Kansas Educator Evaluation and use of Student Growth Measures Bill Bagshaw Asst. Director Kansas State Department of Education Impact Institutes 2015
Two Things About Today We ll end on time or early! Provide relevant information you can use right away!
Win the Crowd
Evaluation Systems The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING
All Evaluation Systems Should Be: Administratively feasible Publicly credible Professionally accepted Legally defensible Economically affordable
It Shouldn t be Complicated! SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT 900
Visualizations of Kansas Evaluation Systems
Kansas Evaluation Systems
Kansas Evaluation Systems Chosen Instructional Practice Protocol SUMMARY RATING #1 Three Student Growth Measures SUMMARY RATING #2 FINAL Summative Evaluation Rating
Kansas Evaluation Systems IPP Summary Rating determined by district (LEA) protocols. Includes multiple areas of educator effectiveness. Inter-rater Agreement is a key component of Observations Use of artifact and evidence Combining IPP and SGM summary ratings Determining Final Summary Rating An educator must meet multiple measures of student growth to be rated as effective, highly effective or the equivalent. SGMs may be any combination of: Locally created assessments Commercial assessments State Assessments (required for grades/subjects tested) LEAs will determine timelines and appropriate levels of rigor when using student growth measures.
Educator Evaluation Systems Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Instructional Practice Protocol Summary Rating FINAL SUMMATIVE Rating Student Growth Measure Student Growth Measure Student Growth Measure Student Growth Measures Summary Rating
What drives all of this work?
WAIVER - Principle 3 - Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership Implement teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that: Are used for continual improvement of instruction Use at least 3 performance levels Use multiple measures including student growth as significant factor Are used to evaluate on a regular basis Provide clear, timely, and useful feedback Are used to inform personnel decisions
Identifying Multiple Measures
Multiple Measures Measures may include any combination of: Locally Created Assessments that meet criteria Commercial Assessment Products State Assessments At least one State Assessments must be used for grade levels/subjects tested. State Assessments are not required for grade levels/subjects not tested.
Have an Appropriate Perspective Charlotte Danielson s Perspective
SGM Selection Tips Look at what you re currently using to assess students Work with colleagues vertically and horizontally to align and measure student growth and progress
Default List of Measures 1st Grade MAP Curriculum based assessment State Assess Top 6 SGMs reported for 2014-2015 MS Fine Arts MAP Star AIMSWeb HS English Language Arts Curriculum based assessment District assessment State Assess DIBELS STAR Local Locally developed assessment Aspire Performancebased assessment Schools or districts may modify at any time by going to the Evaluation Webpages. MAP State Assessment ACT
Examples Elementary 1 st grade: MAP, Fountas & Pinnell 5 th grade: MAP, Fountas & Pinnell, one State Assessment Middle School Social Studies: DBQs, Pre/Post Tests, Social Studies State Assessment Science: Performance assessment student designed labs, Course pre-test and final exam, Science State Assessment
Examples High School Fine Arts: Performance rubric used at beginning and end of the year/semester/unit, Portfolios and student competitions Career/Tech: Course Competencies or Certification/Licensure process, cpass, Long-term project rubrics Special Education IEP Goal Monitoring/Progress, Behavior Plan Monitoring/Progress, Dynamic Learning Maps
Creating Locally Developed Assessments Local assessments must be created in consultation with a school administrator with expertise in assessments, special education, ELL specialist and content expert. Assessments cover all key subject/grade level content standards. Number of test items should correlate to distribution of % of time spent teaching the content. Assessments should require higher order thinking as appropriate. Assessments should allow high and low achieving students to demonstrate their knowledge. Assessments should measure accurately what it is designed to measure and produce similar results for students with similar levels of ability.
Current Work Districts will continue to identify student growth measures. Continue to update Default List of student growth measures. http://www.ksde.org/default.aspx?tabid=913 Continue to gather evidence of student growth and educator practice.
