1. Using Student Growth Percentiles in Educator Evaluations
Welcome and introductions

2. The median is the middle number in a sequence of numbers
Warm Up
The median is the middle number in a sequence of numbers
On your table is a ½ sheet of paper that lists the heights of students in a teacher’s class
Write the students’ heights in order from shortest to tallest
Identify the median height and circle it
What was the median height of the class? 46.3
The process you just engaged in is, in a nutshell, what is required to find a median SGP. The intention behind this activity is to illustrate that determining the median SGP is not a complex process.

3. Norms Share your expertise Equity of voice Active listening
Respect the current speaker – no side conversations
Safety to share different opinions and perspectives
Respectful use of technology
Before we get started today, let’s spend a few minutes talking about how we’ll function and interact with each other today. This slide has a list of norms. Can we all accept these agreements? Are there any not listed here that need to be added?

4. Connector
On an index card please complete the following sentence stem “One of the most important learnings that I hope to take away today is…”
Before we dive into SGPs, please take a moment individually to write a response to the prompt on this slide. This will help ensure that by the end of this session we’ve met the needs of everyone who is attending.

5. Give One, Get One! You will have 5 minutes to:
Circulate around the room
Introduce yourself to a colleague
(name, position & district)
Share the information on your card
Start the process over again
Please take the index card that you completed and get up and introduce yourself to someone you are not sitting with. Take turns sharing the thoughts on your card, and then exchange cards with that person before you go and find a new partner and repeat the process.
BEFORE TRANSITIONING TO NEXT SLIDE TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO ASK FOR VOLUNTEERS TO SHARE OUT WHAT SOME OF THE DESIRED LEARNING ARE

6. Outcomes for Today
To increase knowledge of Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) and Median Student Growth Percentiles (MSGPs)
Clarify the connection between SGPs and SLGs for the SY
During our time together today our goal is twofold:
First to increase everyone’s knowledge about Student Growth percentiles – what they are and how they are determined, as well as how SGPs are incorporated into educator evaluations through Median SGPs. As part of our session today we are going to engage in a simulation with a fictitious teacher, Mr. Hendricks, and the students in his class and you’ll get the opportunity to work with some data.
Our second goal is to clarify the role of SGPs in the goal setting and evaluation process for this school year.

7. Waiver Update
On July 23, 2015,the USDOE approved Oregon’s ESEA flexibility waiver renewal request for three years through the school year

8. In other words…
Oregon met the condition placed on our waiver the previous year to provide evidence of a statewide approach for how teachers and principals set their student learning and growth goals in tested grades and subjects to ensure rigor and consistency across the state

9. As a result…
Beginning in the school year, as a requirement of the ESEA waiver, all districts will begin using Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) to meet the state assessment requirement for Student Learning and Growth (SLG) in grades 4-8 in English/Language arts (ELA) and math

10. Request to USED for
ODE has requested a modification to the waiver
Districts will determine MSGPs, but not incorporate them in educator summative evaluations for SY
Districts required to provide SGP training to staff
ODE recommends that all educators set two goals that use Category 2 measures
As you are no doubt aware, HB 2680 in the last session generated some question as to whether SGPs would be used this year since they will rely on using Smarter data from 2015 as the baseline for determining growth. A letter went out to superintendent’s on September 17th from Paula Radich our interim associate superintendent explaining a request that we have made to the USED in regard to our waiver.
The request is that for the SY all districts would put practices and procedures in place for SGPs and determine MSGPs for educators to whom they apply, but not use them for the purposes of evaluation. We have not yet received a response to our request from USED and will update the field as soon as we have an answer
In the meantime ODE is recommending that all educators set 2 Category 2 goals. This will ensure that regardless of whether SGPs are in play this year everyone will have two goals.

