Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Accountability Directors and Test Coordinators Fall Meeting Accountability Services North Carolina Department of Public Instruction September 23, 2014. Agenda. Introductions EVAAS Growth Read to Achieve/Grade 3 Reading Online Testing School Performance Grades
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.
Accountability Directors and Test Coordinators Fall Meeting Accountability Services North Carolina Department of Public Instruction September 23, 2014
Agenda • Introductions • EVAAS Growth • Read to Achieve/Grade 3 Reading • Online Testing • School Performance Grades • Alternative School Accountability Model • Accountability/Testing Updates
Teacher Evaluation and EVAAS Tom TomberlinDirector, District HR Support
Teacher Evaluation in NC • The North Carolina Educator Effectiveness System (NCEES) has six standards of performance for teachers and eight standards for principals. • NC has a conjunctive model, meaning that teachers and principals must be proficient (or better) on all standards in order to receive an overall effectiveness rating. We do not average or index these standards. • Unlike the observational standards, student growth (standard 6 for teacher, standard 8 for principals), requires three years of valid data in order to generate a rating.
Standards 6 & 8 – The Basics • Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 Contribute to Academic Success Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment KnowContent Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice • Principals (and other Administrators) 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Human Resource Leadership External Development Leadership Academic Achievement Leadership ManagerialLeadership Strategic Leadership InstructionalLeadership Cultural Leadership Micro-politicalLeadership
3-Year Rolling Average Teacher Rating from 2 years ago Rating from 1 year ago Rating from this year 1.0 + (-2.5) + 1.2 6 6 6 Standard Standard Standard 3 Contribute to Academic Success Contribute to Academic Success = -0.3 Met Expected Growth3- year average rating on standard 6 for determining status 1.0Met Expected Growth -2.5Did not meet Expected Growth 1.2 Met Expected Growth Note: A similar methodology applies to principals as well.
Teacher Status Standards 1-5In the year 1 2 3 4 5 Establish Environment KnowContent Facilitate Learning Demonstrate Leadership Reflect on Practice Any rating lower than proficient and/or ) / 3 Standards 6Three year rolling average ) 6 6 6 + + 2 years ago 1 year ago Thisyear Does Not Meet Expected Growth
Teacher Status Standards 1-5In the year 1 2 3 4 5 Establish Environment KnowContent Facilitate Learning Demonstrate Leadership Reflect on Practice Proficient or Higher on Standards 1 - 5 and ) / 3 Standard 6Three year rolling average ) 6 6 6 + + 2 years ago 1 year ago Thisyear Meets or Exceeds Expected Growth
Teacher Status Standards 1-5In the year 1 2 3 4 5 Establish Environment KnowContent Facilitate Learning Demonstrate Leadership Reflect on Practice Accomplished or Higher on Standards 1 - 5 and ) / 3 Standard 6Three year rolling average ) 6 6 6 + + 2 years ago 1 year ago Thisyear Exceeds Expected Growth
Teacher Status – First Status • For all teachers (and principals) the first status for Standard 6 will be generated from the best two out of three valid Standard 6 ratings. • School-level growth that has been assigned to a teacher as a result of a waiver (from NCFEs or ASW) will function as a valid Standard 6 rating. • School-level growth that has been assigned as a result of a lack of data for a teacher (i.e., not from a waiver) will not count as a valid Standard 6 rating.
Status Scenarios Rating from 2012-13 Rating from 2013-14 Rating from 2014-15 6 6 6 • Teacher has individual-level data for three years. • Standard 6 from the 2013-14 school year is the lowest of the three ratings. • Teacher’s Standard 6 status is 1.1 – “Meets Expected Growth”. 1.0Met Expected Growth -2.5Did not meet Expected Growth 1.2 Met Expected Growth
Status Scenarios Rating from 2012-13 Rating from 2013-14 Rating from 2014-15 6 6 6 • Teacher has individual-level data for the first two years. • The 2014-15 data is school-level growth from a waiver. • Standard 6 from the 2013-14 school year is the lowest of the three ratings. • Teacher’s Standard 6 status is 1.1 – “Meets Expected Growth”. 1.0Met Expected Growth -2.5Did not meet Expected Growth 1.2 Met Expected Growth
Status Scenarios Rating from 2012-13 Rating from 2013-14 Rating from 2014-15 • Teacher has individual-level data for the final two years. • The 2012-13 data is school-level growth because teacher did not have individual-level data. • The teacher does not receive a status in the fall of 2015 because teacher does not have 3 years of valid data. • First status in Fall 2016 (provided teacher has valid data in SY 2015-16). 6 6 6 1.0Met Expected Growth -2.5Did not meet Expected Growth 1.2 Met Expected Growth
Status Scenarios – Second Year Rating from 2012-13 Rating from 2013-14 Rating from 2014-15 Rating from 2015-16 • Teacher receives second status in fall of 2016. • Rating from 2012-13 “rolls off”. • Rating from 2013-14 returns to the rolling average (even though it was dropped from prior year’s calculation). • Teacher’s status is “Meets Expected Growth” with an average of 0.9. 6 6 6 6 1.0Met Expected Growth -2.5Did not meet Expected Growth 1.2 Met Expected Growth 4.0 Exceeded Expected Growth
Weight of Standards • The six standards (eight for principals) are weighted equally in the determination of teachers’ effectiveness ratings. • In practice, however, student growth carries much more weight in differentiating teachers in terms of effectiveness. • Nominal vs. Effective Weighting
Weight of Standards • Standard 6, student growth, plays a greater role in determining teacher effectiveness ratings than observational data. • The disproportional effect of student growth is an artifact of the lack of variation in observational data, not a value judgment. • More accurate assessment of teacher performance can improve this phenomenon.
