1. Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment
Welcome to this Introduction to the Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment Demonstrating Educator Effectiveness Pilot Project.
This webinar recaps the purpose of the Demonstrating Educator Effectiveness pilot project, provides a quick overview of the MAEIA project and the resources available through this project and outlines the desired outcomes for the pilot and participant roles and responsibilities.
Demonstrating Educator Effectiveness
Project

2. Introductions Ed Roeber, Michigan Assessment Consortium
Heather Vaughan-Southard, Michigan Assessment Consortium
Website with all MAEIA resources & tools
We have approximately 30 pilot participants – a combination of arts teachers and supervising administrators – from districts across the state and representing theatre, dance, visual, arts and music K-12. A roster of participants is available on the web page noted on the screen.
The MI Assessment Consortium is a non-profit, non-partisan education organization focused on promotion of quality assessment systems and practices – we have been commissioned by the MDE to make the resources and tools available through this program.
For the pilot project you are served by – Kathy Dewsbury-White, MAC CEO and MAEIA Project Director, Ed Roeber MAC and MAEIA project Assessment Director, Linda Wacyk, Communications Director and Jason O’Donnell executive assistant and project support. Linda is unable to join us today on the webinar.

3. Welcome to MAEIA . . . MAEIA Resources
We are the Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment (MAEIA) project.
We're changing the landscape of arts assessment for students, educators, and programs.
Arts Blueprint & a Program Review Tool
360 arts assessments in dance, music, theatre, and visual art & a community of like-minded professionals
Let’s start with a quick overview of the MAEIA project and resulting tools and resources for arts educators.
We have created…
An arts education blueprint, with supporting research
A program review tool to help you measure your arts instructional program
over 350 arts performance assessments in dance, music, theatre, and visual art , suitable for students from kindergarten through grade 12
And, a community of like-minded professionals who are beginning to use the maeia-artsednetwork.org

4. Purpose of the MAEIA Project
Improve the quality of your arts education program
Monitor and improve student learning in the arts
Support professional practice and improve teacher effectiveness
Advance arts as a key element of a well-rounded education
There are several purposes to the Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment or MAEIA project.
The MAEIA project was commissioned by the Michigan Department of Education. It was developed by the Michigan Assessment Consortium with the Data Recognition Corporation, in partnership with over 1,000 Michigan Educators.
The purposes for MAEIA are to help arts educators
improve their arts education programs,
to monitor and improve student learning in the arts,
to support professional practice and improve your effectiveness as a teachers, and ultimately,
to advance arts education as a key part of a well-rounded education. (If you have been following ESSA the Every Student Succeeds Act) you will be familiar with the language well rounded education and the potential to use Title IV-A monies in the future to supports arts education.

5. Creating the Context for High Quality Arts Education Programs
Michigan Blueprint of a Quality Arts Education Program
Michigan Blueprint Research and Recommendations
We will quickly mention the resources and tools available to you through MAEIA that were built before the Assessments – so that you have an awareness of their availability – Our intention is to spend the majority of our time this afternoon acquainting you with the availability of assessments and specifically how they can be used to document evidence of student growth to embed in an educator effectiveness plan.
The first resources created by the project were the “Michigan Blueprint for a Quality Arts Education Program” and the “Research and Recommendations” in support of the Blueprint.
The Blueprint contains statements about the characteristics of high quality arts education programs – for example, what courses are offered, who teaches them (and their qualifications), in what facilities, supported by what resources and which policies?
The Blueprint statements address all 4 arts disciplines
The “Research and Recommendations” document supports the Blueprint by answering the “so who says” questions about each characteristic.
The research cited supports the characteristics specific to each arts disciplines and provide a firm foundation on which to build a high quality arts education program.
maeia-artsednetwork.org

6. Michigan Blueprint of a Quality Arts Education Program
Goal-setting document criteria/44 indicators aligned with MI School Improvement Framework.
The Blueprint is intended for district-level administrators, teachers, parents and community for use in district and school improvement activities.
The goal-setting statements are:
aspirational
based on the best available research and recommendations
have as their ultimate goal that all students develop unique ways of knowing and interpreting the world
prepare all students to be “world class” and globally competitive in college, careers, and life
are easy for busy administrators and teachers to reference
The Blueprint recommendations are organized into seven areas:
A Student Access
B Facilities and Resource
C Policy and Accountability
D Connections
E Professional Learning and Instructional Support
F Community and Cultural Collaborations
G Program Planning, Review, and Improvement
There are a total of 44 recommedations altogehter