Defining Significance
Significance Definition Multiple (>1) Measures The change in student achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time
Student Growth Measures Should Also include gains and progress toward post-secondary and workforce readiness include progress in academic and functional goals in an individualized education program or meeting academic student growth objectives
Collecting Data Select a cohort for each year or semester. Collect data relevant to selected Student Growth Measures. Compile data over time store data until formal evaluation year.
Cohort Examples Teacher Elementary Classroom Teacher Secondary Band Teacher Elementary Gifted Facilitator High School Social Studies Teacher Cohort Entire classroom Marching band All 3 rd grade gifted students being pulled out for gifted services 1 st semester 3 rd hour Government class
Determining the SGM Summary Rating
Selecting Targets Determination of targets and met/not met status is a local decision. Inter-rater Agreement is essential.
4th Grade Curriculum Standards 5.00 4.12 4.11 4.10 4.09 4.08 4.07 4.06 4.05 4.04 4.03 4.02 4.01 4.00 85% Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May 85% Assuming 85% of students exiting 3rd grade accomplished 3rd grade curriculum, the expectation would be at least the same amount of growth would occur by completion of the 4th grade, or on any given measure used. Example: In a class of 24 students, 20 students would be above the Grade Level Expectation line by the end of the Academic Year. 24 x.85 = 20.4 This scenario would indicate significance. Reference: Blue Print for Reform
Multiple Measures
Combining SGM and IPP Summary Ratings
Kansas Evaluation Systems Chosen Instructional Practice Protocol SUMMARY RATING #1 Three Student Growth Measures SUMMARY RATING #2 FINAL Summative Evaluation Rating
SGM 1 SGM 2 SGM 3 Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Kansas Performance Matrix SGM Summary Rating IPP Summary Rating Final Summative Rating Met Met Met Highly Effective Met Met Met Highly Effective Met Met Met Highly Effective HE HE HE HE Highly Effective E E E E Effective D D D D Developing Highly Effective Highly Effective or Effective Effective or Developing Met Not Met Met Effective Not Met Met Met Effective Met Met Not Met Effective E HE HE HE Highly Effective E D E E Effective D E D D Developing Highly Effective or Effective Effective Effective or Developing Not Met Not Met Met Developing Not Met Met Not Met Developing Not Met Not Met Met Developing E E E E Effective E D D IE Developing IE IE D IE Ineffective Effective or Developing Developing Developing or Ineffective Not Met Not Met Not Met Ineffective Not Met Not Met Not Met Ineffective D D D D Developing IE IE IE IE Ineffective Developing or Ineffective Ineffective 1. Recommended educator meets 3 SGMs to be considered highly effective or its equivalent.** 2. Must meet at least two SGMs to be considered effective or its equivalent for the SGM Summary Rating. 3. Must meet at least one SGMs to be considered developing or its equivalent for the SGM Summary Rating. 4. The Final Summative Rating can only be rated one performance level higher than the lowest summary rating. 5. When both summary ratings are the same, that rating becomes the Final Summative Rating. NOTE: One Kansas State Assessments are required as an SGM for teachers of tested grades and subject only. IE = Ineffective D = Developing E = Effective HE = Highly Effective
SGM 1 SGM 2 SGM 3 Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Matrix (top tier) SGM Summary Rating IPP Summary Rating Final Summative Rating Met Met Met Highly Effective HE HE HE HE Highly Effective Highly Effective Met Met Met Highly Effective Met Met Met Highly Effective E E E E Effective D D D D Developing Highly Effective or Effective Effective or Developing
SGM 1 SGM 2 SGM 3 Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Matrix (bottom tier) SGM Summary Rating IPP Summary Rating Final Summative Rating Not Met Not Met Not Met Ineffective D D D D Developing Developing or Ineffective Not Met Not Met Not Met Ineffective IE IE IE IE Ineffective Ineffective
