Educator evaluations important dates information tsdl additional resources
1 / 36

Educator Evaluations: Important Dates Information, TSDL, Additional Resources - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Educator Evaluations: Important Dates & Information, TSDL, Additional Resources. Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research and Evaluation. Important Dates & Information. for Educator Evaluation Systems. Important Dates - Overview.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Educator Evaluations: Important Dates Information, TSDL, Additional Resources' - ted

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
Educator evaluations important dates information tsdl additional resources l.jpg

Educator Evaluations:Important Dates & Information, TSDL, Additional Resources

Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research and Evaluation

Important dates information l.jpg

Important Dates & Information

for Educator Evaluation Systems

Important dates overview l.jpg
Important Dates - Overview

  • During school years 2011/12 and 2012/13, Educator Evaluation Systems are locally determined, but evaluations must be based on student growth measures.

  • Data from local, state, and nationally standardized assessments should be integrated if/where available along with other evidence of growth from portfolios, behavior rubrics, etc.

  • Report one of four labels required by legislation in REP:

    • Highly effective

    • Effective

    • Minimally effective

    • Ineffective

  • The Governor’s Council will develop a tool to be used by districts beginning in 2013-14.

The governor s council l.jpg
The Governor’s Council

  • The Council has five voting members:

  • Deborah Loewenberg Ball, dean of the University of Michigan School of Education and chair of the Council

  • Mark Reckasefrom Michigan State University's College of Education

  • Nick Sheltrownfrom National Heritage Academics in Grand Rapids

  • David Vensel, a principal from Jefferson High School in Monroe

  • Jennifer Hammond, a principal from Grand Blanc High School

  • Joseph Martineau, Executive Director of BAA, serves on the Council as a non-voting member and is the designee of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Growth tool l.jpg
Growth Tool

  • Governor’s Council has to make a recommendation about the tool

  • Language insinuates ONE tool; but would be prohibitively expensive

  • We are hoping the Council will recommend more of a “toolbox”

    • Including state, approved national, and approved local assessments; districts must use a combination of those tools

    • How some other states have done this

The governor s council tool l.jpg
The Governor’s Council Tool

  • Legislation specifies that the Gov’s Council will recommend “a student growth and assessment tool” that:

    • “Is a value-added model”

    • Includes at least a pre- and post-test

    • Can be used in all content areas and grades, including currently non-tested grades and content areas.

    • Meets all requirements for students with disabilities

The governor s council8 l.jpg
The Governor’s Council

Public Act No. 102 of 2011 created the Council as a two-year temporary agency, staffed and supported by the Governor's office, and charged with preparing a report by April 30, 2012 that will recommend:- A student growth and assessment tool;- A state evaluation tool for teachers;- A state evaluation tool for school administrators;- Changes to the requirements for a professional education teaching certificate; and- A process for evaluating and approving local evaluation tools for teachers and administrators.

Who must be evaluated l.jpg
Who MUST be evaluated?

  • Based on the code used to report the employee in the REP.

  • Visit

    • Click on CEPI Applications on the left

    • Then, click on Registry of Educational Personnel on the left

    • Scroll down to EOY 2012 REP Preview

    • Click on EOY 2012 REP Data Descriptions and go to page 71.

Who must be evaluated10 l.jpg
Who MUST be evaluated?

  • Required Reporting Codes

Who is optional to evaluate l.jpg
Who is OPTIONAL to evaluate?

  • Optional Reporting Codes

Slide12 l.jpg


The Teacher-Student Data Link:

What it is and how it could be used as part of a district evaluation system

Teacher student data link l.jpg
Teacher/Student Data Link

  • New data initiative to link each student to the courses he/she took and to the teachers who taught those courses

  • Required under State Fiscal Stabilization Fund as a deliverable

  • Spring Assessments/High school link now available through the Secure Site on in January.

  • Fall Assessments (Elementary and Middle) TSDL will be available in late February.

State provided measures l.jpg
State-provided measures

  • Extremely limited, so a “puzzle pieces” approach must be taken

  • Districts choose which “pieces” make sense in their local context

  • Generated for each educator of students in tested grades, regardless of subject taught or type of position.

  • BUT “growth”, or PLC, doesn’t exist at the high school level, for MI-Access P/SI, ELPA, MEAP-Access, or science, social studies, and writing…

How does the teacher student data link work l.jpg
How does the Teacher/Student Data Link Work?

  • Teachers are linked to courses

  • Students are linked to courses

  • For each course taught, a teacher has a list of students who were reported as taking that course.

Linking assessment data to students l.jpg
Linking assessment data to students

  • Once teachers are linked to students, MDE will provide:

    • Measures of performance level change for MEAP and MI-Access FI in reading and mathematics for each teacher where available (regardless of subject taught) in grades 4-8.