7. What does the Blueprint do for you?
Clarify the moving parts of your program and give you tools to measure/talk about your work.
Help identify strengths and areas of improvement- program wide, or class-specific.
Provide tools to enhance your teaching, your portfolio, and your building- or district-wide conversations about the arts – within the context of the Michigan school improvement planning process.
There are three things the Blueprint accomplishes.
It…
Clarifies the moving parts of your program and gives you tools to measure and talk about your work.
Helps identify strengths and areas of improvement – either program-wide, or specific to a class.
Provides tools to enhance your teaching, your portfolio, and your building- or district-wide conversations about the arts – within the context of the Michigan school improvement planning process.
Additionally…
Other participants in the pilot were thinking about how to use indicators in the Blueprint to better inform “look fors” in the Observation portion of an educator evaluation plan.

8. MAEIA Program Review Tool
Self-study tool districts and schools can use to analyze and reflect on the status of their own arts education program
Consists of questions that schools are asked to fill out (about 75).
One or more questions are used to measure each Blueprint indicator.
The Program Review Tool, which is about 75 questions long, can help you collect information that will you and others in your school or district
to review to improve your arts education program
This tool will help you engage in self-study to analyze the status of your arts education program
The results can be used as part of a district or building school improvement process
We hope that the tool will help to improve your arts education program, instruction, and student learning
Results can be used as part of the district or building school improvement process.

9. Framing the Conversation
The Michigan Arts Education Program Review Tool measures school arts programs relative to each element contained in the Michigan Blueprint
So what?
The Program Review Tool is what you use when you show evidence of how you rate compared to the Blueprint and to others.
The Michigan Arts Education Program Review Tool measures school arts programs relative to each element contained in the Michigan Blueprint
The Program Review Tool is what you would use to show evidence of how your school would rate compared to the Blueprint and to other schools.

10. Overview of the MAEIA Assessments
Module 2
IN THE MAEIA MODULE SERIES
Short video recorded tutorials have been uploaded to the maeia-artsednetwork.org website to help an individual viewer or teachers training colleagues – better understand what the MAEIA tools and resources are and how to use them. Module 2 acquaints us with the assessments – the next 7 slides are borrowed from that module to support our introduction this afternoon, to the assessments.

11. Types of Assessment Items
The model assessments are
a combination of performance tasks, events, and
related constructed and selected response items.
They are intended to be used over the course of a year, in conjunction with arts instruction.
There are several types of model MAEIA assessments – a combination of performance tasks, performance events, and constructed and selected response items included in the tasks ad events
These assessments are intended to be used by arts educators over the course of the school year, a few by each teacher.

12. Types of Assessment Items
Performance Tasks
Performance assessments carried out by individual students or small groups of students over time (days, weeks, months)
Tasks are carried out in or out of class, but very much related to instruction (e.g., class assignments)
Tasks measure essential outcomes in the content standards not easily measured in other ways
Performances are judged using one or more scoring rubrics
The first type of assessment is a performance task. Tasks are intended to be carried out over time, such as multiple class periods, usually in class (but occasionally outside of class).
These are substantial assessments that measure concepts not easy to measure in other ways.
Students work on these assessments individually or in small groups
Students’ work is judged by the teacher using one or more Teacher Scoring Rubrics, each with multiple dimensions in them.

13. Types of Assessment Items
Performance Events
Performance assessments that are administered “on-demand,” without any or just a brief amount of rehearsal time.
May be individual or small group assessments
Test administrator presents items to one student or a small group of students, who respond in “real” time
Performances are judged using one or more scoring rubrics
Performance events are shorter performance assessments, typically completed by students in just one class period.
These are “on-demand’ assessments in which create first draft work or perform without prior rehearsal.
Students also work on these assessments individually or in small groups
Students’ work is also judged by the teacher using one or more Teacher Scoring Rubrics, each with multiple dimensions in them.

14. Types of Assessment Items
Constructed Response
Items in which students write a response to a prompt
Usually can be administered to groups of students together
Some type of stimulus (e.g., music selection, video, or picture) could be used
Task may involve writing, sketching, constructing a table, as well as a written response
Performances are judged using one or more scoring rubrics
Constructed or written response items require students to write a response to a prompt, which may be a short or more extended written response, or an artist sketch, musical composition, or other comparable response
Students’ work is also judged by the teacher using one or more Teacher Scoring Rubrics, each with multiple dimensions in them.

