1. Mississippi Professional Educators Mississippi Department of Education Updates April 9, 2011 Lynn J. House Daphne Buckley Deputy State Superintendent Deputy State Superintendent 1

2. 2 Statewide Accountability Model Changes - 2011-12 Recommendations to the State Board of Education by the MS Assessment Technical Advisory Committee 1.Retain the current QDI cut scores. 2.Update the Growth Component to periodically use a consistent measure for movement, such as 75 % threshold for reaching successful or above. 3. Incorporate stability and planned change into the system. Approved by the State Board at its March 2011 meeting.

3. Update on the Mississippi Assessment System 3 1.Seniors ONLY Re-testers will have 2 days for English II (pilot) 2.Calculators will be free of any stored formulas, applications and/or programs for MCT2 Math 7-8 and Alg. I 3.Biology is in its first operational year (2010-11) and will NOT be used in the Accountability Model until 2011-12. 4. US History will be operational in 2011-12, but will not be used in the Accountability Model until the following year, 2012-13 5. MDE is exploring options for how we will identify and incorporate K-2 Assessments into our state assessment system

4. 4 Common Core State Standards and Assessments

5. 5 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Developed through CCSSO and the National Governor’s Association (NGA) using professional organizations and other constituencies Currently available in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Aligned with college and work expectations AND the SBE Vision/Mission Rigorous content requiring higher-order thinking and application of knowledge Internationally benchmarked Evidence-and/or research-based 5

6. RttT Assessment Proposals The Process: Proposals were due from multi-state consortia on June 23, 2010 Awards were made in September, 2010 New Consortia tests to replace current state NCLB tests in 2014-2015 Two Comprehensive Assessment Proposals Funded:  Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)  26 states, 31 million students K-12  SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)  31 states, 21 million students K-12 Note: 12 states currently in both and 6 states in neither 6 Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS

7. RTTT Assessment Program Requirements Build upon shared standards for college/career readiness; Measure individual growth as well as proficiency; Measure the extent each student is on track, at each grade level tested, toward college/career readiness by high school completion, and provide information that is useful in informing: – Teaching, learning, and program improvement; – Determinations of school effectiveness; – Determinations of educator effectiveness for use in evaluations and provision of support to teachers/principals; – Determinations of individual student college/career readiness, through high school exit decisions, college course placement to credit-bearing classes, and/or college entrance. 7 Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS

8. Basic PARCC Timeline 2010-2011 Development/approval of common policies/procedures 2011-2012 Initial item /task development, piloting of components 2011-2012 Development of P. D. resources & online platform 2012-2013 Field testing 2013-2014 Field testing 2014-2015 New summative assessments in use Summer 2015 Setting of common achievement standards 8 Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS

9. PARCC – Two Types of Summative Assessments 9 FOCUSED ASSESSMENTS END OF YEAR COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT One to three tasks that assess a few “keystone” standards/topics Given at three points during the school year, near the end of quarters Results within 2 weeks to inform instruction and intervention Taken on computer, with mixed item types Scored entirely by computer for fast results Scores from both focused & end-of-yr. assessments will be combined for annual accountability score. Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS

10. 25% Focused ASSESSMENT 1 ELA Math 50% Focused ASSESSMENT 2 ELA Math PARCC: Focused Assessments 1 and 2 In a single session/class period, students in grades 3 - 11 will: ELA: Read texts, draw evidence to form conclusions, and prepare a written analysis Math: For each of 1 or 2 essential topics (standards or clusters of standards), complete 1 to 3 constructed response tasks Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS 10

11. Focused ASSESSMENT 4 Speaking Listening 75% Focused ASSESSMENT 3 ELA Math PARCC: Focused Assessment 3 Over several sessions/class periods, students will complete a project-like task that draws on a range of skills. Examples: ELA: Locate digital information, evaluate and select sources, and compose an essay or research paper Math: Perform a multi-step performance task that requires application of mathematical skills and reasoning and may require technological tools Speaking/Listening task: Conducted in classroom, not used for accountability, scored by teacher. Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS 11

12. 90% END OF YEAR COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT PARCC: End-of-Year Assessment Composed of 40 to 65 questions of a range of item types including innovative technology-enhanced items to sample the full year of standards Scored by computer Will make major investment in enhanced item types Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS 12

13. PARTNERSHIP RESOURCE CENTER: Digital library of released items, formative assessments, model curriculum frameworks, curriculum resources, student and educator tutorials and practice tests, scoring training modules, and professional development materials PARCC: Resources, Tools, Supports Partnership Resource Center: Interactive Data Tool for accessing data and creating customized reports Exemplar lesson plans Formative assessment items and tasks Professional development materials regarding test administration, scoring, and use of data Online practice tests Item development portal Tools and resources developed by Partner states Optional “ready-to-use” performance tasks for K-2 Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS 13