11. Student Growth Percentiles
(SGPs)
Normative growth measure
One year of growth
SGPs are a normative measure of student growth. SGPs quantify the growth an individual student made in one year relative to all other students in Oregon with similar score history in state assessments.
The slides we are going share in this next section are from a presentation created by OSPI in Washington
Growth is relative to students with a similar score history

12. What do we mean by normative growth?
What do we mean by normative growth? We are referring to the amount of growth a child makes in comparison to his or her peers. For instance, when a child goes to the doctor’s office, his weight and height are measured. The doctor can tell us if the child’s growth in the last year is “typical”, that is: is he growing the same, less, or more than other children his age?

13. Percentiles
35%
65%
35th
Often this is expressed in percentile terms. The child’s height may be at the 35th percentile which means that the child is taller than 35 percent of other children his age and shorter than 65 percent of children his age. Normative growth is the basis for student growth percentiles.

14. Anthony 3rd Grade 2262 Level 1 4th Grade 2398 Level 2
Let’s look at an example. Anthony was a 4th grade student last year. On his Smarter Balanced assessment in the spring, he scored a In the previous year, his 3rd grade score was There appears to be “growth” in that his score improved…but relative to what? How do we place Anthony’s growth in context?

15. Oregon Score Distribution 3rd Grade Reading Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
Let’s start by first examining the test score distribution for all students across the state in Anthony’s cohort.
We can see there is a spread of scores, from the “Level 1” range up to “Level 4”. Anthony’s score of 2262 is at the lower end of the distribution, in “Level 1”.
2432
2367
2490
ELA/Literacy Scale Score Thresholds

16. Grade 4 Grade 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 3rd Grade 4th Grade
2262
4th Grade
2398
Now, let’s look at Anthony’s 3rd and 4th grade reading scores in this context.
For simplicity, we’ll show a standard curve.
We can see that in 3rd grade he scored 2262 (or “Level 1”) and in the following year in 4th grade he scored 2398 (moving to the performance level of “Level 2”). 
Although Anthony did not meet standard in 4th grade, his score does show an improvement in performance. However, it remains unclear if this is an average or below average amount of growth.

17. 2398
- 2262
136 points
We want to understand how Anthony has improved. To do this we cannot simply subtract his 3rd grade score from his 4th grade score because Oregon state assessments is not vertically scaled, that is they do not combine to form one long yard stick from year to year so we cannot say he grew by XX points.

18. Anthony’s Comparison Group
Instead we attempt to define “above” and “below” average growth by placing Anthony’s growth in the context of a comparison group.

19. All 3rd grade test takers in Oregon
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
All 3rd grade test takers in
Oregon
When Anthony was in 3rd grade, he scored a Many other 3rd graders in Oregon took the same state test in reading. Anthony was just one student among them. Of all these 3rd graders in the state many others scored a 2262….
…with Anthony’s Prior Score ~2262
Anthony

20. Anthony’s Comparison Group
Level 1
Lev el 2
Level 3
Level 4
Let’s call this “Anthony’s Comparison Group” because these students had a similar level of academic proficiency as Anthony. Anthony’s comparison group is defined solely on their state assessment scores, not on any other characteristics. What we want to know is: relative to his comparison group, how well did Anthony perform in the next year - the 4th grade?
Anthony’s Comparison Group
Anthony’s prior
score ~2262
Anthony

21. 4th Grade Score Distribution
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
4th Grade Score Distribution
Middle score
High score
Here we can see the distribution of 4th grade test scores for Anthony’s comparison group. You can see that this is an overall lower performing subgroup of students relative to the statewide distribution
***
The highest scoring student met standard but
the middle score of Anthony’s Comparison Group is on the border of “Level 1” and “Level 2”.
Anthony’s Comparison Group
Anthony’s prior
score ~2262

22. 4th Grade Score Distribution
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
4th Grade Score Distribution
80% of students in Anthony’s comparison group scored below him
2398
Recall that this year Anthony scored Although Anthony is “Below Standard” in the state distribution, he is definitely above the middle score within his comparison group. Analyzing the data more closely, we can see that Anthony scored higher than 80 percent of students in his comparison group.
Anthony’s Comparison Group

23. 4th Grade Score Distribution
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
4th Grade Score Distribution
SGP = 80
This translates to a Student Growth Percentile (or SGP) of 80.
- 2 slow clicks –
Anthony’s Comparison Group

24. Processing Time With the colleagues at your table:
Talk about what you’ve heard so far
Identify a question your group still has about SGPs
(Up Next: Determining Median SGPs)
Before we move on to talking about how individual SGPs are used to determine an educator’s median SGP, we want to pause and give you some time to process what we’ve just discussed. On a sticky note or note card, jot down a question that your group still has about SGPs.

