1. Helping Teachers Become More Effective While Measuring Teaching Effectiveness: Combining Multiple Measures AASA Webinar, 2011 Allan Odden Strategic Management of Human Capital (SMHC) University of Wisconsin-Madison

2. Overview 1.Prime challenge is to improve student performance 2.Key strategy to attain that goal (the focus of today): talent and human capital management 3.Support tactic for talent management – multiple measures of effectiveness used in new teacher evaluation systems 2

3. Human Capital Management Obama and Duncan administration has made improving teacher and principal talent and their effectiveness central to education reform Goal: put an effective teacher into every classroom and an effective principal into every school To implement these practices and manage teachers (and principals) around them, develop multiple measures of teacher effectiveness (long-hand for new teacher evaluation systems) New NEA and AFT policies that allow use of student data in teacher evaluation –Extract such measures from teacher improvement systems Scores of states and districts working on this issue These issues also central to ESEA reauthorization 3

4. Core Elements of the Strategy Multiple Measures to Evaluate Teachers and Assess Teaching Effectiveness 1.Measures of instructional practice – several systems 2.Indicators of impact on student learning Use of those measures: a)In new evaluation systems, for teachers and principals b)For tenure c)For distributing and placing effective teachers d)For dismissing ineffective teachers e)For compensating teachers 4

5. Current Teacher Evaluations Useless Find 99+% of teachers satisfactory, accomplished, or outstanding Even when student performance is dismal Rarely use specific teaching standards and scoring rubrics with trained assessors Until recently, did not include evidence of impact on student learning Neither valid nor reliable; cannot be used for consequential decisions for teachers Viewed as “waste of time” by teachers &administrators 5

6. New Directions in Teacher Evaluations So now there is a major nationwide push to change teacher evaluation systems Desire to use BOTH measures of instructional practice (qualitative) AND indicators of impact on student learning gains (quantitative) Widespread support for these new directions The question is not whether teacher evaluation will change but how it will be changed 6

7. Teacher Evaluation Two major pieces of the evaluation: 1.Qualitative Measures of instructional practice – Danielson Framework, INTASC, Connecticut BEST system, CLASS, PACT, National Board, the new North Carolina system – see Milanowski, Heneman, Kimball, Review of Teaching Performance Assessments for Use in Human Capital Management, 2009 at www.smhc- cpre.org and go to resources Review of Teaching Performance Assessments for Use in Human Capital Management, 2009www.smhc- cpre.org 2.Quantitative Measures of impact on student learning: a.Primary model at the present time is value added using end of year state summative tests b.Additional proposal is to use interim-short cycle (every 4-6 weeks) assessment data, aligned to state content standards, that show student/classroom growth relative to a normed (national or state?) growth trajectory 7

8. Measuring Educator Effectiveness

10. Specifically, focus on short-cycle assessments

11. Combining Multiple Measures of Teaching Performance Standard Prescription: Instructional practice measure (e.g., teacher evaluation ratings) + Gain, growth, or value- added based on state standards-based assessments But: –Practice ratings and assessment gain, growth, or value-added don’t measure the same thing; measurement error sources are different and don’t cancel –Gain, growth, or value-added on state assessments are of limited use for teacher development

12. Advantages of Adding Short-cycle Assessments to the Mix 1.For teacher development: –Because such assessments are frequent, teachers get feedback that they can use to adjust instruction before the state test –Teachers can see if student achievement is improving, and if assessments are linked to state proficiency levels, whether students are on track to proficiency 2.For teacher accountability: –More data points allow estimation of a growth curve –The growth curve represents learning within a single school year; no summer to confuse attribution –The slope of the average growth curve or average difference between predicted end points provides another indicator of teaching effectiveness –Combining with growth, gain, or value-added based on state assessments provides multiple measures of productivity –If linked to state assessments, can predict school year proficiency growth

13. What Short Cycle Assessments Show

14. Issues in Combining Practice & Student Achievement Measures Models: Report Card, Compensatory, Conjoint When Combining Need to Address: –Different Distributions, Scales and Reference Points –Weighting in Compensatory Models Equal Policy Proportional to reliability