15. Types of Assessment Items
Selected Response
Items related to other items. The student is given a prompt (a quest or a statement) and answer choices.
Student has to select either the correct answer or the most correct answer
Multiple-choice questions are the most popular form for these items
In MAEIA, these items are used to tap content knowledge or procedural knowledge needed to respond to Performance Tasks, Performance Events or Constructed Response items; there are no stand-alone selected-response items
The final item type is selected-response items. These are typically multiple-choice items where students read a question or prompt and selects the correct or most correct response to the question or prompt.
In MAEIA, these items are used to tap content knowledge or procedural knowledge needed to respond to performance tasks or events; there are no stand-alone selected-response items and they are not intended to be lifted out of tasks and events and combined to make one bubble test.

16. Building the Experience
The MAEIA resources include:
Model Arts Education Assessments for Grades K-8
Model Arts Education
Assessments for
High School
These assessments are available in three grade bands (grades K-2, 3-5, and 6-8) in dance, music, theatre, and visual arts.
These assessments are available in three levels, suitable for first-year, second-year, and third- & fourth-year students in dance, music, theatre, and visual arts.
THE major resource for arts educators are the over 350 arts education performance assessments that have bee created.
There are model assessments suitable for dance, music, theatre, and visual arts, for students in grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and high school
At the high school level, there are model assessments in dance, music, theatre, and visual arts for first-year, second-year, and third- & fourth-year students I each discipline.

17. How can teachers use MAEIA Assessments?
to inform current instruction
to improve student learning and achievement
as a portion of educator
effectiveness demonstration
to improve future instruction and program improvement
MAEIA assessments can be used in several ways:
There are several ways that the MAEIA assessments can be used:
to inform current instruction
to improve student learning and achievement
as a portion of your demonstration of your effectiveness as an educator
to improve future instruction and program improvement

18. Overview of Michigan’s Educator Evaluation Law MCL 380
Overview of Michigan’s Educator Evaluation Law MCL As amended by Public Act 173 of 2015

19. Evaluation Law: Moving Targets
Starting in , ALL districts required to:
(a) Evaluate at least annually
(b) Measure and report student growth
(c) Use multiple rating categories , incorporate student growth data
(d) Use the evaluations to inform decisions:
(i) Teacher/administrator effectiveness
(ii) Promotion, retention, and development
(iii) Granting of tenure and/or full certification
(iv) Removing ineffective educators
So let’s first go back to remember where we started and how long we’ve actually engaged in this effort.
Starting in , ALL districts have been required to:
(a) Evaluate teacher and school administrators at least annually
(b) Establish clear approaches to measuring student growth and provides teachers and school administrators with relevant data
(c) Use multiple rating categories (highly effective, effective, minimally effective, and ineffective) that take into account data on student growth as a significant factor (now replaced with specific percentages).
(d) Uses the evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions regarding all of the following:
(i) The effectiveness of teachers and administrators,
(ii) Promotion, retention, and development of teachers and school administrators
(iii) Granting of tenure or full certification, or both
(iv) Removing ineffective tenured and untenured teachers and administrators 64

20. Evaluation Law: Moving Targets
In November 2015, legislators passed PA 173 of 2015
Amends MCL
Eases into changes, most starting in
Addresses evaluation requirements in two areas:
Professional Practice
Student Growth
In November 2015, PA 173 of 2015 amended that section of the law, and eases into some changes, most of which are effective starting this school year.
MCL includes evaluation requirements two areas: Professional Practice and Student Growth 64

21. Professional Practice
New requirements effective in
Portion of evaluation not based on growth data must be based “primarily” on a district- selected framework.
Frameworks:
MCEE-recommended: Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model, The Thoughtful Classroom, or 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning.
MDE-approved: TBD Districts may choose a framework on the list, build their own, or modify a framework on the list
Training: All evaluators must receive framework training, delivered by the framework vendor or authorized trainer.
First, let’s talk about the Professional Practice requirements. This is the portion of the evaluation that is NOT based on growth data and is addressed by the district’s selected evaluation framework –sometimes referred to an evaluation “model” or “tool.”
As it stands right now:
Frameworks can be chosen from among the following:
MCEE-recommended: Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model, The Thoughtful Classroom, or 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning.
MDE-approved: TBD Districts may choose a framework on the list, build their own, or modify a framework on the list
Training: All evaluators must receive framework training, delivered by the framework vendor or authorized trainer.
NOTE: Teachers and administrators being evaluated must also receive some training in how the framework will be used to evaluate them. This can be provided by the district or the vendor. 64