25. Term Clarification
A Student Growth Percentiles (SGP) measures growth for an individual student
A Median Student Growth Percentile (MSGP) represents the exact middle of a group of students’ SGPs
Earlier this morning we asked you to calculate the median height of the student’s in a teacher’s class. You listed the heights in order from smallest to largest and found the number in the exact middle. It is exactly the same process for finding the median SGP, only in this case we are not sequencing heights, but the individual growth percentiles of the students in a teacher’s course or class or a principal’s school.

26. Next, let’s move from an individual child to the teacher level.
How can we calculate the median SGP?

27. Median Student Growth Percentiles
Students in Mr. Waters class
Student SGP Sheryl 3 Hector 22 Robert 36 Miranda 38 Tre 51 Anna 54 Eric 71 Anthony 80 Amina 93
To find the median, we first need a valid class roster. Using that roster, the growth percentiles for all the students in Mr. Waters’ class are listed in numerical order from lowest to highest. In this chart, assuming this was the total enrollment in Mr. Waters class, the median student growth percentile is 51. The median SGP shows that half of the students had growth above that level, and half had growth below.
This gives us a median number for that teacher, which we refer to as the “median student growth percentile”.
Median is used rather than the average, because an average can be influenced greatly by a few very high or very low scores. The median can give a better overall picture for a teacher.

28. Making a Determination of Student Growth
The Median Student Growth Percentile (SGP) determines the educator’s Category 1 SLG Rating
Category 1 SLG Rating 1 2 3 4
Median
SGP Criteria
1 to 34
percentile
35 to 49
50 to 64
65 to 99
Interpretation
Low growth
Below average growth
Above average growth
High growth
A criteria table has been created that identifies bands of MSGPs and assigns then a number from 1-4. With a median SGP of 51, Mr. Waters would receive a score of 3 using the SGP Criteria Table. The SGP Criteria Table is used to determine how an educator’s Median Student Growth Percentiles translates into a Category 1 SLG rating. This number is then used as one of the 2 SLG goal scores that determine his rating on the X axis of the Oregon Matrix. Keep in mind, this is only for teachers and principals in tested grades and subjects which is grades 4-8 in ELA and math.

29. X-Axis = SLG Rating Mr. Waters MSGP was rated 3 Second SLG was rated 3
SLG performance level based on two goals
Two-year cycle select two of four goals
Score SLG goals
Get a rating between 1 and 4;
Use X-Axis thresholds to determine SLG level:
4 = both goals 4s
3 = both goals 3s; one goal 3 & one goal 4; one goal 2 & one 4
2 = both goals 2s; one goal 2 & one 3; one goal 1 & one 3; one goal 4 & one 1
1= both goals 1s; one goal 1 & one 2
Mr. Waters
MSGP was rated 3
Second SLG was rated 3
X-Axis Rating = Level 3 SLG Rating
For the X axis, the determination of overall performance level is based on 2 goals. For those educators on a two year cycle, two of the four goals would be selected
With a score of 3 on the SGP rubric, Mr. Waters has one goal rated a 3. The goal he wrote that used a Category 2 measure was also rated a 3. Using the threshold this means his overall SLG rating is a 3.