14. Focused ASSESSMENT 4 Speaking Listening 25% Focused ASSESSMENT 1 ELA Math 50% Focused ASSESSMENT 2 ELA Math 90% END OF YEAR COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT 75% Focused ASSESSMENT 3 ELA Math PARTNERSHIP RESOURCE CENTER: Digital library of released items, formative assessments, model curriculum frameworks, curriculum resources, student and educator tutorials and practice tests, scoring training modules, and professional development materials Summative assessment for accountability Required, but not used for accountability The PARCC System English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3 - 11 Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS 14

15. 15 Next Steps for MDE  Continue to meet with stakeholder groups (K-12 and IHL) to:  Review findings of the alignment study (DONE)  Develop a crosswalk (IN PROGRESS)  Determine 9-12 courses (IN PROGRESS)  Make resources known to stakeholders (IN PROGRESS)  Align/Revise PK3 and PK4 guidelines  Conduct regional awareness sessions /webinars through RESAs (DONE)  Plan work with the regional laboratories, technical assistance providers, and other groups (IN PROGRESS)  Format the CCSS to reflect current curriculum structure.(TO BE DONE -TBD)  Revise/develop instructional materials (suggested teaching strategies, resources, and assessment aids) and offer training (IN PROGRESS)  Determine which policies/procedures need adjustment (TBD)  Plan transition to new assessments (IN PROGRESS)  Continue working with PARCC to implement assessments (IN PROGRESS)

16. 16 State Board Examination System Dr. House

17. ® 17

18. 18

19. Profile of Successful U.S. Firms in the Future 19

20. Pillars of Board Exam Systems A sound core program of courses defining what it means to be an educated person High quality exams derived from the curriculum using multiple assessment methods Thoughtfully constructed course designs captured in a syllabus Quality teacher training matched to the course syllabi 20

21. Why Board Exams ? Best global research shows that board exam systems key to success of many of world’s best performing systems for ALL students Why? Because they provide the support teachers need to teach well and students must have to succeed Crucially important for low-performing schools and students 21

22. Profile of Successful Workers Top academic performance in all five core areas: English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and the Arts Creative and innovative Able to learn very quickly 22

23. How the State Board Examination System Would Work Upper Div’n (AP, IB, ACT, CTE, A Levels) Upper Div’n (AP, IB, ACT, CTE, A Levels) Add’l time to meet Comps. Add’l time to meet Comps. 2 Yr Open Admissions Institutions (OAI) 2 Yr Open Admissions Institutions (OAI) Work 14 16 18 Lower Division Exam System Core Curriculum, Syllabi, Exams, Teacher Training, All Set to Int’l Standards 4 Year Selective Institutions 22 4 Yr OAI 4 Yr OAI Graduate Education Approximate Student Age Educational Pathway 23

24. Move Up When Ready State Consortium on Board Examination Systems Options Public Open Admission Colleges  2-year  4-year Public Open Admission Colleges  2-year  4-year Lower Division Board Examination System High School Diploma Program (exams can be taken/diplomas awarded as early as end of 10 th grade) Lower Division Board Examination System High School Diploma Program (exams can be taken/diplomas awarded as early as end of 10 th grade) Move on When Ready Accredited Career and Technical Programs Upper Division Board Examination System High School Diploma Program  STEM focused  CTE focused  Purely College Prep Focused (exams can be taken/diplomas awarded as early as end of 12 th grade) Upper Division Board Examination System High School Diploma Program  STEM focused  CTE focused  Purely College Prep Focused (exams can be taken/diplomas awarded as early as end of 12 th grade)  Public Open Admission 4-year College  Selective 4-year College  Public Open Admission 4-year College  Selective 4-year College  Public Open Admission 4-year College  Selective 4-year College  Public Open Admission 4-year College  Selective 4-year College Workplace Public Open Admission  2-year College  4-year College Public Open Admission  2-year College  4-year College Age 14 - 17 (approx)Age 16 – 19 (approx)Age 17 – 23 (approx) 24

25. Board Exam Systems: The Best College Board APs Cambridge International Exams ACT QualityCore International Baccalaureate 25

26. Key Benefits Students motivated to take tough courses and study hard A very strong curriculum and teachers trained to teach it for schools and students with weak instructional resources A strong system for preparing the most able students for selective colleges A way to identify students not college-ready by the end of their sophomore year and to provide focused instruction on the things they must do to succeed Trading a time-in-the-seat system for one that rewards performance College entrants ready to do college-level work 26

27. Suggested Implementation Start with small number of representative pilot site Set up feeder systems to include 2 and 4 year post-secondary institutions Consider Volunteer schools, volunteer teachers, volunteer students Set up a specific diploma based on the lower-division exams Expand as system proves itself 27

28. Accountability and Assessment After 2 years of data collection, will be able to compare MS with other states Nine other states involved: Arizona, Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Vermont State Board Exams will be utilized in the MS Accountability Model as data become available. State Board Exam Systems mesh well with Common Core State Standards & Assessments. 28