22. Professional Practice, Cont’d
New requirements taking effect in , cont’d.
Observation feedback must be provided to teachers within 30 days of that observation.
Each teacher must have an identified administrator who is responsible for his/her evaluation. The responsible administrator needs to conduct at least 1 of the observations of that teacher.
There must be at least 1 unscheduled observation.
The portion of the evaluation not measured using growth or evaluation framework must include the factors from section 1248
Other requirements related to professional practice:
Observation feedback must be provided to teachers within 30 days of that observation.
Each teacher must have an identified administrator who is responsible for his/her evaluation. The responsible administrator needs to conduct at least 1 of the observations of that teacher.
There must be at least 1 unscheduled observation.
The portion of the evaluation not measured using growth or evaluation framework must include the factors from section 1248
This hails back to 2011, before we had any frameworks vetted or named. Most evaluation frameworks include these specified criteria somewhere in the rubrics, but if they don’t, the district must still address them.
specified criteria from Sec (i)-(iii) as needed:
o Evidence of student growth
o Teacher’s demonstrated pedagogical skills
o Teacher's management of the classroom, manner and efficacy of disciplining pupils, rapport with parents and other teachers, and ability to withstand the strain of teaching
o Teacher's attendance and disciplinary records
o Significant, relevant accomplishments and contributions to the overall performance of the school
o Relevant special training other than PD or continuing education and meaningful integration of such training into instruction
• Include specific performance goals (all) and improvement plans/ 64

23. Student Growth Ratings
Percentage of evaluation based on student growth:
through : 25%
and beyond: 40%
Student growth data:
State assessment data does not have to be used until
State assessment data make up only half of the total growth data for teachers in tested grades and subjects.
Non-State (Local) growth measures must use multiple measures and be used consistently among similarly situated educators.
The second big component of educator evaluation is student growth ratings.
For 2015‐16 through 2017‐18, student growth comprises 25% of the overall performance rating. It is NOT required to use state assessment data during this period.
In 2018‐19, the growth rating moves to 40%.
At that time, for teachers in state tested core areas, growth ratings will be based on a combination of ratings from State assessments and district measures.
For teachers in core or non‐core areas with no required state test, growth ratings will be based on district measures which may include State assessments where available.
For administrators, growth will be based on aggregation of growth measures for teachers within the administrator’s scope of responsibility.
Districts must develop a local growth model that is transparent and treats all similarly situated teachers and administrators equitably. 64

24. Student Growth Ratings, cont’d
Non-state (local) growth measures may include the following:
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
Other rigorous assessments that are comparable across the district
Nationally normed or locally developed assessments aligned to state standards
Research-based growth measures
IEP goals (where applicable)
The local growth model may include any of the sources listed:
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
Other rigorous assessments that are comparable across the district
Nationally normed or locally developed assessments aligned to state standards
Research-based growth measures
IEP goals (where applicable)
Highlighted in blue are where MAEIA assessments come in.
One could argue for the third bullet item as well. 64

25. Student Growth Ratings 2016*
Core Curriculum Teachers
Non‐Core Curriculum Teachers
State & Local Student Growth 25%
Local Student Growth 25%
Professional Practice per Evaluation Instrument 75%
Professional
Practice per Evaluation Instrument 75%
This is just a visual illustration of the previous slides
Local Student Growde:
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
Nationally normed or locally developed assessments aligned to state standards
Research-based growth measures
Other rigorous assessments that are comparable across the district
IEP goals (where applicable)
*Growth Ratings:
25% through 2017‐18; 40% 2018‐19 and after

26. And finally…. New requirements taking effect in 2018-19
The percentage of a teacher’s evaluation attributed to student growth and assessment data rises to 40%, of which half shall be based on state growth data for teachers in tested grades and subjects.
Prohibit students from being taught for 2 consecutive years by a teacher rated ineffective in 2 most recent evaluations OR notify parents in writing if reassignment is not possible. 64

27. Using the MAEIA Assessments to Demonstrate Educator Effectiveness
Module 8
IN THE MAEIA MODULE SERIES
This Module will also be posted and available to you on the maeia-artsednetwork.org site
In addition to the module we have published a scholarly paper to support the use of these assessments to demonstrate growth – the paper is on the website and also found on the webpage created by the MAC to support this pilot project this year – you saw that URL early in this webinar.

