Connecting the dpi dots ccss balanced assessment and educator effectiveness updates january 2012
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 54

Connecting the DPI Dots: CCSS, Balanced Assessment and Educator Effectiveness Updates January 2012 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 93 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Connecting the DPI Dots: CCSS, Balanced Assessment and Educator Effectiveness Updates January 2012. Common Core State Standards Updates January 2012. Our Goal. The Common Core State Standards are the impetus for:

Download Presentation

Connecting the DPI Dots: CCSS, Balanced Assessment and Educator Effectiveness Updates January 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Connecting the dpi dots ccss balanced assessment and educator effectiveness updates january 2012

Connecting the DPI Dots: CCSS, Balanced Assessment and Educator Effectiveness UpdatesJanuary 2012


Common core state standards updates january 2012

Common Core State Standards UpdatesJanuary 2012


Our goal

Our Goal

  • The Common Core State Standards are the impetus for:

    • A more connected, systems-change approach to school/district innovation and improvement

    • Clear definitions of “high quality” and “college and career readiness”

    • True instructional change for ALL educators and instructional leaders

    • Increased student LEARNING


School wide implementation review

School-wide Implementation Review

  • An infrastructure is in place that ensures that every student accesses grade level CCSS.

  • Educators and administrators know and understand the content of the CCSS.

  • Literacy strategies are used to deepen students’ understanding of each discipline.

  • A comprehensive system is in place so students develop the dispositions and skills to prepare them for college and career.

  • Formative and summative classroom assessments are used to gauge student progress and make instructional decisions.


Items currently in progress

Items currently in progress

  • CCSS School-wide Implementation Review

  • Disciplinary literacy Google sites in each content area

  • Planning underway for content support for educators in ELA and mathematic

  • Partnership between PK-12 and IHEs to assist in common language, approach, priorities around CCSS implementation


Some things to do today

Some things to do TODAY

  • Download WI CCSS Guidance documents for ELA and mathematics and begin content area PLC conversations

  • Download WI CCSS Guidance documents for disciplinary literacy and begin a conversation about DL with your school-level leadership team

  • Download and examine the SBAC Content Specifications and consider the implications for curriculum and instruction

  • Visit www.readwisconsin.net and join a community of practice to implement the CCSS to improve reading instruction


Getting smarter the future of online balanced assessment in wisconsin january 2012

Getting SMARTER: The Future of Online Balanced Assessment in WisconsinJanuary 2012


Today

Today

  • SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium

    • Background

    • System overview

    • Updates

  • Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium

  • WIDA Consortium


Changes in assessment

Changes in Assessment

  • We know the WKCE, WAA-SwD, and ACCESS for ELLs assessments are going away.

  • What will replace them? How will the new assessments be different?


Connecting the dpi dots ccss balanced assessment and educator effectiveness updates january 2012

An Introduction


29 member states

29 Member States


Assessment system components

Assessment System Components

Summative assessments benchmarked to college and career readiness

Common Core State Standards specify K-12 expectations for college and career readiness

Teachers can access

formative processes and tools to improve instruction

All students leave high school college and career ready

Interim assessments that are flexible, open, and provide actionable feedback


Assessment system components1

Assessment System Components

Assessment system that balances summative, interim, and formative components for ELA and mathematics:

Summative Assessment (Computer Adaptive)

  • Mandatory comprehensive assessment in grades 3–8 and 11 (testing window within the last 12 weeks of the instructional year) that supports accountability and measures growth

  • Selected response, short constructed response, extended constructed response, technology enhanced, and performance tasks

    Interim Assessment (Computer Adaptive)

  • Optional comprehensive and content-cluster assessment

  • Learning progressions

  • Available for administration throughout the year

  • Selected response, short constructed response, extended constructed response, technology enhanced, and performance tasks

    Formative Processes and Tools

  • Optional resources for improving instructional learning

  • Assessment literacy


Timeline

Timeline


Future of alternate assessment in wisconsin

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Future of Alternate Assessment in Wisconsin


General supervision enhancement grant gseg 2010 2014

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

General Supervision Enhancement Grant (GSEG) 2010-2014

IDEA funded grant awarded by the Office of Special Education Programs, at the U.S. Dept. of Education.

  • Four Years

  • Two consortia were awarded grants

    • National Center and State Collaborative

    • Dynamic Learning Maps


Connecting the dpi dots ccss balanced assessment and educator effectiveness updates january 2012

  • http://dynamiclearningmaps.org/


Dlm consortium member states

DLM Consortium Member States


Outcomes of the consortium

Outcomes of the Consortium

  • New extended standards and achievement level descriptors based on the Common Core State Standards for ELA and Math

  • Learning maps, which will include tasks of various proficiency levels leading to formative assessment and tools for educators.

