They are typically Level 4 and 5 teachers with multiple years of experience as a peer reviewer.
STILL cannot see teacher name, school name, or district name
CAN see teacher self-score, first reviewer score, second reviewer score, and any comments.
Ex. Teacher self-scores at a 5. First reviewer scores at a 3. Second reviewer scores at a 5. After looking at all of the evidence, the executive reviewer assigns a score of 5.
They serve as the final arbitrator in assigning a score.
Committee review
Only used for portfolios that need special attention.
Ex. The teacher puts all of his evidence in one collection.

16. Self-Scoring cont.
In short, the grievance process is all handled through the scoring process.
All scores that are assigned, are reached through a consensus.
Ex. The teacher and the first reviewer agree, the first reviewer and the second reviewer agree, the executive reviewer agrees, the committee agrees.
This ensures that teachers get a fair and rigorous score.

17. Timeline
August: Teachers begin collecting evidence as soon as the school year begins.
Fall Semester: Teachers continue collecting evidence and uploading it to GLADiS as they have it.
Spring Semester: Teachers continue collecting evidence and uploading it to GLADiS as they have it.
April: Teachers finalize their portfolios in GLADiS and self-score.
April 15: Portfolios are due.
Mid-June: Scores are returned to districts, through GLADiS, and in the state data system.
August: Before school begins, teachers should be given time to reflect on their scores from the previous year and get feedback from peers.