29. Next Steps State Board of Education approved implementation of pilot sites – Jan. 21, 2011 Hold information session for other interested districts Help arrange assistance to districts from NCEE Identify policies which need discussion to allow full implementation of the pilots Provide venue for district dialogue about successes and obstacles. 29

30. 30 Educator Code of Ethics

31. 31 Standards of Conduct Standard 1: Professional Conduct Standard 2: Trustworthiness Standard 3: Unlawful Acts Standard 4. Educator /Student Relationships Standard 5. Educator Collegial Relationships Standard 6. Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco Use or Possession Standard 7: Public Funds and Property Standard 8: Remunerative Conduct Standard 9: Maintenance of Confidentiality Standard 10: Breach of Contract or Abandonment of Employment

32. 32 Recommendations from Teacher Shortage Task Force

33. House Bill 1047 House Bill 1047 created a task force to study strategies for solving Mississippi’s teacher shortage. Final recommendations will be reported to the Governor and the Legislature regarding teacher attrition, retention and growth in our state. 33

34. Task Force Focus Areas Teacher salaries; Future educators; Working conditions of educators; Relevant professional development for educators; Safety and respect in the schools; and Parental and community involvement in schools 34

35. Recommendations 1) Implement Project Clear Voice (teacher working conditions survey) bi-annually 2)Commission a teacher supply and demand study. 3)Increase the focus on future educator initiatives in high schools, and create a leadership training program at our universities for junior and senior education majors. 35

36. 4)Revise the process to review Teacher Education Programs. 5)Increase the entrance and exit program requirements for prospective teachers. 6) Revise current Alternate Route Teacher Preparation Programs, and establish a new elementary preparation pathway. Recommendations 36

37. 7 ) Evaluate the Critical Teacher Shortage Act of 1998. 8) Create a comprehensive program that aligns all teacher recruitment, retention, and enhancement activities. 9) Commission a study to evaluate various compensation models and national initiatives. 10) Report findings to the Task Force by December 31, 2011. Recommendations 37

38. 38 Review of Teacher Evaluation Model

39. Establish a Teacher and Principal Evaluation System The educator evaluation system will provide a comprehensive process that will focus on improving the practice of teachers through targeted professional development. 39

40. The purpose of the evaluation must be determined and then matched with measures. Evaluations should consider multiple measures of performance, primarily the teacher’s impact on student academic growth. Multiple Measures 40

41. All teachers should be evaluated at least annually. 1 Evaluations should be based on clear standards of instructional excellence that prioritize student learning. 2 Evaluations should consider multiple measures of performance, primarily the teacher’s impact on student academic growth. 3 Evaluations should employ four to five rating levels to describe differences in teacher effectiveness. 4 Evaluations should encourage frequent observations and constructive critical feedback. 5 Evaluation outcomes must matter; evaluation data should be a major factor in key employment decisions about teachers. 6 Design Standards 41

42. Proposed Changes Incorporate student growth measures Reconsider the current teacher standards Consider including a “teacher self-reflection instrument Maintain multiple rating levels, but consider outcomes-based scale Include clear descriptors for each rating level 42

43. Classroom observations Instructional artifacts Portfolios Teacher self-report Student surveys Student performance measures Combination models Teacher Evaluation Instruments 43

44. Prepare and Engage Plan and Develop Construct and Connect Implement and Support Assess and Revise Redesign Approach: Phase II 44

45. Revision of Evaluation Instrument – Stakeholder meetings (February) – Revise instrument (February to June) – District meetings (February to June) – Communicate plan (March – July) Teacher Evaluation Project: Prepare and Engage 45

46. Report progress of development (March) Finalize new instruments (May) Present new system to the State Board (June) Instrument Validation – District participation – Conduct validation study (October - November) Teacher Evaluation Project: Construct and Connect 46

47. Create training materials (June) Train a cadre of 30 Appraisal Coaches (June) – Work with 35 administrators Launch the new Teacher Appraisal System Pilot (August) Teacher Evaluation Project: Implement and Support 47

48. Implement statewide communication system (July – December) Forum (August) Bimonthly meetings with Appraisal Coach Cadre (September – December) Reality Checkpoint (December) Assessment of Appraisal Instrument based on implementation and feedback (December) Teacher Evaluation Project: Assess and Revise 48

49. Teacher Evaluation Implementation Time Line Year One: October 2010 – June 2011  Research and develop educator evaluation system Year Two: July 2011 – June 2012  Pilot the educator evaluation system in 10 selected schools Year Three: July 2012 – June 2013  Field test the educator evaluation system in all school districts Year Four: July 2013 – June 2014  Implement the educator evaluation system in all school districts  Field test the administrator evaluation program in all school districts Year Five: July 2014 – June 2015  Implement the teacher and administrator evaluation system and report results 49

50. 50 Closing Comments and Questions Contact Info: Dr. Daphne Buckley dbuckley@mde.k12.ms.us. Dr. Lynn House lhouse@mde.k12.ms.us