slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Marianne Mottley, Assistant Director, Office of Accountability Ohio Department of Education PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Marianne Mottley, Assistant Director, Office of Accountability Ohio Department of Education

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 50

Marianne Mottley, Assistant Director, Office of Accountability Ohio Department of Education - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 304 Views
  • Uploaded on

Moving Beyond Math & Reading 3-8: How Value-Added Models Can Incorporate Other Types of Assessments Garron Gianopulos, PhD North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Marianne Motley, Ohio Department of Education John White, PhD SAS, Instititute June 25, 2014.

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

Marianne Mottley, Assistant Director, Office of Accountability Ohio Department of Education


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
    1. Moving Beyond Math & Reading 3-8: How Value-Added Models Can Incorporate Other Types of Assessments Garron Gianopulos, PhD North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Marianne Motley, Ohio Department of Education John White, PhD SAS, Instititute June 25, 2014

    2. Moving Beyond Math & Reading 3-8: How Value-Added Models Can Incorporate Other Types of Assessments Marianne Mottley, Assistant Director, Office of Accountability Ohio Department of Education

    3. “A principal or a superintendent must be able to say to the school board and the public: Everyone who teaches here is good – and here’s how I know.” - Charlotte Danielson

    4. Ultimate goal of teacher evaluation Improve teaching and learning

    5. How do we get there?

    6. Evaluation Framework Student Growth Measures 50% Teacher Performance on Standards 50% Final Summative Rating Accomplished Skilled Developing Ineffective

    7. RttT Teacher-Student Linkage Spring 2011 30% of Ohio’s LEAs Participated Spring 2012 60% of Ohio’s LEAs Participated Spring 2013 100% of Ohio’s LEAs Participated

    8. Linkage Required Linkage Grades 4-8 - Reading - Math Optional Linkage for Extended Testing - Grades K-3 reading and math - Grades K-4, 6, 7 science - Grades K-8 social studies - Grades 9-12 all content areas

    9. Extended Testing Programs RttTMini-Grant - Grades 1-3 R/M - Grades 2-3 Science - Grade 3 Social Studies Project SOAR - Grade 3 R/M - Grades 3-8 Social Studies - Grades 3, 4, 6, 7 Science - High School EOC Exams

    10. RttT Mini-Grant Not a mandatory part of RttT Districts could opt in by submitting a mini-grant application District agreement with ODE Two-Year Grant = Two-Year Commitment

    11. RttT Mini-Grant Overview Grant pays for assessments in grades K-3 and for teacher value added reports Pools created based on which assessments were most widely used Three pools in Ohio - Terra Nova (CTB McGraw Hill) - MAP (NWEA) - STAR (Renaissance Learning)

    12. Mini-Grant Overview Univariate Response Model (URM) Predicted Mean Approach Tests Properties - High correlation to curricular objectives - Have sufficient stretch - Must be sufficiently reliable

    13. Mini-Grant Overview Univariate Response Model (URM) Minimum 3 prior year’s or years’ tests (predictor tests) Pool must have same predictors Pool must have same current year tests (response tests)

    14. RttT Mini-Grant Overview Predictor Testing Requirements Terra Nova - Spring window in at least 3 subjects - Reading and math mandatory - Science or social studies optional MAP/STAR - Fall & spring windows in at least 2 subjects - Reading and math mandatory

    15. Mini-Grant Overview Some districts had prior test data and received reports in 2013 For others, 2014 will be their first year when reports will be generated Pools must remain stable across years Districts cannot deviate from a pool

    16. Mini-Grant Overview Reports must be used for teacher evaluation Considered to be a vendor assessment for the evaluation system Must be used for at least 10% of the 50% that comprises student growth measures

    17. Project SOAR Battelle for Kids Project SOAR Created in 2002 with 42 districts 2014 over 100 SOAR districts Uses value-added data to drive decision making and enhance student learning Must use for teacher evaluations

    18. Project SOAR Grades 3-8 Predictor Data Response Data

    19. Project SOAR High School Uses ACT Quality Core End-of-Course Exams Four Content Areas Mathematics Algebra I Geometry Algebra II Pre-Calculus English/Language Arts English 9 English 10 English 11 English 12 Science Biology Chemistry I Social Studies U.S. History

    20. Other BFK Clients NWEA and possibly other vendors Using “single year” Multivariate Response Model (MRM) for Year 1 - Uses fall tests as baseline data - Uses spring tests to measure growth Using “across years” MRM approach for Year 2 and beyond

    21. Other BFK Clients Districts will partner directly with BFK Exact grades/subjects yet to be determined Grade 3 reading and math will use Ohio’s achievement assessments as response (using URM calculation)

    22. education.ohio.gov

    23. Social Media Ohio Families and Education Ohio Teachers’ Homeroom ohio-department-of-education storify.com/ohioEdDept @OHEducation OhioEdDept

    24. Moving Beyond Math & Reading 3-8: How Value-Added Models Can Incorporate Other Types of Assessments Garron Gianopulos, PhD Psychometrician, Technical Development of Statewide Assessments, Design and Implementation of Tests, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction June 25, 2014

    25. Overview • A Year of Change • How NC Uses EVAAS • Outcomes and Plans for the Future

    26. 2012-13: A Year of Change • READY Assessments • Introduced all new READY end-of-grade (EOG) Assessments in grades 3 through 8 • New READY end-of-course (EOC) assessments • All EOGs and EOCs were aligned to the common core state standards, adopted in 2010 • All new standards classifying students as ready for the next grade level and on-track to college • New proficiency levels 2005: Implemented new growth formula

