9. Teacher-Level Value-Added Report: Aggregate Level Reporting Aggregate-level effectiveness of this teacher over time The table displays how that teacher performed compared to the state ’s 3-year average and the district’s 3-year average in that same grade level and subject area (most recent year first). In 2011, you will only see one year of data.
10. Teacher-Level Value-Added Report: State Distribution of Progress Levels The distribution of teacher effectiveness across the state in this teacher’s grade level and subject area
11. Teacher Value-Added Diagnostic Report: Disaggregate-Level Report This teacher ’s relative effectiveness with her three prior achievement subgroups
12. Teacher Report Help Screen MRM Teacher Report Language. Versus, a URM Teacher Report (science and other extended reporting) will say: “ The Teacher Progress Table The table at the top of the teacher report contains information on the effectiveness of the teacher compared to the State Average . Multi-Yr-Averages will be provided when sufficient data exist for this calculation. The teacher's Progress Estimate, expressed in scale score units , and Standard Error are provided for each year reported. The teacher's Index and Effectiveness Level complete the table.”
In 2004, Dr. William Sanders shared this data at the Governors ’ Education Symposium. These data reveal that classroom teachers account for more of the variation in student growth than actions taken at either the school or the district level. Given these results, teacher practice must be a focal point of school improvement if you are trying to produce higher student growth.
Professional development & resources will address the use of value-added for school improvement and implications of teacher-level reporting
Professional development & resources will address the use of value-added for school improvement and implications of teacher-level reporting
Year —The year associated with the reporting. Estimate —An estimate of your effectiveness in terms of NCEs over the last three years. Included with your estimate is a three year average. In 2011 this teacher produced an aggregate gain of 3.1 NCEs above expected results. The average gain for this teacher over the last years is 1.2 NCEs above expected results. Standard Error —Standard Error is a calculation of the uncertainty associated with a teacher ’s value-added estimate. An estimate with a relatively small standard error is more precise than an estimate with a larger standard error. In 2011 the standard error associated with this teacher’s estimate is 2.0 and the standard error associated with the three-year average is 1.1 Index —To create of basis of comparison between teachers their gain estimates must be “standardized.” Dividing a teacher’s estimated gain by her associated standard error produces the index score. In 2011 this teacher had an index of 3.1/2.0 or 1.52. The index for this teacher’s three-year average is 1.2/1.1 or 1.12. Level —Based on the index score, each teacher is assigned to a particular performance level: Most Effective, Above Average, Average, Approaching Average, Least Effective. Think of Most Effective and Least Effective as 2 standard errors above, and 2 standard errors below. Good slide to reinforce not to jump to conclusions with 1 year of results. Reminder to look at trends over time and multiple measures.
The decision was made to lead with descriptors for levels as opposed to numerical labeling of teachers. This is important so that the wrong message is not conveyed in jumping to conclusions from interpretation on these reports, especially with only 1 year of data.
Prior Achievement Subgroups —All of a teacher ’s students for whom there are adequate data are placed in one of three prior achievement subgroups. The subgroups are made up of students who entered the grade level in the bottom third (Subgroup 1), the middle third (Subgroup 2) and the top third (Subgroup 3) of state achievement levels. Gain —The estimated gain associated with that subgroup of students. This teacher is producing gains that are 5.5 NCEs above expected results with her middle group and 2.3 NCEs above expected results with her highest achieving subgroup. Because there are fewer than 5 students in the lowest achieving subgroup there are not enough data to produce a meaningful estimate. Standard Error —The standard error associated with each gain estimate. For this teacher the standard error is 3.3 for subgroup 2 and 10.8 for subgroup 3. Because both of these subgroups have 11 students, the disparity in standard error is due to the greater variability in subgroup 3 ’s scores. Number of Students —The number of students included in each subgroup. This teacher has 4 students in subgroup1, 11 students in subgroup 2 and 11 students in subgroup 3. Percent of Students —The percent of the total class made up by each subgroup. This teacher has 15.4% of her students in subgroup 1, 42.3% of her students in subgroup 2 and 42.3% of her students in subgroup 3. Default is where these students are placed in tertiles compared to the state. You will have options to view this report based on student placement in tertiles at more granular levels (district, classroom?)
Prior Achievement Subgroups —All of a teacher ’s students for whom there are adequate data are placed in one of three prior achievement subgroups. The subgroups are made up of students who entered the grade level in the bottom third (Subgroup 1), the middle third (Subgroup 2) and the top third (Subgroup 3) of state achievement levels. Gain —The estimated gain associated with that subgroup of students. This teacher is producing gains that are 5.5 NCEs above expected results with her middle group and 2.3 NCEs above expected results with her highest achieving subgroup. Because there are fewer than 5 students in the lowest achieving subgroup there are not enough data to produce a meaningful estimate. Standard Error —The standard error associated with each gain estimate. For this teacher the standard error is 3.3 for subgroup 2 and 10.8 for subgroup 3. Because both of these subgroups have 11 students, the disparity in standard error is due to the greater variability in subgroup 3 ’s scores. Number of Students —The number of students included in each subgroup. This teacher has 4 students in subgroup1, 11 students in subgroup 2 and 11 students in subgroup 3. Percent of Students —The percent of the total class made up by each subgroup. This teacher has 15.4% of her students in subgroup 1, 42.3% of her students in subgroup 2 and 42.3% of her students in subgroup 3. Default is where these students are placed in tertiles compared to the state. You will have options to view this report based on student placement in tertiles at more granular levels (district, classroom?)
Highlight Teacher Focus Guide will include such questions and ideas of embedding teacher level reports.
The following are examples of summary reports at the district and building level. This PPT does not include the entire spectrum of teacher report summaries that EVAAS offers- there are additional reports. The district administrator will also be able to view this report by subject.
The district administrator will also be able to view this report by subject.
The district administrator will also be able to view this report by subject. The building administrator will have access to this report as well, among others.
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Presentation Overview]()