30. Y-Axis = PP/PR Rating Mr. Waters District rubric with 20 components
Component ratings:
17 components were rated 3; and 3 were rated 2 = 57 points possible
57/20=2.85
2.85 = Level 3 PP/PR Rating
Add up all component scores for total points possible;
Divide by number of components in your rubric;
Get a rating between 1 and 4;
Use Y-Axis threshold to determine PP/PR level:
= 4 =3
1.99 – 2.8 = 2 *
< 1.99 = 1
*PP/PR Scoring Rule: If the educator scores two 1’s in any PP/PR component and his/her average score falls between , the educator’s performance level cannot be rated above a 1.
To determine the overall PP/PR rating, scores for every component are added and then divided by the number of component. This results in a rating between 1-4. As a requirement of the ESEA waiver, ODE has developed thresholds that districts must use when making determinations.
Mr. Waters rating on the Y axis is illustrated on the right. His district uses a rubric that includes 20 components. When his scores are totaled and divided by 20 he has an overall score of using the Y axis threshold she is determined to have an overall rating of 3 in PP/PR.
It is important to note that if the educator scores two 1’s in any PP/PR component and his/her average score falls between , the educator’s performance level cannot be rated above a 1.

31. Mr. Waters: Y-axis = 3 & X-axis = 3
The matrix is a decision-making tool. It is the instrument that bring two inputs (PP/PR and SLG) together to help you make a decision for the final performance level you need to report. Districts use the thresholds established by ODE to determine the rating for each axis. The Y axis represents overall performance related to Professional practice and responsibility and the X axis represents overall performance related to student learning and growth.
It is important to note that the matrix is not a uniform percent model, and that by design the Y axis has more influence on the overall score (summative rating) than the X axis. For example, if you score a 4 on the Y-axis (PP/PR) and a 1 on the X-axis (SLG), the matrix shows that you’re still a 3 overall. In a 50/50 percentage model, you would be a 2.5.
Going back to our example of Mr. Waters, recall that he had an SGP score of 3, and an SLG score of 3 which made his overall rating on the X axis a 3. Mr. Water’s professional practice and responsibility rating on the Y axis was a 3. You can see that with a 3 on the Y axis and a 3 on the X axis the overall rating is a 3 which would mean a Collegial path. This means that paths for professional growth are developed jointly by the educator and evaluator. Even if Mr. Waters had scored a 2 overall on the X axis he would still be a 3 overall and on the Collegial path.
*Inquiry Process

32. Questions?

33. Your Turn! Use the data packet provided to: Share Out
Calculate Mr. Hendrick’s Y-axis rating
Determine Mr. Hendrick’s median SGP
Calculate Mr. Hendrick’s X-axis rating
Share Out
Based on your review of the data, what is Mr. Hendricks’:
Y axis rating? = 3 (2.82)
Median SGP? = 3
X axis rating? =2
Summative rating? = 3

34. *Inquiry Process What would Mr. Hendricks rating be on the matrix?
MSGP = 3
X = 2
Matrix = 3
*Inquiry Process

36. Timeline and ResponsibilitiesSY
ODE RESPONSIBILITIES
DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES
Fall 2015
Provide districts state criteria for determining Median Student Growth Percentiles (see Table 3 on page 5 in this guidance).
Provide districts with communications and guidance.
Select Option A or Option B to be used district-wide.
Establish a process for determining the teacher of record.
Create class rosters and establish a roster verification process.
School Year
Provide districts with professional development and technical support.
Provide training in the district to educators, evaluators, and coordinating staff.
February - June 2016
Administer Smarter Balanced Assessment
Educators verify class rosters.
Summer 2016
Calculate Student Growth Percentiles for all students.
Send districts Student Growth Percentiles and Smarter Balanced achievement data in August.
Receive Student Growth Percentiles and Smarter Balanced results from ODE.
Fall 2016
Provide guidance and support to districts.
Determine the Median Student Growth Percentile ratings using the state criteria.
Incorporate median Student Growth Percentile ratings into educator summative evaluations.
Both ODE and districts have responsibilities related to SGPs. This slide outlines the timeline for the SY and the various roles and responsibilities related to SGPs.
On p.4 of the guidance

37. Impact on Evaluation Cycles
Fall to Fall
Summative conversation and evaluation takes place at the beginning of the following year
Spring to Spring
Preliminary summative evaluation conducted with the data available, verified in the fall
Since Smarter Balanced data is not available to districts until August, districts are considering ways to shift their evaluation cycle. Some districts are moving the final summative conversation and evaluation to the fall. It is woven in with the goal setting conference that takes place for the upcoming year.
Other districts have maintained the same schedule for evaluations using the data that is available (all PP/PR data and 1 SLG goal score) and then once Smarter data is available in the fall looking to see if the score changes the summative rating.