    27. 2012-13: A Year of Change • New Laws • Read to Achieve • Law required third graders to demonstrate proficiency in reading • 35 new third grade portfolio reading assessments • Beginning-of-grade 3 Reading assessment • School Letter Grades • Grade letter determined by proficiency and EVAAS growth 2005: Implemented new growth formula

    28. 2012-13: A Year of Change • Race to the Top Assessments for Teacher Evaluation • New Teacher Effectiveness model required teachers to demonstrate growth • 6 New Occupational Course of Study (OCS) assessments • 30 New NC Final Exams • Science exams in grade 4,6,7, and high school • New H.S. Math exams • Social Studies exams in grade 4 – 9 and high school • Historically non-tested subjects 2005: Implemented new growth formula

    29. 2012-13: A Year of Change • State Board of Education (SBE) • Not all board members were comfortable with the new proficiency levels • A policy decision was made to change original 4 achievement levels to 5 achievement levels • The new level differentiates between readiness for next grade level and being on-track for college • NC is a governing member of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC); however, the SBE is re-evaluating consortia and future testing options • Keeping current READY assessments through 2015-16 2005: Implemented new growth formula

    30. Overview • A Year of Change • How NC Uses EVAAS • Outcomes and Plans for the Future

    31. How NC Uses the Educator Value Added Assessment System (EVAAS) • Educator Instructional Planning • School Accountability • Educator Effectiveness

    32. Instructional Planning • 2012-13: EVAAS provides projections of EOG/EOC percentile scores at the beginning of the school year to help with instructional plans • Student-level EVAAS projections are also provided for ACT, PLAN, and EXPLORE • 2013-14: EOG/EOC Scale score projections will be provided

    33. The School Accountability System

    34. North Carolina Educator Evaluation ProcessTeachers • We have a total of 6 standards in our teacher evaluation system. All standards, 1-6, are of equal value. Our goal: • Identify our strongest teachers and explore their methodologies, and • Support teachers who need to increase their effectiveness • Three years of EVAAS growth measures needed before ratings apply 4 1 2 3 5 6 Contribute to Academic Success Facilitate Learning Establish Environment Reflect on Practice Demonstrate Leadership KnowContent

    35. Training Provided • Webinars with EVAAS team focused on how staff will continue to get value-added data with a change in standards • Understanding the EVAAS system of value-added growth • Conversion of assessment data to Normal Curve Equivalents (NCE’s) • Understanding the use of assessments in various growth models

    36. EVAAS Models Used in NC • Multivariate Response Model (MRM) • 17 End-of-grade Math and ELA assessments • Used in the school accountability system • Univariate Response Model (URM) • 3 End-of-course assessments • 6 Occupational Course of Study assessments • 70 Career and Technical Exams • 30 NC Final Exams (historically non-tested subjects) • All available assessments used in educator effectiveness

    37. What Types of Scores Can be Used in EVAAS? • Sufficient spread in the scale • Limited ceiling or floor effects • Correlation between covariates and score > .60 • High reliability • Test content needs to align closely to the instructed curriculum • High Validity • Standardized assessments need curricula that are also standardized

    38. Overview • A Year of Change • How NC Uses EVAAS • Outcomes and Plans for the Future

    39. Outcomes from 2012-13 • READY EOG/EOC Assessments • Public backlash against quantity of testing (especially in grade 3), but not against our chosen growth model • All READY EOG/EOC assessments and most Final Exams had the required properties to be used by EVAAS • No changes were needed to the READY EOG/EOC assessments as these were developed over a three year time frame with sufficient funding • The legislatively-driven calculations for school letter grades in the Accountability Model generated a disproportionately large percent of Fs and Ds

    40. Outcomes from 2012-13 • Final Exams • Certain Final Exams and OCS assessments did not meet requirements to be utilized in the EVAAS models • Insufficient sample size • Insufficient correlations between covariates and test score • Insufficient reliabilities • Floor effects surfaced on some High School Math assessments

    41. Outcomes from 2012-13 • Constructed Response Items (CR) • NCDP provided general guidelines for managing CR item scoring process, but each district implemented their own process • Constructed response (CR) items too labor intensive to score by teachers • Many concerns about the security, inter-rater reliability, and accuracy of teacher-scored CR items

    42. Outcomes from 2012-13 • Response from Educators • The large majority (79%) of teachers met or exceeded growth expectations • Teachers with insufficient individual estimates were excluded from the rating system • Few groups are comparing their own growth measures to EVAAS • Most educators seem to be responding favorably to the EVAAS reports

    43. Changes in 2013-14 • Managerial Changes • New chief in charge of the test development section • The test development section is now managing the test development process for all Final Exams • Increased test development staff to manage work load

    44. Changes in 2013-14 • Final Exams • Name was changed from Common Exams to Final Exams to emphasize that they are intended to replace teacher-made final exams • Testing time increased from 90 minutes to 120 minutes • Reduced the number of Final Exams with CR items • Reduced the number of CR items per exam • Tests lengthened with MC items to increase reliability • CR items scored by contractor rather than by NC teachers

    45. Changes in 2013-14 • Final Exams • Moving many of the Final Exams to online administration • Implementing common item non-equivalent equating design • Experimental items embedded to provide greater statistical control in form assembly • Reduced difficulty of some Math High School tests to improve reliability and remove floor effects

    46. Changes in 2013-14 • Providing more detail in test specifications to help teachers know what to instruct in those subjects where the curriculum standards are not specific enough • The EVAAS team will determine if they can use the beginning-of-grade 3 assessment to measure growth

    47. 2013-14: More Change Ahead? • The weight given to EVAAS growth within the school Accountability Model will likely increase to produce a more acceptable distribution of letter grades • Two bills approved by senate and the house to rescind the Common Core State Standards • Will funding for Final Exams remain at the same level? 2005: Implemented new growth formula

    48. Every Student READY Questions