15. Report Card Model 15 Performance Domain Performance Dimensions Score Levels Requirement for Being Considered Effective Instructional Practice Planning & Assessment Classroom Climate Instruction 1-4 Rating of 3 or higher on all dimensions Professionalism Cooperation Attendance Development 1-4 Rating of 3 or higher on all dimensions Student Growth, Gain, or VA on State Assessments Math Reading/ELA Other Tested Subjects Deciles or Quintiles in state/district distribution for each subject Being in the 4 th Decile or 3 rd Quintile or Higher for All Tested Subjects Student Growth on Short Cycle Assessment Math Reading Avg. Growth Curve Translated into Predicted State Test Scale Score Change Predicted Gain Over Year Sufficient to Bring Student from Middle of “Basic” Range to “Proficient”

16. Scales, Distributions, & Reference Points for Value-Added vs. Practice 16

17. Putting Practice Ratings and Student Achievement on the Same Scale Emerging Practice: Rescale growth, gain or value-added measure to match the practice rating scale –Standardize and set cut-off points in units of standard error, standard deviation or percentiles CategoryIn S.D. UnitsPercentiles Distinguished (4) >1.5 S.D. Above Mean70 th + Proficient (3) +/- 1.5 S.D. Around Mean30 th to 69 th Basic (2) 1.51 - 2 S.D. Below Mean15 th to 29 th Unsatisfactory (1) > 2 S.D. Below MeanBelow 15 th

18. Compensatory (Weighted Average) Model for Combining Performance Measures DimensionRatingWeightProduct Growth, Gain, Value- Added on State Test 225%0.50 Growth as Measured by Short-Cycle Assessment 325%0.75 Practice Evaluation450%2.00 Total3.25 1.0-1.75 = Unsatisfactory, 1.76-2.75 = Basic, 2.76-3.75 = Proficient, 3.76 += Distinguished 18

19. Conjoint Model for Combining 2 Measures Student Outcome Rating Teaching Practice 1234 4 = Advanced 2234 3 = Proficient 2234 2 = Basic 1223 1 =Unsatis- factory 1112 19

20. Conjoint Model for Combining 3 Measures To Get a Summary Rating of Need Scores of at Least: 4 4 on two measures and 3 on the other 3 2 on the practice measure and 4 on both the student achievement measures - or - 3 on the practice measure and 3 on at least one of the student achievement measures 2 2 on the practice measure and 2 on either of the student achievement measures 1 1 on the practice measure and 1 on either student achievement measure 20

21. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Teacher Evaluation in Tennessee From Race to the Top to First to the Top

22. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Evaluation The ultimate goal of all teacher assessments and evaluations should be… TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING

23. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools First to the Top Law on Evaluation Requires annual evaluation of all teachers and principals 50% student achievement data:  35% TVAAS where available, 15% other objective measures 50% other qualitative data include:  Review of prior evaluations  Personal conferences re: strengths, weaknesses and remediation  For teachers, classroom or position observation followed by written assessment  For principals, additional criteria pursuant to their employment contract

24. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools General Guidelines Evaluations will be used to inform human resource decisions, including but not limited to:  Tenure and dismissal  Compensation  Assignment and promotion  Hiring  Professional development LEAs may develop alternative evaluation procedures which must be approved according to policies and rules adopted by the SBE.

25. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Categories of Educators Teachers with TVAAS data Teachers without TVAAS data untested subjects untested grades Library Information Specialists Special Groups Principals counselors social workers non-classroom educators assistant principals Not included in TEAC authority: central office staff

26. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Criteria for Evaluations Educator Evaluation 35% Student Growth 15% Student Achievement 50% Other Criteria

27. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools 50% Quantitative Data Teachers 35% Student Growth TVAAS where available School-wide TVAAS for all other teachers Developing alternative growth measures for non-tested subjects/grades 15% Student Achievement Selected from “menu of options” adopted/approved by SBE Principals 35% Student Growth School-wide TVAAS 15% Student Achievement Selected from “menu of options” adopted/approved by SBE

28. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Growth Measures for Non-tested TDE convened educator workgroups in 12 areas of non- tested subjects and grades. Teams provided recommendations in February 2011. All recommendations are being vetted by the TDE and a technical advisory committee to determine validity, reliability and feasibility. Until such measures are available, educators in non-tested subjects and grades will be evaluated using a TVAAS composite score for the growth component.

29. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools 15% Student Achievement For the 15% achievement portion of the teacher evaluation, the State Board approved a menu of options from which teachers may choose, in cooperation with their administrator, by October 1. The chosen measures should reflect the educator’s primary responsibility as directly as possible. Top 3 quintiles may use TVAAS score. Measures are under review for appropriateness and scalability.

30. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Qualitative Appraisals For teachers the qualitative appraisal instrument must address the following domains:  Instruction  Planning  Environment  Professionalism For principal/assistant principal the qualitative appraisal instrument will be based on Tennessee Instructional Leadership Standards (TILS).

31. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Outlining the process TDE to provide user-friendly, manageable forms to document observations and personal conferences Future goal: all forms and data entry will be done electronically Minimum 4 observations for professional licensed teachers (2 -semester) Minimum 6 observations for other licensure categories (3-semester) Feedback from observation visits:  Detailed feedback, highlighting areas of strength and refinement  At least ½ of all observations must be unannounced  Written feedback within a week  In-person debrief scheduled within a week

32. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Category35% Student Growth15% Student Achievement 50% Other Mandatory Criteria (Minimums) Teachers with TVAAS Individual TVAAS scoreMenu of options; top 3 quintiles may use TVAAS score Multiple sources; 4 observations for professional licensed, 2/semester, minimum 60 minutes annually; at least half unannounced Teachers without TVAAS School-wide value- added; other identified or developed measures Menu of options; top 3 quintiles may use TVAAS score or growth score Multiple sources; 4 observations for professional licensed, 2/semester, minimum 60 minutes annually; at least half unannounced Apprentice Licensed Teachers Individual TVAAS scores TVAAS composite; other identified or developed measures Menu of options; top 3 quintiles may use TVAAS score or growth score Multiple sources; 6 observations, 3/semester, minimum 90 minutes annually, (also other non- professional licenses) Principals, Assistant Principals School-wide value- added Menu of options; top 3 quintiles may use TVAAS score Multiple sources; 2 onsite observations; qualitative appraisal based on TILS, review of teacher evaluation quality; surveys Special GroupsSchool-wide value- added; menu of options; other identified or developed measures Menu of optionsMultiple sources; 4 observations, 2/semester, minimum 60 minutes annually; at least half unannounced Guidelines for the Evaluations

33. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Evaluations will differentiate educators into five effectiveness groups:

34. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools State Model The Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) has been adopted as the state evaluation model. TEAM utilizes the TAP rubric for observations. TEAM observers must complete a four-day training session and pass an online test to be certified as observers.

35. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Other Evaluation Models Alternative evaluation models developed and adopted: Memphis—Teacher Effectiveness Measure (Gates supported based on IMPACT model) Hamilton County—Project COACH Association of Independent and Municipal Schools (AIMS)— Teacher Instructional Growth for Effectiveness and Results (TIGER)

36. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Evaluation Appeals Process Teachers may appeal: 1)Accuracy of data used in evaluation 2)Adherence to evaluation policies adopted by SBE

37. E ducating O ur C hildren, E ngaging O ur P arents, E mpowering O ur S chools Three-step process: 1) 15 days to appeal to evaluator, who has 15 days to issue decision in writing 2) 15 days to appeal to director of schools or designee, who has 15 days to issue a written decision 3) 15 days to appeal to school board (final step), which has 30 days to conduct a hearing and 30 days to render a decision Evaluation Appeals Process

38. Short Summary

39. State Action More than half the states have enacted legislation changing how teachers are evaluated All require a combination of indicators including: –Measures of instructional practice –Student achievement data State accountability test data Other test data, that usually can include short cycle assessment data –Short cycle can comprise up to 35% of the data on student learning, so are important options

40. Advantages of Short Cycle Data Multiple kinds: –Renaissance Learning STAR assessments online administration for immediate feedback, can be administered monthly, online instructional help –Several others – AIMS Web, NWEA Map, etc. Designed in the first instance to help teachers improve their instructional practice Gives formative feedback during the year on how the class is doing So short cycle assessments, designed to help teachers be more effective, can now also be used to measure teacher effectiveness

41. Contact Information Dr. Allan Odden, University of Wisconsin-Madison arodden@lpicus.com arodden@wisc.edu Dr. Damian Betebenner, Center for Assessment dbetebenner@nciea.org Al Mance, Tennessee Education Association amance@tea.nea.org