SY 2011-12 SY 2012-13 Correlations Between Standards and Growth
What this tells us: Student Growth, as measured using value-added data, and ratings on Standards 1-5 continue to be very, very loosely correlated. Additionally, it appears that we are measuring one, holistic element of “good teaching” rather than five discrete standards of practice.
Proficiency and EVAAS • How can a school increase proficiency rates by X percentage points but not meet growth?
Does Growth Matter? • Two groups of students captured: • Younger Cohort: began Grade 5 in SY 2010-11 • Older Cohort: began Grade 6 in SY 2010-11 1Students in the “Low Growth” category have consecutive years of teachers in the Does Not Meet Expected Growth category 2Students in the “High Growth” category have consecutive years of teachers in the Exceeds Expected Growth category
Questions, Comments, and Feedback Thomas R. Tomberlin Director, District HR Support firstname.lastname@example.org 919-807-3440
HB 230 Clarifications Reducing the minimum length of reading camps • Camps now referred to as reading camp • Reading camp shall: - Offer at least 72 hours of reading instruction to yield positive reading outcomes for participants - Allow volunteer mentors to read with students at time other than during the 72 hours of reading instruction -72 hours of reading instruction shall be provided over no less than 3 weeks for students in schools using calendars other than year-round calendars -Funding reverts on October 31, 2014
HB 230 Clarifications Student Attendance in Summer Reading Camps • parents or guardians of students not demonstrating reading proficiency shall be encouraged to enroll their student in a reading camp • Parent/guardian shall make the final decision regarding student reading camp attendance • LEAs shall provide a least one opportunity for students not participating in a reading camp to demonstrate reading proficiency appropriate for third grade students
HB 230 Clarifications Revises Good Cause Exemptions • Limited English Proficient: students with less than two school years of instruction in an ESL program • Students who demonstrate reading proficiency appropriate for third grade students on an alternative assessment approved by the SBE (took out wording on when to administer) • Multiple retention language stays the same • Portfolio: Student reading portfolio and review processes used by LEAs shall be approved by the SBE
HB 230 Clarifications Revises Good Cause Exemptions • Students with disabilities whose IEPs indicate: - the use of NCEXTEND 1 - at least a two school year delay in educational performance (guidance from EC division) - receipt of intensive reading interventions for at least two school years
Ways to Show Proficiency • BOG • EOG • EOG retest • RtA Alternative Test • Reading 3D at Level P (with comprehension) • SBE approved Local Alternative Assessment • Completed Portfolio (state or local)
HB 230 Clarifications Retained Student Placement • Retained in third grade Accelerated reading class – third grade standards and curriculum • Placed in 3/4 Transition Class with Retained Reading label – fourth grade standards and curriculum • Placed in 4th Grade Accelerated reading class with Retained Reading label – fourth grade standards and curriculum
Local Portfolio • SBE approved policy on process for submission in Sept. • Proposals for local alternative portfolios must follow requirements of policy • Reviewed by Portfolio Advisory Committee • Recommendations to SBE by PAC
Numbers and Percentages • Must be reported to SBE by Sept 1 and posted on district website • Results will be included in the October state board report • This report goes to the General Assembly on October 15
What is Included • Demonstrating and not demonstrating proficiency on EOG • Exempt for Good Cause • Passed Alternative Assessment (state or local) • Students retained (placement in third grade, 3/4 Transition or 4th grade accelerated) • Charter – retained students who did not return
Mid-Year Promotion • November 1(SBE policy) • RtA alternative test, local alternative test, completed portfolio, Reading 3D at Level P (can use all, if needed) • After Nov. 1, principal can grade and classify • MUST still show proficiency of third-grade standards (local alternative, portfolio, or Reading 3D at Level P)
Classes Continue • After Nov. 1, transition and accelerated classes continue • No matter the results • 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction • Recommended 30 more of interventions outside of the 90 minutes
Exempt for Good Cause • “…but shall continue to receive instructional supports and services and reading interventions…” • Definition – means intentional strategies used with a majority of students to facilitate reading development and remediate emerging difficulty with reading development • Include but not limited to – small group instruction, reduced teacher/student ratios, frequent progress monitoring, and extended learning time
Read to Achieve: Local Alternative Assessments Tammy Howard, DirectorAccountability Services