  • Annual summative assessment (used for accountability purposes)- online, adaptive

  • Professional development modules for teacher training

  • Advanced feedback and reporting systems (including growth modeling)


Assessment system components2

Assessment System Components

An assessment system that provides a summative (point-in-time) assessment as well as formative and interim assessment components for ELA and mathematics throughout the year.

  • Computer adaptive summative assessment

    • Grades 3–8 and 11 (testing window in the Spring)

    • Selected response, constructed response, technology enhanced instructionally relevant items

  • Computer adaptive formative and interim tools

    • Based on learning maps

    • Administered throughout the year

  • Professional development modules for educators

  • Advanced feedback and reporting systems


  • Contacts

    Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

    Contacts

    Kristen Burton

    Office of Educational Accountability

    [email protected]

    Erin Faasuamalie

    Special Education Team

    [email protected]


    For more information

    For more information

    • Ongoing updates are available in the OEA Newsletter

      • Produced quarterly during the school year

      • Available online: http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/dacnwltrs.html

    • SBAC Quarterly Reports

      • Available on OEA’s SBAC webpage: http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/sbac.html

      • General SBAC info: www.smarterbalanced.org

    • Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium

      • http://dynamiclearningmaps.org

    • WIDA Consortium (ASSETS for ELs)

      • http://wida.us.index.aspx


    An update on educator effectiveness in the state of wisconsin january 2012

    An Update on Educator Effectiveness in the State of WisconsinJanuary 2012


    Design team

    • American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (Bryan Kennedy)

    • Association of Wisconsin School Administrators (AWSA) (Jim Lynch)

    • Office of the Governor (Michael Brickman)

    • Professional Standards Council (PSC) (Lisa Benz)

    • Wisconsin Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (WACTE) (Julie Underwood)

    • Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges & Universities(WAICU) (Kathy Lake)

    • Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) (John Ashley)

    • Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators (WASDA) (Miles Turner)

    • Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) (Mary Bell)

    Design Team


    Guiding principles

    An educator evaluation system must deliver information that

    Guides effective educational practice that is aligned with student learning and development.

    Documents evidence of effective educator practice.

    Documents evidence of student learning.

    Informs appropriate professional development.

    Informs educator preparation programs.

    Supports a full range of human resource decisions.

    Is credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and uniform across districts.

    Guiding Principles


    Definition of effective educators

    Effective Teacher:An effective teacher consistently uses educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.

    Effective Principal: An effective principal shapes school strategy and educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.

    Definition of Effective Educators


    Seamless transitions

    Seamless Transitions


    Teachers

    Teachers

    Foundation for

    Teacher Practice

    Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards

    Framework for

    Teacher Evaluation

    Charlotte Danielson

    Domains and Components

    Domain 1: Planning and Preparation

    Domain 2: The Classroom

    Environment

    Domain 3:Instruction

    Domain 4: Professional

    Responsibilities


    Principals

    Principals

    Foundation for

    Principal Practice

    2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards

    Framework for Principal Evaluation

    Subordinate functions of ISLLC standards


    Equivalency review process

    Equivalency Review Process

    • Districts may create their own rubrics of educator practice.

    • Districts must apply to the State Superintendent for approval through an equivalency review process.


    Educator practice

    Teacher Practice

    Each component should be evaluated on multiple sources of evidence. These could include:

    • Observations of teacher practice

    • Review of documents

    • Surveys/data

    • Discussions with the teacher

    Principal Practice

    Each component should be evaluated on multiple sources of evidence. These could include:

    • Observations of principal practice

    • Review of documents

    • Interviews with stakeholders

    • Surveys/data

    • Discussions with the principal

    Educator Practice


    System weights

    System Weights

    Educator

    Practice

    Student

    Growth


    Models of practice detail 50 of evaluation

    Models of Practice Detail (50 % of evaluation)


    Student outcome detail 50 of evaluation

    Student Outcome Detail (50% of evaluation)

    Models of Practice

    Student Learning Objectives

    District Choice


    Student outcome weights pk 8

    Student Outcome Weights—PK- 8

    State assessment, district assessment, SLOs, and other measures

    SLOs and other measures


    Student outcome weights 9 12

    Student Outcome Weights—9 -12

    District assessment, SLOs, and other measures

    SLOs


    Educator effectiveness system matrix

    Educator Effectiveness System Matrix

    • Asterisks indicate a mismatch between educator’s practice performance and student outcomes and requires

    • a focused review to determine why the mismatch is occurring and what, if anything, needs to be corrected.