28. MAEIA Educator Effectiveness Models
The MAEIA project has created three methods for educators to use in demonstrating their effectiveness.
Two models use pre-post student data, while the third uses an array of student performances
Each model recognizes that instruction and achievement in the arts is different than content areas such as mathematics or reading
Each tries to characterize arts achievement in realistic terms, given limits of instructional time
The MAEIA project has created three methods for educators to use in demonstrating their effectiveness.
• Two models use pre-post student data, while the third uses a selection of student performances
• Each model recognizes that instruction and achievement in the arts is different than in content areas such as mathematics or reading
• Each tries to characterize arts achievement in realistic terms, given the limits of instructional time

29. MAEIA Educator Effectiveness Methods
Each MAEIA assessment is designated for use in one of these methods:
Method 1
Test-retest in the same school year
Method 2
Test-retest in adjacent school years
Method 3
Select examples of
student performance to show student achievement – the “new old-fashioned way” of demonstrating student proficiency
This slide shows a summary of the 3 methods of demonstrating educator effectiveness
Method 1 is a re-use of the same assessment within the same school year
Method 2 is the re-use of the same assessment in adjacent years
Method 3 is the selection of a range of student responses to the assessment to show levels of student achievement – the “new, old-fashioned way” of demonstrating student achievement
maeia-artsednetwork.org/educator-effectiveness-methods

30. Educator Effectiveness--Method 1
Test-retest in the same school year
A MAEIA assessment is given to students twice:
Fall and spring of the same school year (or start or end of a semester)
Before and after instruction on the content standards measured by the assessment
As this slide indicates, Method 1 is most suitable for assessments that do not take much time to administer. This is typically the performance events. In Method 1, the same assessment is given to students before and after instruction, which could be at the start and end of the school year, semester, marking period and so on.
Most suitable for assessments that can be given in a short period of time – such as MAEIA performance events.

31. Educator Effectiveness--Method 2
Test-retest in adjacent school years
A MAEIA assessment is given to students twice:
Fall (or spring) of adjacent school years
Pre-test and instruction in the first school year assessment, with post-test in second year
Most suitable for assessments that require longer periods of time to administer – such as MAEIA performance tasks
Feasible because the same arts educator might instruct the same students over multiple grade levels
Method 2 is similar to Method 1, except the pre-test and post-test occur in adjacent school years, which may be feasible because you have the same students for two or more grade levels.
Method 2 may be more suitable for lengthier assessments, such as the MAEIA performance tasks, but again, the assessment should occur before and after instruction has taken place.

32. Educator Effectiveness--Method 3
Select examples of student performance to show student achievement
Some MAEIA assessments are unique; doing them twice (as in Models 1 and 2) wouldn’t be useful or interesting to students nor informative to teachers.
Educators have typically demonstrated their effectiveness by selecting exemplars of student work for exhibition in their classrooms
This has been done traditionally, so we nick-named it the “new old-fashioned” method
Model 3 is suitable for any MAEIA assessment.
Method 3 is a more traditional method for showing what students know and/or are able to do. Hence, the nickname “the new old fashioned way” of showing student achievement.
This method has been assigned to assessments that are so unique that doing them twice wouldn’t be as useful or interesting to students nor informative to teachers
Traditionally, educators have demonstrated their effectiveness by selecting exemplars of student work for exhibition in their classrooms; that is what this method is at its heart
Note that Model 3 is suitable for any MAEIA assessment, even those labeled as Method 1 or 2

33. Educator Effectiveness Methods are included in the Online Assessment Catalogue
The MAEIA online catalog shows the suggested method for arts educators to use for each assessment to demonstrate their effectiveness
This catalogue is also searchable by key word, assessment title, grade or high school level by standards, length of time for administration and whether or not video taping or recording is necessary.

