1. 1

2. The Teacher Student Data Link (TSDL) 2

3.  The Big Picture: What are we doing and why does it matter?  TSDL Collection Overview  Who’s on Your Team: Who you need & Why you need them  Collection Mechanics: The nuts and bolts of this collection 3

4.  Getting it Right: What tools are available?  Best Practices for the Field: Workgroup recommendations  Digging into the Details: FAQs, Questions & Answers 4

5. During the presentation:  Email: answers@resa.net After the presentation:  Email: CEPI@michigan.gov 5

6. DVD Copies of this presentation are available from Wayne RESA $10.00 + $4.00 S&H Contact: Brenda Hose 734-334-1437 hoseb@resa.net 6

7. Venessa Keesler Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability 7

8. Michigan School Reform Law Districts are required to conduct annual educator evaluations that include student growth as a significant factor. 8

9. State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) Districts are required to report the effectiveness label generated by these evaluations. 9

10. Michigan School Reform Law  Conduct annual educator evaluations.  Include measures of student growth as a significant factor. 10

11.  Locally determine the details of the educator evaluations, the consequences, and the timeline for implementation. 11

12.  Tie educator effectiveness labels to decisions regarding promotion and retention of teachers and administrators, including tenure and certification decisions. 12

13.  Use a performance-based compensation method that evaluates performance based, at least in part, on student growth data. 13

14.  Growth data can include state-provided measures from assessment data AND locally determined measures. 14

15. State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF)  Report an effectiveness label in the Registry of Educational Personnel (REP) during the end of year submission. 15

16. 2011: Principals only (based on most recent evaluation) 2012: All educators (based on annual evaluations) 16

17.  Use the Framework for Educator Evaluations as a model for educator evaluations. 17

18.  Identify ways to measure student growth and progress toward proficiency using internal measures and local data. 18

19.  Include data from multiple sources as measures of educator effectiveness whenever possible. 19

20.  Collaborate to identify best practices for evaluation methods, metrics in currently non-assessed content areas and grades, and key data sources. 20

21.  Link student data with teacher of record beginning in 2010-11 (CEPI/MDE). Districts will report “teacher of record” for each course a student takes; local decision. 21

22.  Provide districts and schools with measures of student growth on state-assessments in reading and mathematics for each teacher (regardless of subject taught). 22

23.  Provide districts with measures of student proficiency in writing, science and social studies, and reading and mathematics for each teacher (regardless of subject taught) 23

24. For each educator, we will generate: Student growth o Reading o Math 24

25. Percentage of proficient students o Reading o Math o Writing o Science o Social Science 25

26.  Achievement “growth” can be calculated only where a Grade 3-8 student has been tested in consecutive years (i.e. reading and Math). 26

27. 27

28.  “Puzzle pieces” approach  Districts choose which “pieces” make sense in their local context.  Reports are generated for each educator, regardless of subject taught or type of position. 28

29.  Report (with CEPI) the proportion of educators rated as highly effective, effective, and ineffective (SFSF/ARRA) 29

30.  Report (with CEPI) the factors used in educator evaluations and the proportion of evaluations which include student growth as significant factor. 30

31. Districts provide information on student courses and teacher of record (Teacher Student Data Link) 1 2 31

32. MDE attaches assessment data (proficiency and growth) from each student in each teacher’s courses to that teacher and provides to districts 2 3 32

33. Districts use assessment data, local measures of growth and other factors to conduct annual evaluations. The results of evaluations are reported back to the state. 4 3 33

34. 4 MDE provides aggregate reports to the federal government on the percent of educators in each effectiveness category 34

35.  MDE will provide for each teacher: Student growth o Reading o Math 35

36. Percent of students proficient o Reading o Math o Writing o Science o Social Science 36

37. 37

38. 38

39. 39

40.  Districts conduct annual evaluations that are: locally determined 40

41.  Districts determine educators’ local ratings based on evaluations. 41

42.  Districts crosswalk local ratings to: Framework for Educator Evaluation labels OR SFSF Effectiveness Labels 42

43.  Framework for Educator Evaluation suggests four labels: Exceeds Goals Meets Goals Progressing Toward Goals Does Not Meet Goals 43

44. 44 Framework LabelsSFSF Labels Exceeds goalsHighly effective Meets goals OR Progressing toward goals Effective Does not meet goals Ineffective