    Category ratings

    Category Ratings

    Developing: does not meet expectations and requires additional support and directed action

    Effective: areas of strength and improvement addressed through professional development

    Exemplary: expand expertise through professional development and use expertise in leadership


    Educator effectiveness timeline

    Educator Effectiveness Timeline

    2011-12

    2012-13

    2013-14

    2014-15


    Educator effectiveness timeline1

    Educator Effectiveness Timeline

    2011-12

    Timeline: January – June 2012

    Work groups meet once or twice per month


    Fundamental tasks in stage 1

    Fundamental Tasks in Stage 1

    • Teacher Practice rubric

    • Principal Practice rubric

    • Student/School Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

    • Data Systems Development & Management Framework

    • Pre-Pilot Process

    • Evaluation Process and Manuals


    Teacher practice rubric

    Teacher Practice Rubric

    Work Group Representatives:

    • DPI

    • WCER

    • Stakeholder representatives:

      teachers

      principals

      district leaders

    Actions & Products:

    • Rubric review & adaptation.

      Draft teacher rubric developed by March 2012

      Final rubric completed by

      May 2012

    • Identification of evidence sources determined by end of April 2012

    • Evidence & rubric weight scoring determination process completed by end of June 2012

    • Evidence collection forms & processes completed by end of June 2012


    Principal practice rubric

    Principal Practice Rubric

    Work Group Representatives:

    • DPI

    • WCER

    • Stakeholder representatives:

      teachers

      principals

      district leaders

    Actions & Products:

    • Rubric review & adaptation.

      Draft principal rubric developed by March 2012

      Final rubric completed by May 2012

    • Identification of evidence sources determined by end of April 2012

    • Evidence & rubric weight scoring determination process completed by end of June 2012

    • Evidence collection forms & processes completed by end of June 2012


    Student school learning outcome

    Student/School Learning Outcome

    Work Group Representatives:

    • WCER

    • Stakeholder representatives:

      teachers

      principals

      district leaders

    Actions & Products:

    • Create “checklist” for selecting & creating SLOs by reviewing existing versions (Denver, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Austin, Rhode Island) & modify as necessary.

    • Scoring rubric: beginning with guidance developed previously by other districts, and adapting as necessary, create a rubric for evaluators (principals and/or content experts) to use in evaluating SLO evidence submitted by teachers.

    • Process document: create a document (perhaps a “short” and a “long” version) which describes the entire process for creating SLOs, gathering evidence, and rating evidence, with timelines for each step in the process. This document could form the basis for school-level, district-level, or regional trainings around the SLO process.


    Data systems development management framework

    Data Systems Development & Management Framework

    Work Group Representatives:

    • DPI

    • WCER

    • Stakeholder representatives:

      teachers

      principals

      district leaders

    Actions & Products:

    • Status report due in June 2012 containing:current status of statewide SISwhen specific areas of functionality within SIS will be available when a pilot version of “full” system implementation will be possible for a select group of districts

    • Preliminary report & recommendations regarding a “digitization tool” for capturing and storing practice data.


    Pre pilot process

    Pre-Pilot Process

    Work Group Representatives:

    • DPI

    • WCER

    • External evaluator

    Actions & Products:

    • Pre-pilot of SLO process will need to include:an assessment of the SLO process for teachers & principals SLOsthe assessment constructed as “action research” designed to maximize feedback from teachers & principals

    • The review of the pre-pilot work will be completed by end of June 2012.


    Evaluation process manuals

    Evaluation Process & Manuals

    Work Group Representatives:

    • DPI

    • WCER

    • Representatives from SLO and educator practice teams

    Actions & Products:

    • Teacher evaluation manual will encompass the process for evaluating teacher practice and the student learning objective measures.

      The draft manual will be completed by end of June 2012

    • Principal evaluation manual will encompass the process for evaluating principal practice and the school learning objective measures.

      The draft manual will be completed by end of June 2012


    Educator effectiveness timeline2

    Educator Effectiveness Timeline*

    2012-13

    2013-14

    *All work contingent on funding and resources


    Evaluator educator training

    Evaluator & Educator Training

    A training program will be developed which will:

    • Describe both educator practice and student outcome data collection and feedback.

    • Explain value-added student outcomes

    • Describe formative and summative evaluation processes

    • Explain performance rating categories


    Voluntary pilots

    Voluntary Pilots

    • Diverse school districts will pilot the state model (urban, suburban and rural school districts).

    • Pilot will be conducted for one full school year.

    • Large districts will pilot test in a sample of schools . Smaller districts will pilot test in a substantial portion or perhaps all of the district’s schools.

    • Evaluators and those being evaluated will be trained before participating in the pilot test.


    Pilot evaluation

    Pilot Evaluation

    An external evaluator will evaluate the pilot program which will include formative and summative feedback on the following:

    • Implementation process

    • Understanding and acceptance

    • Reliability

    • Validity

    • Impact on educator practice


    Contact information

    Contact information

    • DPI Educator Effectiveness webpage at http://dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/edueff.html

    • Beverly Cann, DPI Education Consultant at [email protected] or 608-267-9263


  • Login