1. Standard VI Teachers Contribute to the Academic Success of Students

2. Overview The central focus of READY is improving student learning... by enabling and ensuring great teaching. 11/8/2015 page 2

3. What is our goal? Student Readiness Achievement and growth for all students Great Teachers and Leaders An effective teacher in every classroom and leader in every school Before Teaching and Leading Develop effective teachers and leaders in preparation programs During Teaching and Leading Use meaningful evaluation and professional development to increase effectiveness of teachers and leaders 11/8/2015 page 3

4. What do we need? Standard 6 and 8 We need a state-adopted growth model and a fair 6 & 8 rating strategy Status We need an overall method to determine educator effectiveness status Measures of Student Learning (MSLs) For those grades and subjects that are currently non- tested, we need ways to measure growth Observation + Other Measures 11/8/2015 page 4

5. Standard 6 is a measure of Growth

8. Teacher Ratings Categories Teachers 165432 Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice Contribute to Academic Success 5 Rating Categories Not Demonstrated Developing Proficient Accomplished Distinguished 3 Rating Categories Does Not Meet Expected Growth Meets Expected Growth Exceeds Expected Growth

9. Key Notes

10. Ratings Teachers 165432 Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice Contribute to Academic Success 5 Rating Categories3 Ratings Categories Why the difference? Identifying only three rating categories on standard 6 & 8 improves certainty of categorization.

11. Teacher Ratings in 2011-12 Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ School- wide EVAAS Growth Teacher EVAAS Growth 70% 30% Weighted Average Yearly Rating Does not Meet Expected Growth Meets Expected Growth Exceeds Expected Growth Why is school-wide EVAAS growth included? To encourage collaboration and collective ownership of overall outcomes. Note: In 2011-12, teachers without individual EVAAS growth will have school-wide growth for Standard 6. 6

12. Teacher Ratings in 2012-13 School- wide EVAAS Growth Teacher EVAAS Growth Weighted Average Yearly Rating Does not Expected Growth Meets Expected Growth Exceeds Expected Growth 6 Student Surveys (?) 2012 – 2013 is the first year of data for all teachers and school administrators who have their own data Possible additional element 11/8/2015 page 12

13. What is the difference between ratings and a status?

14. RatingStatus

16. Three Years of Data 11/8/2015 page 16 Any three years of data attributable to a teacher or principal will be combined and used: Any grades Any subjects Any schools Any districts The three years of data do not start until they are specific to that teacher and his or her students

17. Status So once a educator has a three-year average rating for Standard 6 or 8, how is status determined? 11/8/2015 page 17

18. Status The Three Status Categories are 1.In Need of Improvement 2.Effective 3.Highly Effective 11/8/2015 page 18

19. Teacher Status In Need of Improvement Effective Highly Effective Standards 1-5 In the year Standard 6 Three-year rolling average 666 2 years ago 1 year ago This year ++ / 3 ) ) 15432 Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice Any rating lower than proficient And/Or Does Not Meet Expected Growth Proficient or Higher on Standards 1-5 And Meets or Exceeds Expected Growth Accomplis hed or Higher on Standards 1-5 And Exceeds Expected Growth

20. What will teachers see?

24. Detail on the Sixth Standard Rating

25. Remember Status and Standard VI An educator receives an effectiveness status only when he or she has 3 years of data on standard 6 A 3-year rolling average of growth data from standard 6 is used as part of determining overall status

26. Measures of Student Learning Measuring student growth in all areas of the curriculum

27. Measures of Student Learning Measures of Student Learning are being designed for non-tested subjects for district use to populated Standard 6 11/8/2015 page 27

28. NC’s experienced teachers know their students and their content NC teachers are best-qualified to provide input on meaningful assessment of currently non-tested grades and subjects Valid measures of what students know and are able to do will likely exceed traditional multiple- choice assessment Guiding Principles 11/8/2015 page 28

29. Measures of what students know and are able to do after completing a course or grade Tightly linked to the instruction that a teacher delivers One part of how North Carolina will evaluate the effectiveness of its teachers Similar to the common summative assessments that many districts already have in place What MSLs Are 11/8/2015 page 29

30. Multiple-choice standardized exams for all areas of the Standard Course of Study Assessments that need to be delivered with the same level of security as EOCs and EOGs Designed without teacher input The only source of data used to make decisions about a teacher’s effectiveness Part of the school accountability model What MSLs Are Not 11/8/2015 page 30

31. Four Buckets of Assessments for Growth MSLs Courses Focused on Performance Locally Developed Courses ABCD Assessment Common Across Districts Growth using EVAAS Guidance from DPI with local implementation options Growth determined by evaluator EOCs,EOGs and VoCATS

32. 11/8/2015 page 32 Through three feedback protocols, teachers provided answers to the following critical question: What does meaningful assessment in your content area look like? Phase I: Gather Feedback

33. 11/8/2015 page 33 Appreciation, pride, and even joy that their content areas are now being valued and that the State is recognizing that they impact the learning of their students Worry about finding a valid way to measure student learning in an art or PE class that meets once a month and one that meets every day Value the input of teachers into the process Doubt over the sustainability of these Measures of Student Learning after Race to the Top ends Worry about a “test-heavy” environment for students, especially young children Teacher Thoughts and Concerns

34. Phase II: Develop Framework 11/8/2015 page 34 Validity framework and psychometric plan detail: Theory of Action Score Generation Propositions and Claims for Use Assessment Development Process Administration Scoring Item Calibration, Equating, and Scaling Data Collection Processes Involvement of NC Technical Advisors

35. Phase II: Review Items 11/8/2015 page 35 Teachers return on rolling schedule to review items First design group members returned at end of July 2012 High School Science design group members High School World History, Civics and Economics, and American History II/II design group members English I, English III and IV design group members High School Mathematics design group members OCS design group members

36. Administration – Fall Semester 11/8/2015 page 36 Earth/Environmental SciencePhysics ChemistryPhysical Science English Language Arts IEnglish Language Arts III English Language Arts IVPre-Calculus Advanced Functions and ModelingGeometry* Algebra II/Integrated Math IIIWorld History Civics and EconomicsU.S. History (2003 standards) American History IAmerican History II OCS English Language Arts IOCS English Language Arts III OCS English Language Arts IVOCS Financial Management OCS Applied ScienceOCS Introductory Math

37. Administration – Spring Semester 11/8/2015 page 37 Grade Four ScienceGrade Six Science Grade Seven ScienceGrade Four Social Studies Grade Five Social StudiesGrade Six Social Studies Grade Seven Social StudiesGrade Eight Social Studies

38. Coming in 2013 - 2014 Literacy Assessment (running record) for grades K-3 Pre- and Post-Assessments for Healthful Living Analysis of Student Work Protocols for the Arts, World Languages, and District Electives