Value-Added Teacher Evaluation: Explanations and Implications for Michigan Music Educators Colleen Conway, University of Michigan (Session Presider) Abby Butler, Wayne State University Phillip Hash, Calvin College Cynthia Taggart, Michigan State University
Overview of Michigan LegislationSigned July 19, 2011 • “…with the involvement of teachers and school administrators, the board of a school district…shall adopt and implement for all teachers and school administrators a rigorous, transparent, and fair performance evaluation system that does all of the following:” • Measures student growth • Provides relevant data on student growth • Evaluates a teacher's job performance “using multiple rating categories that take into account data on student growth as a significant factor” (PA 102, p. 2).
Overview of Michigan Legislation(cont.) • % of evaluation related to student growth: • 2013-14 (25%); 2014-15 (40%); 2015-16 (50%) • All teachers evaluated annually • Review of lesson plan w/ standards • Rated as: Highly effective, effective, minimally effective, ineffective • Evaluations vs. Seniority in personnel decisions • National, state, and local assessments allowed
MDE Will Provide • Measures For every educator, regardless of subject taught, based on 2009-10 and 2010-11 data: • Student growth levels in reading and math • Student proficiency levels in math, reading, writing, science, social studies • Foundational measure of student proficiency and improvement (same for each teacher in a school) Understanding Michigan's Educator Evaluations, MDE (December 2010) • How will this data be used for arts educators? • Currently up to school districts • Might be specified by the state after this year
Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness • By April 30, 2012 submit a report that recommends • a student growth and assessment tool • State evaluation tools for teachers and administrators • parameters for effectiveness rating categories. • Subject to leg. approval
Recommendations for Music Educators Be active within your educational communities: • State level: Be involved in developing and implementing curricula that state clearly what students should know/be able to do. • District level: Work with administration to identify and develop objective and valid measures of curricular goals before evaluation cycle begins.
Learn as much as you can about assessment: • Use a variety of assessments that are valid for measuring growth and achievement in order to paint a rich picture of each student musically • Consult colleagues and experts for assistance as needed
Adjust your teaching practice to embrace assessment: • Make assessment a naturalistic, regular part of nearly every class period. • Include opportunities for individual response.
Abby Butler Wayne State University Assessment
Measures of Student Growth • What aspects of student learning do you want to measure? • Consult the Michigan Merit Curriculum, available online at MDOE. • Choose criteria that provides a balanced picture of what your students are learning: • Skills • Knowledge • Understanding
Types of Assessment • Written Assessments • Quizzes/tests • Worksheets • Written reports, papers, reviews, critiques, essays • Performance Tests • Based on some form of student music making • Performance tests used to evaluate a specific task • Choices depend on outcomes to be assessed and age/grade of students
Measuring Skills Skills Appropriate Assessments Checklists Rating scale Rubrics Worksheets Portfolios • Singing • Playing instruments • Moving • Listening • Composing, Improvising, Arranging • Notating (perform, read, write -PRW)
Measuring Knowledge Types of Knowledge Appropriate Assessments Quizzes or tests (written) Worksheets Diagrams or graphic organizers (i.e. flow charts, concept maps, Venn chart) • Factual • Terminology • Symbols (notation) • Instruments • Genres • Procedural (“How to”) • Assemble an instrument • Build a major scale • Perform a concert
Assessing Understanding Understanding Assessment Tools Questioning (divergent) Problem solving activities Projects • Concepts • Principles • Big Picture
Evidence of Growth • Baseline data for comparison • Possible sources: • Teacher developed pre-test • Teacher developed grade level assessments • Assessments included in textbook series • Purchased tests (i.e. Gordon’s PMMA, Iowa Test for Music Literacy)
Scheduling Assessments • Consult with your principal to determine a schedule for assessments • Consider the following: • Number, length, and type of assessments • School calendar & performance events • Who will administer assessments • Which grades, classes, or students will be assessed
Documenting & Recording the Evidence • How will you document the evidence? • Will results be quantitative or qualitative? • If you use rubrics, checklists, or rating scales, how will they be scored? • Where will this information be recorded? • School computer, iPad, Smartboard? • Software program, i.e. Excel?
Interpreting Results • Adequate and consistent data • Baseline for comparison • Consideration of mediating factors • Consult experts as needed
Festival Ratings: Possibilities • Provide quantitative third party assessment • Can show growth over time in some circumstances • Individual judges’ ratings • Repertoire difficulty • 3 yr. period • Valid to the extent that they measure the quality of an ensemble’s performance of three selected pieces & sight reading at one point in time • Probably adaptable to state-wide evaluation tool • Assess a few performance standards
Festival Ratings: Concerns • Group assessment only • Ratings alone not sufficient • Limited assessment of growth • Reliability not established • Consistency of adjudication b/w years, districts, sites, judges? • Numerous factors influence reliability [next slide] • What is the role of festival and music organizations?
Factors Influencing Contest Ratings/Inter Rater Reliability • Adj. experience (e.g., Brakel, 2006) • Familiarity w/ repertoire (e.g., Kinney, 2009) • Adjudication form (e.g., Norris & Borst, 2007) • Length of contest day (e.g., Barnes & McCashin, 2005) • Performance Time (e.g., Bergee & McWhirter, 2007) • Size of judging panel (e.g., Bergee, 2007) • Difficulty of repertoire (e.g., Baker, 2004) • Size of Ensemble (e.g., Killian, 1998, 1999, 2000) • Adjudicator Bias • Special circumstances (Cassidy & Sims, 1991) • Conductor race (VanWeelden & McGee, 2007) • Conductor Expressivity (Morrison, Price, Geiger, & Cornacchio, 2009) • Ensemble Label (Silvey, 2009) • Grade Inflation (Boeckman, 2002) • Event type • Concert performance vs. sight-reading (Hash, in press)
Ratings ≠ MEAP or MME Exams MEAP & MME • Same for all each yr. • Rel. and val. established • Many Standards • Individual • Mostly objective • Reflect multiple levels of achievement Ratings • Rep., adj., students change • Rel. not est. • Per. standards only • Group • Mostly subjective • 90%+ earn I or II out of V ratings.
Recommendations • Use of ratings voluntary • Organizations work to establish reliability and validity as for any other standardized measure • Organizations provide basic norms • Average rating for each classification • Frequency counts for all ratings in all classifications • All music education organizations work together to establish reliable, valid, fair assessment of music K-12 learning