34. How to Use Methods 1 and 2
For methods 1 and 2, the teacher should first score each student’s responses, using the Teacher Scoring Rubrics found in the Teacher Booklet.
Now, I want to turn to how to actually produce numerical data for use in demonstrating your effectiveness
If using Methods 1 and 2, the teacher should first score each student’s responses, using each Teacher Scoring Rubric found in the Teacher Booklet

35. How to Use Methods 1 and 2
Next, fill out the MAEIA Classroom Score Summary page(s).
Please see Module 7 and the MAEIA Assessment Administration Manual for more information.
Next, fill out the MAEIA Classroom Score Summary page or pages with your scores for each student for each dimension of each Teacher Scoring Rubric
maeia-artsednetwork.org/model-assessments

36. How to Use Methods 1 and 2
Now, calculate a “total score” for each student by summing the scores on each dimension in the rubric.
Do this each time the assessment is used.
Subtract the Time 1 (pre-test) score from the Time 2 (post-test) score for each student; the result will usually be positive.
More detailed information is presented in:
Now, calculate a “total score” for each student across the different dimensions on each Teacher Scoring Rubric. Do this by summing the score across the dimensions in the rubric.
Do this each time the assessment is used – pre- and post-test
Subtract the Time 1 (pre-test) scores from the Time 2 (post-test) score for each student; the result will usually be positive.
More detailed information is presented in the Educator Effectiveness booklet available from this URL on the MAEIA website:
maeia.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Using-MAEIA-Asst-to-Demontrate-Educator-Effectiveness-v.-5.1.pdf
maeia.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Using-MAEIA-Asst-to-Demontrate-Educator-Effectiveness-v.-5.1.pdf

37. How to Use Methods 1 and 2
Choose a way to display your data:
Calculate a Mean Change Score for the classroom
Construct an Achievement Change Table
to show levels
of change.
There are two ways that you can show the data. The first is to calculate a mean change score for all students included in the group.
Alternatively, you could construct an achievement change table to show changes from the pre- to post-test for the group of students.

38. How to Use Methods 1 and 2
Calculate a Mean Change Score for the classroom
Add up the individual student change scores (sum of all individual T2-T1 scores)
Divide this number by the number of students (sum of T2-T1/N)
Do this for each MAEIA assessment used
This slide describes how to calculate the mean change score for a group of students.
Calculate a change score for each students – T2 score – T1 score
Next, add up the individual student change scores (sum of all individual T2-T1 scores)
Divide this number by the number of students (Sum of T2-T1/N)
Do this for each MAEIA assessment used

39. How to Use Methods 1 and 2 Ways to display the data:
Set up a table that shows several levels of change (gains or losses)
Ways to display the data:
Construct an Achievement Change Table to show levels of change for students in the classroom:
Up +20 points or more
Up +10 to +19 points
Up +1 to + 9 points
Unchanged
Down -1 to -9 points
Down -10 to -19 points
Down -20 points or more
A second method is to construct an Achievement Change Table to show levels of change for student in the classroom
Set up a table that shows several levels of change (gains or losses) using categories of change like those shown in the slide
Up +20 points or more
Up +10 to +19 points
Up +1 to + 9 points
Unchanged
Down -1 to -9 points
Down -10 to -19 points
Down -20 points or more
Report the number and percentage of students in each category
Report the number and percentage of students in each category

40. Example Achievement Change Table
–20 points or more
–10 to –19 points
–1 to – 9 points
No Change
+1 to +9 points
+10 to +19 points
+20 points or more
Number 1 4 6 8 7
Percent
3.3%
12.1%
20.0%
26.7%
23.3%
This slide illustrates what a Achievement Change Table to show levels of change might look like. From this table, you can see that two-thirds of the students (19 of 30) improved in performance, 6 of 30 remained the same, and 5 of 30 declined in performance.

41. How to Use Method 3
Select exemplars from student groups such as these to demonstrate overall achievement in your classroom:
Students who were already high achieving: How did they do on the assessments used? Did they improve?
Students who were initially struggling: Have they done well on the assessments used? Are they more confident learners?
Students who initially struggled to perform at all, who are now performing and perhaps doing much better.
This slide suggests some ways to select exemplars of student performance for Method 3, the “new, old-fashioned way” of showing educator effectiveness.
Select exemplars from student groups such as these to demonstrate overall achievement in your classroom:
Students who were already high achieving—How did they do on the assessments used? Did they improve?
Students who were initially struggling—Have they done well on the assessments used? Are they more confident learners?
Students who initially struggled to perform at all, who are now performing and perhaps doing much better.