38. How do SGPs change the goal setting and scoring processes?
Teachers and principals in grades 4- 8 in ELA and math
All other educators
We know that the use of SGPs is going to require changes for districts. Districts can think of goal setting in terms of the two groups you see on this slide. It is important to keep in mind that SGPs only apply to teachers and principals in grades 4- 8 and math. This likely represents less than 30% of the teachers in the district.
As we talk through these next few slides we hope you see that all of what you have been doing still applies, with some modifications for staff to whom SGPs apply.

39. All Other Educators Minimum of 2 SLG goals each year
Quality Review Checklist used for goal setting
Goals can use either:
Category 1 (statewide assessments) OR
Category 2 (school or district-wide assessments) measures
Goals scored using the statewide SLG Scoring Rubric
Oregon Matrix used to identify summative scores
Student Learning and Growth Guidance
Let’s start by talking about the majority of educators in your district. For those educators who are not in tested grades and subjects, the goal setting and scoring process will not change. They will still set two SLG goals, they can choose whether to use Category 1 or category 2 assessments as the measure and score them using the statewide SLG Scoring Rubric.
As with all educators, the Matrix is used to determine the final summative rating.

40. Teachers and Principals in Grades 4 – 8 ELA and Math
Minimum of 2 SLG goals each year
Quality Review Checklist used for goal setting
One goal must use Category 1 measure (Smarter)
Method for scoring Category 1 goal depends on whether the district uses Option A or Option B
Second goal can use either Category 1 or Category 2 measures
Category 2 goals scored using the statewide SLG Scoring Rubric
Oregon Matrix used to identify summative scores
You’ll notice that the text on this slide is only differs in two ways:
First, teachers and principals in tested grades and subjects must use the statewide assessment as the measure for one of their goals. Their second goal can be either a Category 1 or a Category 2 measure. The other difference is in how the Category 1 goal is scored. That depends on whether the district chooses Option A or Option B which we will discuss a little later. In either case, SGPs are used as the method for making the final determination.

41. Special Education/ Interventionists
Only applies to teachers who are the primary providers of instruction
Only the SGPs of students who take the statewide assessment (Smarter) in ELA or math are used in identifying an educator’s MSGP
Teachers for whom the majority of students take the Extended Assessment write a goal using the EA as the measure and score it using the statewide rubric
If you are not the primary provider of instruction in either ELA or Math, SGPs would not apply to you, instead you would set 2 category 2 goals. ODE is not defining primary provider, district needs to make that determination
In the school year Student Growth Percentiles will not be required for teachers whose students take the Extended Assessment. It is projected that SGPs will be implemented for the Extended Assessment in the future.
However, teachers who are the primary provider of instruction in English language arts and math for students in grades 4-8 who take the Extended Assessment must use the Extended Assessment as the measure for one of their two goals. Goals will be scored using the statewide SL

42. What do districts need to do?
Select Option A or B
Establish procedures
Create rosters
As we mentioned earlier, both ODE and districts will have responsibilities related to SGPs. Some of this work will happen in the spring and summer once student test scores are available. However, there are things districts should begin addressing this fall.