45.  Guidance and evaluation “toolbox”  Inventory of current practices  Collaboration with external stakeholders 45

46.  Referent groups focused on: Evaluating non-assessed grades/ content areas. Use in “value-added models.” 46

47.  End of year 2011: Teacher Student Data Link Collection available in MSDS. 47

48.  End of year 2011 (continued) : Principal effectiveness ratings must be reported in REP. Other administrators encouraged, but optional until 2012. 48

49.  Early fall 2011: MDE will provide districts with m easures for all educators based on data from the 2009-10 & 2010- 11 school years. 49

50.  Fall 2011 – Spring 2012: Districts conduct educator evaluations as locally bargained/determined. 50

51.  End of year 2012: Districts report effectiveness ratings for all administrators and teachers. 51

52. Trina Anderson Center for Educational Performance and Information 52

53.  America Competes Act  American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA)  State Fiscal Stabilization Fund  State School Aid Act 53

54.  State Fiscal Stabilization Fund  Districts signed assurances to receive SFSF dollars  Agreed to provide all necessary data to MDE and CEPI in support of compliance efforts under ARRA 54

55.  State School Aid Act Sec. 94a  Approximately $5/student to support the efforts of districts to match individual teacher and student records 55

56.  All students expected to have at least one course submitted  Exempt Students: Students with IEPs over age 22 (as of Sept. 1) Homeschooled and non- public students 56

57.  Teacher of Record  Certificated teacher responsible for the instruction and providing the grade  Even if employed by another district

58.  Team Teachers = report both  Mentor Teacher for virtual classes (e.g., seat time waivers)

59.  Resource / support teachers  Higher Education teachers for dual enrollment courses or early / middle college courses  CTE instructors, as they are reported via the CTEIS

60.  Rule of thumb: If the course is documented on the student’s academic record, report it. 60

61.  Report any/all courses for which the student received a course grade  Include courses taken by students who exit or enroll mid-year 61

62.  Courses for which there is no grade or completion status on academic record  Early childhood  Adult education 62

63.  Cumulative school year collection  Report all classes taken throughout the school year  For students enrolled at any point (includes exited students) 63

64.  Open May to August 31  Allows for multiple uploads  Single certification 64

65.  Ability to evaluate teachers based on student growth measures  Combines teacher and student data with achievement data  Supports Regional Data Initiatives 65

66. Kathy Ott Jackson County Intermediate School District 66

67.  Data crosses multiple systems HR Systems Master Schedule Counseling Student Data Management 67

68.  Principals  Counselors  Human Resources/REP  Secretary/Data Entry Staff  CEPI/MSDS authorized users  Teachers  Technical support 68

69.  Principals  Evaluation process Planning & improvement Resource allocation & staffing impact  Superintendents & School Board Members 69

70.  Counseling Staff Impact on scheduling  Teachers Impact on grades and record keeping Evaluations 70

71.  Human Resources Personnel data alignment & security  REP Authorized Users System knowledge Data quality Alignment of data 71

72.  MSDS Authorized Users and/or Secretarial Staff/Data Entry Staff Data quality Student Management Background System(s) knowledge 72

73.  School Improvement Team Identify patterns of success and areas of opportunity Data driven improvement planning and professional development 73

74.  Local IT staff System knowledge System modification Data extraction 74

75.  Districts need to communicate and rely on the vendor for the “How to’s” which may also influence your team members 75

76. 76

77. Doris Mann Center for Educational Performance and Information 77

78.  Submitting Entity  Personal Core  School Demographics  Student Course 78

79.  Which district is certifying the collection  Submitted once per record  Existing component 79

80.  Identifies the student  Submitted once per record  Existing component 80

81.  Information about the district, building & grade level  Submitted once per record  New component with existing characteristics 81

82.  Operating ISD/ESA Number  Operating District Number  School/Facility Number  Student ID Number  Grade or Setting 82

83.  Information about each course  May be submitted multiple times per student record  New component  New & existing characteristics 83

84. Subject Area Code (required) Course Identifier Code (optional for 2010-2011will be required in 2011-2012) 84

85.  Prior-to-Secondary School Course Classification System: School Codes for the Exchange of Data (SCED) http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsi nfo.asp?pubid=2011801 85

86.  The Secondary School Course Classification System: School Codes for the Exchange of Data (SCED) http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsi nfo.asp?pubid=2007341 86