42. Documenting Teacher Instruction is Essential!
Instructional information should be used along with student performance to demonstrate educator effectiveness.
As this slide notes, Instructional information should be used along with student performance to demonstrate educator effectiveness

43. Documenting Teacher Instruction
You may want to create a log of what you did instructionally on each content standard assessed.
A concise narrative summary of this for your supervisor would make it most useful.
The log and summary may be written, or you may use video of classroom instruction, student work, and student reflections on the assessment in the classroom.
You may want to create a log of what you did instructionally on each content standard assessed.
A concise narrative summary of this for your supervisor would make it most useful. Video excerpts of instruction can help, too
The log and summary may be written, or you may use video of student work in progress, student performances, and student reflections on the assessment in the classroom.

44. Documenting Teacher Instruction
You may want to create a log of what you did instructionally on each content standard assessed.
A concise narrative summary of this for your supervisor would make it most useful. Video excerpts of instruction can help, too
The log and summary may be written, or you may use video of student work in progress, student performances, and student reflections on the assessment in the classroom.

45. Teacher Reflections on the Assessment and Student Learning
Once the teacher has taught the content standards, documented instruction, and collected, scored, and analyzed student achievement, the teacher should prepare a concise reflection on what he or she learned.
Once all of the information has been collected, scored, and analyzed, the teacher should prepare a concise reflection on what he or she learned annotated with the examples of student work, videos of instruction or student work and performances, and their reflections

46. Teacher Reflections on the Assessment and Student Learning
What worked and what didn’t?
What formative information was collected during instruction or assessment and what changes in instruction did you make?
What did you learn about your students – their achievement and attitudes?
How did you use this information?
In reflecting on your work as an educator and the achievement of your students, reflect on the following questions
What worked and what didn’t? What would you do differently?
What formative information was collected during instruction or assessment and what changes in instruction did you make?
What did you learn about your students – their achievement and attitudes?
How did you use this information?

47. Putting it All Together
The teacher should prepare a portfolio of evidence for each assessment.
Statistical summaries of student achievement – Mean Change Score and/or Achievement Change Table
Samples of student work, both pre- and post-test, if used
Documentation (written or video) of the teacher’s instruction on the standards that were assessed
Student reflections on their learning, both written and video
Teacher’s reflective summary about instruction and assessment
To put all of this together, the teacher should prepare a portfolio of evidence for each assessment, with
Statistical summaries of student achievement – Mean Change Score and/or Achievement Change Table
Samples of student work, both pre- and post-test, if used
Documentation (written or video) of the teacher’s instruction on the standards that were assessed
Student reflections on their learning, both written and video
Teacher’s reflective summary about instruction and assessment

48. How to Use the MAEIA Results for Educator Effectiveness
Other sources of achievement and outcome data (e.g., other measures or indicators of achievement) should be used as well
Prepare corresponding narratives regarding teacher practices to accompany student assessment results
These achievement data, along with appropriate observational data, should be used in the overall evaluation of an educator
The goal of educator evaluation should primarily be improvement of educator practice
As this slide notes, think about demonstrating your effectiveness more broadly
Other sources of achievement and outcome data (e.g., other measures or indicators of achievement) should be used as well
Prepare corresponding narratives regarding teacher practices to accompany student assessment results
These achievement data, along with appropriate observational data, should be used in the overall evaluation of an educator
It is our belief that the main goal of educators demonstrating their effectiveness with educator evaluation system is primarily to improve educator practice

49. Educator Evaluation Meeting
When the teacher and the supervisor meet, the following information should be conveyed:
Content standards selected
Instructional and learning strategies employed
Assessment information gathered and summarized
Documentation of student progress, successes, and needs
Supervisor observations
Next steps – this school year and beyond

50. Enhancements this School Year
Helping administrators understand what quality arts instruction looks like
Demonstrating Educator Effectiveness page on the MAEIA website.
Reoccurring theme of teacher agency within the evaluation process in many MAEIA conversations
The MAEIA Institute and partnership with Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association (MEMSPA)

51. Contact Us MAEIA Project 517-816-4520 maeia.artsed@gmail.com
Ed Roeber
Heather Vaughan-Southard
MAEIA Educator Effectiveness Page:
methods/