Locally created SGM Commercially purchased SGM State Assessment Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Kansas Performance Matrix ACTIVITY SGM Summary Rating IPP Summary Rating Final Summative Rating Met Met Met Highly Effective Met Met Met Highly Effective Met Met Met Highly Effective HE HE HE HE Highly Effective E E E E Effective D D D D Developing Highly Effective Highly Effective or Effective Effective or Developing 1. 2. 3. Met Not Met Met Effective Not Met Met Met Met Met Not Met E HE HE HE Highly Effective E D D E D E D D Developing 4. 5. 6. Not Met Not Met Met Developing Not Met Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Met E E E E Effective D D E IE IE IE D IE Ineffective Not Met Not Met Not Met Ineffective Not Met Not Met Not Met Ineffective D D D D Developing IE IE IE IE Ineffective Developing or Ineffective Ineffective 1. Recommended educator meets 3 SGMs to be considered highly effective or its equivalent.** 2. Must meet at least two SGMs to be considered effective or its equivalent for the SGM Summary Rating. 3. Must meet at least one SGMs to be considered developing or its equivalent for the SGM Summary Rating. 4. The Final Summative Rating can only be rated one performance level higher than the lowest summary rating. 5. When both summary ratings are the same, that rating becomes the Final Summative Rating. NOTE: One Kansas State Assessments are required as an SGM for teachers of tested grades and subject only. IE = Ineffective D = Developing E = Effective HE = Highly Effective
Locally created SGM Commercially purchased SGM State Assessment Student Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Kansas Performance Matrix ACTIVITY SGM Summary Rating IPP Summary Rating Final Summative Rating Met Met Met Highly Effective HE HE HE HE Highly Effective Highly Effective Met Met Met Highly Effective E E E E Effective Highly Effective or Effective Met Met Met Highly Effective D D D D Developing Effective or Developing 1. 2. 3. Met Not Met Met Effective Not Met Met Met Effective Met Met Not Met Effective E HE HE HE Highly Effective E D D E Effective or Dev. D E D D Developing Highly Effective or Effective Effective or Developing Effective or Developing 4. 5. 6. Not Met Not Met Met Developing Not Met Met Not Met Developing Not Met Not Met Met Developing E E E E Effective D D E IE Developing IE IE D IE Ineffective Effective or Developing Developing Developing or Ineffective Not Met Not Met Not Met Ineffective D D D D Developing Developing or Ineffective Not Met Not Met Not Met Ineffective IE IE IE IE Ineffective Ineffective 1. Recommended educator meets 3 SGMs to be considered highly effective or its equivalent.** 2. Must meet at least two SGMs to be considered effective or its equivalent for the SGM Summary Rating. 3. Must meet at least one SGMs to be considered developing or its equivalent for the SGM Summary Rating. 4. The Final Summative Rating can only be rated one performance level higher than the lowest summary rating. 5. When both summary ratings are the same, that rating becomes the Final Summative Rating. NOTE: One Kansas State Assessments are required as an SGM for teachers of tested grades and subject only. IE = Ineffective D = Developing E = Effective HE = Highly Effective
KS Performance Matrix Rules Recommended educator meets 3 SGMs to be considered highly effective or its equivalent.** Must meet at least two SGMs to be considered effective or its equivalent for the SGM Summary Rating. Must meet at least one SGMs to be considered developing or its equivalent for the SGM Summary Rating. The Final Summative Rating can only be rated one performance level higher than the lowest summary rating. When both summary ratings are the same, that rating becomes the Final Summative Rating.
Record IPP Summary Rating https://stageap.ksde.org/authentication/login.aspx
Record SGM Summary Rating
Record Final Summary Rating
FAQ s Do you recommend using building level state assessment data for all? How can state assessments be considered growth measures? Is this only for math and reading? When are these to be in place? What if we don t have data for a SGM for this coming year? Is the target or met/not met criteria rigid or is there room for professional judgement (for example for a different classroom demographics)? Will the state be collecting/publishing/posting if teachers/schools/districts met or did not meet SGMs?
Final Thoughts
Contact Information: Bill Bagshaw, Assistant Director, Teacher Licensure and Accreditation, Kansas State Department of Education bbagshaw@ksde.org 785.296.2198 Kansas Educator Evaluator Website: http://www.ksde.org/default.aspx?tabid=899