    • Measures of student proficiency in writing, science, social studies, reading and mathematics for each teacher where available (regardless of subject taught).

Slide18 l.jpg

Draft Data Provided to Districts

List for Each Teacher

  • Will not generate aggregate report for each teacher because:

    • Need to adjust each list based on rules like student attendance, subject taught match, etc.

    • Aggregate data could be taken as “teacher effects” which would be an incorrect use of the data.

General timeline l.jpg
General Timeline

  • Spring assessment data 2011 and fall assessment data 2011 will attribute to teachers from the 2010-2011 school year

  • “Feeder school” for fall assessment data

Using performance level change plc data l.jpg
Using Performance Level Change (PLC) Data

  • These are general guidelines/suggestions—NOT REQUIREMENTS OR FORMAL RECOMMENDATIONS!!

  • In the 2011-2012 school year, MDE will work with districts in pilot programs to research the most valid way to use PLC and other assessment data in value-added models and educator evaluation systems.

  • This year, simply providing PLC data linked to teachers to districts for integration into local systems.

One possible method l.jpg
One Possible Method

  • Step #1: Weight the PLCs to give educators more credit for more student improvement and to take away credit for declines.

  • One possible rating system:

Possible method cont d l.jpg
Possible Method (cont’d)

  • Could adjust the weights if desired—more/less credit for SI or SD, etc.

  • Another possibility: If the student scored in the “Advanced” category in the previous year, and is still in the “Advanced” category, award them a weight of “improving” even if they maintained or declined.

Step 2 determine thresholds l.jpg
Step #2: Determine thresholds

  • Look at your current data; what percentage of your students show improvement (I or SI)? Show declines (D or SD)?

  • What is a reasonable standard amount of growth you would expect teachers to show?

Example determining thresholds l.jpg
Example: Determining Thresholds

  • In Sunshine School:

    • 30% of students either had a PLC of I or SI in the previous year

    • For a teacher to be considered effective for this portion of the evaluation, he/she must have at least 30% of students “improving” (using the weighted PLC approach)

    • For a teacher to be considered “highly effective,” he/she must have 40% of students improving

Step 3 calculate average plc l.jpg
Step #3: Calculate average PLC

  • Apply rules regarding which students “count” toward a teacher’s evaluation (i.e. attendance rules)

  • Weight each PLC (using pre-determined weighting scheme)

  • Sum the weighted values and divide by the number of students

Using weighted plc and thresholds l.jpg
Using weighted PLC and thresholds

  • To calculate the teacher’s percent of students demonstrating growth, divide Weighted PLC by number of students: 3/8 = 37.5%

  • If target for “effective” was 30% of students showing growth, teacher met target

  • Teacher did not meet target for “highly effective” (40% of students improving)

  • Use this as the “growth” component of a multi-measure evaluation system

Weighted plc tool l.jpg
Weighted PLC Tool

  • Tool to be used alongside your TSDL for math and reading in grades 4-8.

  • Allows you to plug in the count of students at each performance level.

  • Automatically calculates the Weighted PLC like in the example above.

Slide29 l.jpg

Filter the TSDL file and enter in the number of students in each Performance Level and Performance Level Change Category.

Specific directions are provided within the tool.

Sample components of evaluation l.jpg
Sample Components of Evaluation each Performance Level and Performance Level Change Category.

Cautions l.jpg
Cautions each Performance Level and Performance Level Change Category.

  • Must base targets on data; need to set targets that are attainable but also challenge educators to improve student learning

  • Make decisions about the extent (if at all) reading and math growth should count in subjects other than reading and math

  • Make decisions about which students contribute; need firm business rules that apply to all!

  • Use other measures and factors!

Integrating growth carefully l.jpg
Integrating Growth Carefully each Performance Level and Performance Level Change Category.

  • Use in conjunction with other measures

  • Use other types of growth too (i.e. portfolios, rubrics, performance-based assessments) particularly in non-tested subjects and grades—and for special populations.

Integrating growth again l.jpg
Integrating Growth (again) each Performance Level and Performance Level Change Category.

  • Can be used more qualitatively too—set general guidelines/targets, but use it to inform the decision

  • Consider the measures that may already be in place in your district that are meant to show growth and develop a rules around that data

    NOTE: This will change depending on what is legislated in the governor’s council…. But for now….

Mde web site for ed evals l.jpg
MDE web site for Ed Evals each Performance Level and Performance Level Change Category.


    • Click on the Educator Evaluation tab on the left to access materials, resources, and links

Contact information l.jpg
Contact Information each Performance Level and Performance Level Change Category.

  • Carla Howe Olivares


  • 517.241.2884

  • Educator Evaluation Conference on February 29, 2012 at the Lansing Center. More info at