43. Select Option A or Option B
Educators are not required to set a Category 1 SLG goal. There is no required goal setting process for Category 1.
Educators are required to set one Category 2 SLG goal using the SLG goal template and rate their goal using the SLG scoring rubric
Educators are required to set one Category 1 SLG goal using Smarter Balanced and rate their goal using the SLG scoring rubric.   
Educators are required to set one Category 2 SLG goal using the SLG goal template and rate their goal using the SLG scoring rubric .
Student Growth Percentiles are used exclusively to determine the Category 1 SLG rating.
Educators’ SLG goal rating is then compared with their Median Student Growth Percentile rating to determine their final Category 1 SLG rating.
Chart on p. 2 of guidance, decision table on p.7
First, districts need to decide whether they will use Option A or Option B for incorporating SGPs. Both Options use SGPs, but there are different steps involved. Before using Student Growth Percentiles, districts are advised to have a collaborative team of teachers, administrators, and association representatives work collaboratively to choose between Options A and B.
In Option A teachers and principals in grades 4-8 ELA and math would only set and score 1 goal. The score for their second goal will be generated based on the median SGP they receive. These two scores would then be used to determine their rating on the X axis of the Matrix.
In Option B, teachers and principals in grades 4-8 ELA and math would set two goals, one of them using Smarter as the measure. They would score that goal in the same way we score Category 2 goals (using the state scoring rubric). They would also be provided with an MSGP. Using the decision table in the guidance they would compare their MSGP rating to the rating they received using the scoring guide to make a final determination of their rating for that goal.
Pause and ask if participants have questions about the two options.
Collaboration is key!

44. Fall
Districts determine which educators are required to use Median Student Growth Percentiles and create the educators’ class rosters for teachers and principals in grades 4-8, ELA/math.
2. Educators set a Category 2 SLG goal following the SLG goal setting template. (They do not set a Category 1 SLG goal.)
Spring
In May educators verify their class roster through a district-determined process.
Summer/
Districts receive Student Growth Percentiles from ODE in August following the spring test administration.
Using the Student Growth Percentiles data from ODE, districts calculate the Median Student Growth Percentiles for the educator’s class roster as follows:
Rank the students’ scores in the class roster from highest to lowest.
Locate the middle score (median) in the range to find the Median Student Growth Percentile.
If the educator has an even number of students, average the two middle scores.
Using the state criteria identify the corresponding Median Student Growth Percentile Category 1 SLG rating (1-4).
6. The educator and evaluator use the X-axis table to determine the educator’s SLG performance level for the Oregon Matrix based on the Median Student Growth Percentile and Category 2 SLG goal ratings.
This slide represents the steps and timeline that the district would follow if they choose Option A. As illustrated by the previous slide, with Option A educators are only setting and scoring one goal. As a reminder, these charts are in the Guidance. No need to try and capture this slide in your notes!
p.5
OPTION A

45. Fall
1. Districts determine which educators are required to use median Student Growth Percentiles and create the educators’ class rosters for teachers and principals in grades 4-8, ELA/math.
2. Educators set two goals: Category 1 SLG goal and Category 2 SLG goal following the SLG goal setting template.
Spring
3. In May, educators verify their class roster through a district-determined process.
Summer/
4. Districts receive Student Growth Percentiles from ODE in August following the spring test administration.
5. Using the Student Growth Percentiles data from ODE, districts calculate the Median Student Growth Percentiles for the educator’s class roster as follows:
Rank the students’ scores in the class roster from highest to lowest.
Locate the middle score (median) in the range to find the Median Student Growth Percentile.
If the educator has an even number of students, average the two middle scores.
Using the state criteria identify the corresponding Median Student Growth Percentile Category 1 SLG rating (1-4).
6. Using the state assessment results, the educator and evaluator score the Category 1 SLG goal using the state SLG Goal Scoring Rubric.
7. The evaluator uses the decision table to compare the educator’s Category 1 SLG goal rating with the Median Student Growth Percentile rating to determine the combined Category 1 SLG rating (X- and Y-axes intersect).
8. The educator and evaluator use the X-axis table to determine the educator’s SLG performance level for the Oregon Matrix based on the Median Student Growth Percentile and Category 2 SLG goal ratings.
9. If the ratings differ by more than two, use the inquiry process below to determine the final rating.
This slide represents the steps and timeline that the district would follow if they choose Option B. You’ll notice that there are 9 steps instead of 5 because in Option B educators are setting and scoring a goal and then comparing that score to their MSGP. As a reminder, these charts are in the Guidance. No need to try and capture this slide in your notes!
p.7
OPTION B