87. Local Course Id (required) Local Course Section (optional) Local Course Title (required) Course Type (required) Academic Year (optional) 87

88. Credits Granted (conditional) Course Grade (required for secondary level courses, optional for elementary) Completion Status (required) 88

89. PIC (conditional) State approved CTE Post-Secondary Courses Virtual Delivery (optional) Mentor Teacher (optional) 89

90.  Single certification collection Decertification allowed until deadline  Review all reports for accuracy BEFORE certifying Error free ≠ accurate 90

91.  CEPI Web site www.michigan.gov/cepi CEPI Applications Michigan Student Data System Teacher Student Data Link 91

92. Lynne Erickson & Doris Mann Center for Educational Performance and Information 92

93.  Located within the REP Application  PIC: Personnel Identification Code

94.  Allows authorized users to obtain PICs  Available 24/7 to authorized users

95.  Levels of Authorization  REP authorized user  PIC look up & authorization to create a new PIC  PIC look up only

96.  Report displays:  Employee name  Gender  Date of Birth

97.  Social Security Number  Michigan Credential License Number  Personnel Identification Code

98.  Security Agreement  Posted on CEPI Web site  Registry of Educational Personnel page  “Upload REP Data to CEPI” section

99.  PIC Service User’s Guide  Posted on CEPI Web site  Registry of Educational Personnel page  “REP Help & Resources” section

100.  Purpose  Assist with mapping assignment codes  May be used to map local course codes

101.  Aligns School Codes for the Exchange of Data (SCED) to  REP Assignment Codes  Teacher Certification Endorsement Codes

103.  Posted on CEPI Web site:  TSDL Web page  REP Web page

104.  Employee Listing by District  Building, PIC, Name, Assignment Code, Certification Code  Download REP Data File  Download of complete REP file

105.  TSDL students not previously reported in MSDS Building & grade level UIC Local Student ID Student name

106.  Students reported without a course grade or credit Building & grade level UIC Local Student ID Student name

107. Course information Completion Status PIC

108.  Students in virtual courses Building & grade level UIC Local Student ID Student Name

109. Course information PIC Mentor teacher status

110.  Summary Reports by building  Total students  Total teachers  Total students reported in each course/section  Total teachers reported  Total courses per teacher

111.  Identify potential data errors  Provide feedback to districts before certification deadline  Offer assistance with data correction 111

112.  Mid-Collection (July 30)  Delivered by email Superintendents MSDS Authorized Users REP Authorized Users 112

113.  Teachers in REP with no students in TSDL  Teachers with assignment codes that don’t match course crosswalk  Teachers you didn’t report in REP assigned to your students in TSDL 113

114. Chad Cole Jackson County Intermediate School District 114

115. 115

116.  Cross walk master schedules/courses to the federal Subject in the federal SCED manual  Cross walk master schedules to the Course Identification Codes in SCED manual  Set up Course Types 116

117.  Double check course credit values and how credit is assigned on course completion  Identify courses with virtual delivery and mentor teacher  Set up students standing of completion status in classes 117

118.  Audit teachers and verify REP and SCED code alignment  Check with vendor to find out how teacher PIC Number needs to be entered into system 118

119.  Evaluate if elementary buildings need to change/update their master schedule and/or enrollments in their Student Information System  Gather necessary tools and resources  Attend trainings 119

120.  Local system reports to consider:  Reported teacher (teacher of record roster), course, student, entry date, exit date, grade, completion status, credits  Master schedule records showing SCED code, assignment code, endorsement code  Course by Type with virtual delivery flag  Check student grades 120

121.  Be meticulous about your data, consistency and accuracy count!  Be sure you and your team understand what needs to be reported in each data field  Be sure your team communicates with all personnel who have an impact on the TSDL data 121

122.  First reporting period will begin May 2011  RECOMMENDATION is to have this file uploaded to MSDS prior to July 31 and prior to roll over for the next school year.  Certification of the report must be done by August 31, 2011. 122

123. Paul Bielawski Center for Educational Performance and Information 123

124.  FAQ document will be posted on CEPI TSDL Web page  All session questions (with answers!) will be posted on CEPI TSDL Web page 124

125. During the presentation:  Email: answers@resa.net After the presentation:  Email: CEPI@michigan.gov 125

126. 126 MI Streamnet

127.  Representatives: ISD/RESA LEA/PSA Districts Early Middle College MDE CEPI 127