46. FOCUSED COLLABORATION Learning Exercise
Discuss with colleagues at your table how your district might go about making the decision as to which option the district will choose
Remember
Districts are advised to have a collaborative team of teachers, administrators, and association representatives work collaboratively to choose between Options A and B
Take a few minutes to talk with your colleagues about the process you might use in your district to make the decision about whether to choose Option A or B.

47. Starting to Plan…
Before using Student Growth Percentiles, districts will need to establish procedures and a process for using Median Student Growth Percentiles district-wide.
This process should be established Fall 2015
We are going to shift our discussion now to focus on the process and procedures that districts need to consider as they implement SGPs.

48. Establish Procedures…
Teacher of Record: which teachers and principals are responsible for content covered by Smarter Balanced assessments in grades 4-8 for ELA and math
Roster creation and verification
Provide rosters to teachers and principals in the fall for planning purposes
Verify rosters in the spring for evaluation
SWITCH PRESENTERS
Districts will needs to establish some procedures related to the SGPs. For example, Teacher of record – which students’ growth is linked to what teacher.
They will also need a procedure for creating and verifying rosters.
Districts must use the state’s existing definition of “full academic year” that has been used in the State Report Card to determine which students’ data are included in the rating. Full academic year refers to a student with consecutive enrollment in a school or district for more than one-half of the instructional days prior to the first school day in May.

49. Create rosters… Determine who is on each roster
Elementary: Every student in a class that takes Smarter in ELA or math
Middle: All students within a particular course who take Smarter in either ELA or math
Principals: All students in a particular grade who take Smarter in either ELA or math
The students included in a roster will depend on the grade level of the teacher. For MS teachers, the students in multiple sections of the same course would be pooled and all their SGPs used to determine the MSGP (Algebra 1 example)
Just as with goal setting using Category 2 measures, a principals “roster” could be based on a particular grade rather than all students in the school.

50. Impact of Attendance
Districts must use the state’s definition of “full academic year” when including students on rosters
“…consecutive enrollment in a school or district for more than one-half of the instructional days prior to the first school day in May”
When creating class rosters, districts must use the state’s existing definition of “full academic year” that has been used in the state report card to determine which students data are included.

51. Impact of Class Size on SGPs
Districts are required to use Median Student Growth Percentiles for educators who have at least 20 students
Teachers and principals in grades 4-8 (ELA and math only) who fall below 20 students must use other measures that are valid, reliable, and comparable across the school or district (Category 2 measures)
An “N” size of 20 required before SGPs can be used. This means there have to be at least 20 students with individual growth scores before a median would be calculated. For those educators who do not reach this number, SGPs would not be used and instead 2 goals would be written using Category 2 measures.
Any teacher or principal whose roster is less than 20 students would set both goals using Category 2 measures. In the future, districts are encouraged to pool data across three years to strengthen the results and allow for the inclusion of more educators who do not meet the minimum n size of 20 students in a single summative evaluation year.

52. Resources ODE Webpage for SGPs has been added to the EE Toolkit
ESD Regional Workshops
Contact your ESD to find out when a regional training might be available in your area
The letter that was just mentioned in addition to a guidance document, FAQ and brief video are all posted on a new SGP page in the toolkit.
The EE team is working with ESDs to schedule professional learning opportunities that go more in depth around SGPs as well as other PD opportunities related to evaluation and support systems.

53. Remaining questions?

54. Feedback Using an index card at your table, please identify:
One learning from today; and
Two questions you still have about SGPs
We’d appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to provide us with feedback about today’s session. The questions will help us as we continue to update our FAQs and provide guidance throughout the school year.

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